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, Cancer-Resistant Wolves, Non-Citizen Voting, Michael Rapaport, Fine People Hoax, RFK Jr. Credibility, Democrat Lawfare, Senator Rand Paul, President Biden’s Mental State, Tucker Putin Interview, Boris Johnson, Fani Willis, Terroristic Lawfare, Soros Funded Prosecutors, DEI, VP Kamala Harris, Special Prosecutor Hur, President Trump, America’s Core Principals, Wokeness DEI, 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 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
And if you'd like to take it up a level that nobody could even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the day of the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now.
Go!
Oh God, that's good.
So, so good.
Well, if you're not subscribed to the Dilbert comic, either on X, you can subscribe to it there, or on the Locals, scottadams.locals.com, where you can see lots of other stuff, my other comics, like Robots Read News, etc.
But you missed yesterday's Dilbert comic was Wally was trying to expense his expenses when he traveled to Elbonia for the AI brothel.
So Wally tries to expense an AI brothel only to be challenged by the boss.
And while he complains that his choice of his sexual preferences are being criticized, the boss says, no, I just wanted to let you know that there's no such thing as a AI brothel in Elbonia.
And Wally says that would explain the excess body hair.
So if you're not subscribing to Dilbert, you're missing a lot.
So much.
Just so much.
Let's talk about the news.
Apparently around Chernobyl, which I guess was 38 years ago, was a disaster at Chernobyl, some of the wolves have evolved into mutant wolves who are resistant to cancer.
At least cancer that comes from radiation.
So you didn't see that coming, did you?
That's right!
Super radioactive wolves could be our future.
Might be the only thing that survives a nuclear war.
But it does raise the question, what other powers do these wolves have?
For example, can they fly in a way that defies physics?
Because if they can, that would explain a lot about the UFOs.
It could be just flying Chernobyl wolves.
Mutant wolves.
I mean, you can't rule it out, is what I'm saying.
Or possibly, if they start building pyramids, that could be another hint about our history.
But keep an eye on the mutant Chernobyl wolves.
Could be a lot more interesting things.
Possibly a superhero.
Here's the question.
We know, though, that from the totally reliable press in this country, that Joe Biden's age is not a defect.
Have you heard?
It is, to quote them, a superpower.
It's a superpower.
So it makes you wonder, if Joe Biden were to have a fight with a Chernobyl mutant wolf that could survive radioactivity, who would win?
Would Joe win with his superpower of being super old?
Or would the wolf win with his mutant powers?
I don't know.
I'd like to see it anyway.
You can't say you wouldn't like to see it.
All right, pay for pay-per-view.
Here's some science for you.
Do you believe science, everybody?
Science is reliable.
So let me tell you some science.
Over in China, they did a study.
It's a single-bind study with 342 participants.
They found that doing Tai Chi, the traditional Chinese practice, that goes something like this.
If you're only listening on a podcast, you're missing all the good visual humor.
But apparently, the Tai Chi can definitely help your hypertension.
So they compared it to regular exercise, and they found out that the traditional Tai Chi will lower your blood pressure.
Now, let us examine the credibility of this science.
Number one, the science comes out of China.
Number two, it involves a traditional Chinese practice.
So it comes from China.
And they're trying to find out if a traditional Chinese practice is good for you.
Oh, surprise!
Surprise!
The Chinese study that's a single bind, which is not a double blind, single blind, so it's not as good as a double blind, and only had 342 participants, surprisingly supported the national interests of China.
Huh.
Huh.
Yeah, not single, single blind, not bind.
So, is this credible science?
No.
Now, it doesn't mean Tai Chi doesn't lower your blood pressure.
Maybe it does.
But should you believe it if it's a study of 342 people in China about a traditional Chinese practice?
I don't know.
I've got a feeling if they studied traditional Chinese acupuncture, they might have gotten a similar result, if you know what I mean.
All right.
You know, it's a really good idea to do your own research.
Let me show you what happens when you do your own research.
Here, Dr. Eli David is showing us on the X platform.
He is posting about, there's a graphic showing that China is emitting more carbon than the entire developed world combined.
So, if you did your own research and you tried to find out who's the worst polluter, you'd find out it was China.
So that tells you something useful, right?
Because you did your own research.
Yeah.
Now, let's do it on a per capita basis.
China's got 1.43 billion people, the United States has 342 million.
That means the U.S.
is roughly 24% of their population, and yet the U.S.
is emitting something like 40% of their CO2.
Huh.
When you look at it that way, it's the reverse.
If you look at it on a per-person basis, the U.S.
is much worse.
So, what's the point?
Is China worse than the U.S., or is the U.S.
worse than China?
Which way is the fair way to say it?
Well, some say China is a country and the U.S.
is a country, so you just compare them.
They're doing worse things to the world than we are.
So they're bigger.
Big deal.
They're doing worse things to the world.
That is correct.
They are.
But you don't think it matters if they have more people?
Don't we naturally expect that the more people there are, the more CO2, if you live in any kind of a modernizing society?
So, if you did your own research and stopped at the raw number, did you do a good job of doing your own research?
Or do you think it really matters, the per person?
Because if you try to figure out who's the good people, I would say it's the people who have the smallest per person CO2.
That's how I'd see it.
So why would you see it the other way?
Could you see it the other way?
You could.
You could see it the other way.
So that's my point.
Doing your own research will more often mislead you than illuminate you and you don't know the difference.
Sometimes doing your own research gets you exactly the right answer.
Might even save your life.
The trouble is you don't know when that's happening and when you're just being misled, but you're pretty sure you're right this time.
I see in the comments that you want me to note that CO2 can feed plants such as Joe Biden and vegetables.
I get it.
I see your joke.
I will steal your joke.
All right.
There's a Kentucky state senator who wants a constitutional amendment to ban non-citizens from voting.
Can you believe this is even a question?
That we're seriously talking about not just letting a few of those non-citizens vote, I mean it's just going to get lost in the noise anyway, but we have massive immigration and we're going to let, it looks like there's a movement in some states to let them vote.
Now, how is that even in the conversation?
How about we do a little bit of embrace and amplify?
So the Democrats are telling us that our system would be better off if the illegal migrants vote.
What do you think?
Do you think our system would be better off if non-citizens who enter the United States illegally vote?
But suppose we take that and amplify it.
What if we embrace it for a moment and say, you know what?
Not only are you right about that, but you're so right we should do more of it.
Here's a little mental experiment for you.
And this is going to break your brain.
Suppose we let everybody vote in the whole world.
Literally everybody.
You're a Chinese citizen.
You want to vote in the next American election?
You can.
And we'll count it.
You're in Lithuania?
Absolutely.
You can vote.
We'll send you an electronic ballot.
Anywhere in South America?
Absolutely, you'll vote.
Now here's my question.
Which would be the better result?
If Americans, including, you know, with all of our division naturally, and you throw in the migrants, and we're going to get this real insider who wants power, which group is, you know, funding the bad guys the best, who does the military-industrial complex want, who's counting our votes, you know, all that stuff.
Now compare that to the world that would include our adversaries.
Our adversaries!
Literally our adversaries let them vote in our election along with our allies.
What would happen?
Well, I think you might be surprised Because even our adversaries don't want us to fail If America went down Everything would be screwed for a long time They don't want you know, our adversaries don't want us to attack them I get that.
Our adversaries don't want us to, you know, take their resources and stuff like that.
That makes sense.
But I don't think they want us to fail.
I think what they want is us to be a legitimate player on the world stage, to do the thing that America does, you know, invent new technologies and create medicines that aren't always a scam.
That sort of thing.
You know, get to space, you know, create some Elon Musks now and then.
You know, they like that stuff.
I propose to you that, I don't, this is not a serious suggestion by the way, but if we let every other country vote for America's president, that we would vastly improve our choices.
Just look at it.
Look at the two choices we gave ourselves with our current system.
Do you think the rest of the world would have put up with that?
Do you think that Biden would actually be in the race if the rest of the world got to choose our president?
No.
No.
It's possible that none of the people who were in the race would be in it.
They'd probably pick somebody who was just a good operator who wasn't too political.
Who just did stuff that made sense.
Yeah, they'd probably vote for somebody, well, Elon can't run, but they'd probably vote for, well, I don't know about Vivek, he's, you know, he certainly is aligned with one political party, but they'd probably pick somebody who wasn't too political.
Who just knew how to get stuff done.
So we'd say, yeah, maybe a Ron DeSantis.
That's not too far.
Somebody in the middle.
Middle-ish.
Anyway, our current system is so broken that letting the rest of the world vote, I believe, in all seriousness, it's not a serious suggestion, but as a mental exercise, I think the world would vote us a better president.
Because look what we're doing.
I mean, really.
Look what we're doing.
There's no way it would be worse.
All right, I'm gonna take a minor partial victory lap.
You might know the actor and activist Michael Rapoport.
He's been making some news.
He was on... Tim Pool's show was talking about him and others.
He was on... Why can't I remember his initials?
D, B, E. P, B, D. P, B, D. I'll never be able to remember his initials.
I don't know why.
Oh, it's because the P and the B and the D. Oh, I got it.
I'm dyslexic.
Look at the letters, the lowercase letter P, B, and D. Lowercase.
They're all the same letter.
P, B, and D are all the same letter.
They're just upside down and backwards.
You see that?
I just realized why I could never get his name.
Yeah, if I remembered his full name, it'd be easier.
No, but P, B, and D in lowercase are all the same letter.
I actually can't see it.
They all just jump around when I look at them.
I never realized that before, but I think that's the problem.
All that and the fact that my brain is corroding faster than Biden's.
Anyway, Michael Rapoport is coming out and saying that he was initially fooled by the fine people hoax, and he actually believed that Trump had said those neo-Nazis were fine people.
And now he's going public and saying he knows that that was taken out of context and we see the full quote.
It's obvious he said the opposite of that.
And here's what's amazing about it.
The Fine People Hoax, in my opinion, was the second biggest political hoax of my time.
The second biggest.
The Russian Collusion was bigger.
But it was the second biggest political hoax.
And it is now being treated, at least on the right-leaning side of the world, it's being treated as simply a fact that it was a hoax.
When you watch the Tim Pool Show, there's nobody on the other side saying, oh, but he did say it.
We're actually past that.
There's nobody arguing he actually said it, unless you have actually just batshit crazy Democrats.
So, I'd like to give... Now, I do think that this hoax is an evergreen.
If you wait two years, it'll just revive itself and somebody will believe it happened again.
But at the moment, it's beaten down better than I've seen it beaten down.
So big shout out to Steve Cortez, who's been working against that hoax for years now, and Joel Pollack also, and Breitbart, especially, in tweeting and posting.
And then I, of course, have been a maniac about it.
So I would say that the three horsemen of the debunking of that hoax, we may have made a difference.
By the way, let me ask you, do you think it would be commonly understood that it was a hoax, even on the right, do you think it would be commonly understood, without debate, if the three of us had not been pushing on it for seven years?
I think it made a difference.
I never know what makes a difference, but seven years of just maniacally pushing back on that thing, at least speaking for myself, I think it made some difference.
But only on the right.
People on the left don't get real news, so they have no idea.
All right, so no surprise here, but the Democrats are pulling out some lawfare against RFK Jr.
And it looks like they're accusing him of illegal activities.
I don't know, something about a super PAC.
It's probably bullshit.
And now they've opened a federal investigation to remove him from the ballot.
Oh, come on.
How did the Democrats not see what's happening now?
How can you not see what's going on?
They don't get the news.
If they saw the same news we do, maybe they'd see the same thing.
But yeah, that's disgusting.
And you know what's funny about it is that, and I'll give RFK Jr.
some credit, if you look at RFK Jr.' 's character and his life of work, Now, that doesn't mean everything he's ever said about vaccinations is true, because I doubt it.
You know, it's very unusual everybody would be true about that domain.
But I swear I never really suspect him of intentionally lying.
I just don't see it.
I mean, he's been talking about a lot of things for a long time, and I'm looking for the lies.
Now, there might be things he's incorrect about.
Not going to argue that at all.
But if you compare the Biden administration to RFK Jr., I don't even need to look at the details of this story.
Is everybody having the same impression?
I'm just going to take his word for it that it's illegitimate.
Because I think he earned that.
Does anybody disagree?
I think that the Democrats and Biden, whose credibility is so low, And RFK Jr.' 's is so high, not in terms of being technically correct about everything he's ever said, but just not lying.
That if he says there was no crime, and he says they're coming after him for political reasons, I believe that.
And I don't even need to hear anything else.
Because that's the difference in credibility.
One is very high credibility, and the other is a known serial liar for 150 years.
So those are not really similar.
Senator Rand Paul is responding to Joe Biden who said that it's, quote, close to criminal neglect if Congress doesn't send money to Ukraine.
Close to criminal neglect if we don't fund Ukraine's border war.
And Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul, reminds us, I would say it's criminal neglect for Mitch McConnell, Chuck Zuma, and Joe Biden to get together to send $100 billion overseas to fix someone else's border before addressing our border.
Yeah, that does seem criminal.
And actually, Trump said something like that in his speech in Harrisburg, I guess.
That he thinks that the people who are not closing the border, that maybe there should be some criminal liability.
Now, I don't think so.
I doubt there's any criminal liability.
I'm not really big on looking for crimes where they're not obvious.
But it does seem that important.
It does seem like it's on that level of a gigantic crime, even if it's not technically a crime.
It was just people not doing their job or something.
So it's that important.
I doubt it's an actual crime.
Are you having fun watching Biden supporters trying to try to explain away all of his mental problems?
Does anybody else think it's hilarious at this point?
You know, I always used to make fun of the old thing in politics.
There's always somebody saying, oh, the emperor has no clothes.
The emperor has no clothes.
And I always go, oh, oh, it's like soil and greed.
It's like it's like the obvious thing everybody says in every situation.
The emperor has no clothes.
But I've never seen it fit so well.
Yeah, you've got obviously A bumbling moron who's clearly mentally, you know, disintegrated.
And they're trying to sell us on the fact that he's all there.
This is the first time I've seen an exact, perfect example of the Emperor's new clothes.
Because I always thought, well, if you had an Emperor who literally wore no clothes, there's no way that you wouldn't mention it.
Like, it's not realistic.
But we actually have a situation where everybody can see he's mentally degraded, and his supporters are looking you right in the eyes and saying, no, he's not.
No.
No.
He's wearing all of his clothes, and he's not mentally degraded.
Now, do you see me doing the Democrat lying strategy?
There are three things to look for.
You look for the eyes get wide.
You look for the chin goes up a little bit.
And you look for the smile that doesn't match the face.
Do you want to see it again?
I give you Kamala Harris defending Joe Biden.
I'm going to play it with the sound off.
I want you to see if you can spot the point where she tells the lie, and the lie is that Joe Biden is fine.
There's nothing wrong, right?
So watch your face until the moment she gets to the lie.
Look for the eyes widen, chin goes up, and the smile that doesn't match the face.
Watch for it.
I want you to indicate when you see the lie.
There's no sound.
Let's see if I can get it so you can both see it at the same time.
Watch for the eyes to get big in a minute.
I hope I didn't miss it.
Did I miss it yet?
Oh, I think I missed it.
Let's do it again.
All right.
Eyes normal.
Head normal.
Eyes and face match.
There it is.
There it is.
Did you catch it?
Let's see if I can fast forward it.
It's hard to catch the moment.
But did you catch it?
You play it back yourself and catch it.
Yeah.
But it's funny, once you see it, it's so obvious it just jumps right out.
So here are the defenses that people are giving.
One is that Trump confuses names too.
Trump confuses names too.
And then they show some video of him.
Now is that fair?
Is that fair to say Trump confuses names too?
I think it is.
Yeah, I think it's fair.
Because in my opinion, when Biden confuses names...
In his case, it probably is because of dementia.
But it's also true that people confuse names routinely.
It's a very normal thing to do.
All right.
Now, in fact, this is a sort of a confession of mine.
I've always fantasized, like, what would it be like to be president?
And I thought, I wonder, could I ever be a president?
And I realized that I probably couldn't because of all the names of foreign leaders I would get wrong.
I mean, I have a real problem with it.
Let me give you an example.
If I were being visited by, let's say, the leader of Afghanistan, I'm not sure I would know that Hibatullah Akhazanda.
I wouldn't know him from Bahrain's Sheikh Hamad bin Asala Khalifa.
I mean, I wouldn't even know the difference at all.
So, yeah.
Yeah, I'd be all, uh, which one is that?
Is that Kibitola Ekadizanda?
Or is that Hamad Bin Isa Al-Qalai?
I can't even tell them apart.
You know, so that's one of the reasons I can't be president, because I can't tell all the leaders apart.
I used to think.
But apparently, not being able to tell the leaders apart will not hurt you for being president.
So, we got a Biden, we got a Trump.
Apparently that's not.
Now the other thing that I thought would prevent me from someday being president is all of my pussy grabbing.
But now I have evidence to suggest that I could grab a bunch of pussy, confuse the names of Ghebatula, Akwesandar, and Ibn Azhar al-Ghalifa, and I'd still be able to be a president.
And I find that motivating.
So here are some other things that people are saying to defend Biden.
Sticks and Hammer was funny.
He posted today, show me a video, a recent video of Joe Biden stuttering because they're saying, don't make fun of him for stuttering.
I mean, but do we have any video of him, let's say from 10 years ago when he was perfectly fine?
Was he stuttering 10 years ago?
I don't remember it.
I have no memory of him ever stuttering ten years ago.
But now suddenly he stutters like he did when he was a kid.
Huh.
And then Rachel Maddow points out that he rides a bike.
Yeah.
She says he rides a bike.
Now, are we at the point where there's literally no difference between reality and parody?
If I had told you that a comedian Had told you that Joe Biden is perfectly fine because, hey, look at how he rides a bike.
Wouldn't you think that that real comedian said that as a joke?
But that's actually what Rachel Maddow said in the real world, in the actual real world, outside of humor.
She said that he's probably fine because he can ride a bike.
Apparently he can ride it right into the ground.
She didn't say where he rides it to.
He rides it right to the ground.
But at least he's riding it.
And then there's the argument that Kamala makes that Joe Biden is actually totally mentally capable.
Which certainly raises an interesting question, doesn't it?
Which others have raised.
Wait a minute, if the reason he's not being prosecuted seems to be largely around his mental incapacity, if you're arguing that he does have good mental capacity, aren't you also arguing he should be in jail?
Now you're gonna say to me, wait a minute, wait a minute, You're going to say there's a complete difference between what Trump did and what Biden did, because Biden simply said that he couldn't remember and he's incapable and he didn't willfully do anything with those documents.
But they believe that Trump is mentally capable, and he also resisted giving those documents back, so therefore it's his resistance that's the real crime.
Are you hearing the Democrats say that?
Well, here's the funny part.
Do you know what they could say that would be terribly persuasive, but they can't form sentences and get the sound of their mouth?
Like, literally, they can't say it.
But it would be so persuasive if they could.
Here's what they can't say because of TDS.
If Trump had not resisted, we think that he should not be charged with anything regarding the possession of the documents.
Now, if they said that, I would say, oh, well, that's very consistent.
Yeah, Biden wasn't charged because, not just because he's mentally incapable, but because he didn't resist when they asked him back and he accepted the process, which apparently is not that unusual to have a process to get back documents from an official.
Whereas Trump, he resisted.
But here's the better way to say it.
If you really wanted to persuade me, you'd say, you know what?
If you're a Democrat, you'd say, yes, Biden did not get charged because he obeyed the system.
We also believe that if Trump had obeyed the system the same way, we also think he should not be charged the same way.
Do you know why they can't say that?
TDS.
It would be perfectly persuasive.
If you said that to me, I'd say, you know what?
That's actually a solid argument.
That one resisted and one didn't, so maybe it is the resistance that's the problem.
But they've got to say it directly.
If Trump had not resisted, he should also not be charged for having the documents.
But you know why they can't say that?
The reason they can't say that is it would give imaginary mental cover to Trump.
Imaginary.
Because in the real world he did resist.
Everybody agrees he resisted.
So they can't even do a hypothetical mental experiment which allowed Trump to go free in their minds.
And I mean this.
I mean, they can't say the persuasive thing, because in doing so, they would have to imagine Trump innocent of something.
And they actually can't go there.
Literally can't go there, because their brains won't allow it.
So instead, they're closed off from their best argument for Biden, which is, you know what?
If Trump had given all the documents back, I don't think the possession of the documents should have been charged.
And you remember they made such a big deal about the contents of Trump's documents?
Do you remember that?
It was all about the contents.
And that they must have the nuclear secrets in there.
And then when Biden's documents were discovered, do you recall anybody characterizing the contents?
I don't recall that ever being done.
So we suddenly don't care about the contents.
After months and months of the Democrats saying, the contents are probably, well, we don't know, but I'm just speculating that it's Iranian nuclear secrets.
The dumbest speculation you could ever have.
Do you think that a staffer, or even Trump himself, packed up some sensitive nuclear secrets and just took them with him?
I mean, I suppose anything's possible, but that seems unlikely.
To me, it seems that both Biden and Trump Probably had documents that were technically, you know, inappropriate to take home, but maybe not that dangerous.
Like in the final analysis, probably not too dangerous.
So suddenly we just stopped talking about the contents.
We just stopped talking about it.
And that's why it's embarrassing if you're a Democrat, if you made a big deal about the contents being the important part.
Now you lost that argument.
So is Biden fit to stand trial, in which case he should, or is he unfit?
Let's talk about Tucker and Putin.
Remember, you mostly disagreed with me when I said that Putin's history lesson about why Russia thinks it should have some control over parts of Ukraine or all of it, I said that he looked unhinged and it didn't look very capable to me.
Because the history lesson is not persuasive to Americans.
I'm going to revise that.
All right.
I'm going to completely reverse it, actually, but not for the reason you think.
I still say that the history lesson had no value to Americans.
In other words, the details of his history lesson had zero persuasive effect on any American, probably any European.
But I'm not going to say it had no value.
And I'm going to fool you here because you don't see this coming.
Just wait for it.
But I saw that Tucker also regarded the history lesson as incoherent.
He actually used that word.
So Tucker agreed with me that the history part just didn't seem connected really to the answer in a tight enough way that it looked like he was coherent.
Now, but wait for the end.
I'm gonna support Putin's play.
You know, so don't criticize me yet.
I'm going to support Putin's play on the history lesson, but not for the reason you think, right?
Different reason.
So, and then I saw some people think that Putin was personally hurt by being rebuffed by the West, you know, every time you wanted to be friends.
I don't know if any of that's true.
We can't read his mind.
So I wouldn't go there.
But maybe.
Maybe he's personally hurt.
I don't know if that affected anything.
But here's my defense of Putin.
It took me a while to figure this out, because the thing I was having trouble reconciling is that Putin is so capable and would know so much about persuasion, especially given his background, that to do something that is so wrong persuasion-wise, It made me question insanity.
Until I realized what the real play was.
And now I don't question insanity.
It was a really good play.
You don't realize why, but I'm gonna tell you.
Those of you who are my longtime listeners, Can confirm that this is something I've talked about before and actually in some detail and I've said I've used the technique myself.
Let's say you're negotiating with somebody and it's just a business negotiation and you want a good price and they want to get a good price and it's just business.
If it's just business, you almost know before you start where it's going to end up, don't you?
Like even before you start, you're going to ask for something too much, I'm going to say too little, we're going to meet in the middle, and in the end it's going to look like similar business deals.
Because everybody in business knows that if you started with a first offer that was so far out of the normal business realm, nobody would even negotiate with you.
So you start by saying, what do we assume is possible?
And then you're within that realm, and you can always get to a meeting of minds if it's just financial.
You can almost always make it work.
Now, what would be an argument in which that doesn't work, where you're just both being rational, you're both being within the rational domain?
It's when something's irrational.
This is an actual persuasion negotiating technique, which I have used.
And it goes like this.
If you can convince the other side that your reasoning is irrational, at least in any individual point of it, not the whole thing.
If you're just totally irrational, they won't deal with you.
But if you can say, I'm rational about everything, but honestly, I'm going to point out this one thing, and I'm going to tell you as directly as I can, I'm not going to be rational about this, and here's why.
If you can make that case, you almost win the negotiation from that point on.
You have to sell your own irrationality.
That sounds backwards, doesn't it?
That if you're negotiating with somebody, you have to convince them that you are irrational?
Doesn't that sound crazy?
Nope.
It's what Trump does all the time.
Do you think that when Trump said, I might nuke Moscow, do you think that sounded rational?
Nope.
It didn't sound rational.
So Putin couldn't be sure that that was something he could negotiate, because it wasn't based on something rational.
Who the hell would nuke Moscow?
It would literally be crazy.
So how do you even deal with that?
What do you do with that?
Well, the first thing you do is you say, all right, I can't deal with crazy.
So I'm going to have to work with whatever I can work with, but I know I can't change crazy.
And then Trump won.
Because you can't deal with crazy.
You can't negotiate with an irrational component.
Doesn't mean the person is rational in general, but there might be an irrational component.
Let me give you an example.
For my real life.
When my syndication contract, which was originally a 15 year deal, expired, I thought to myself, Hey, I'm a free agent.
I'll go negotiate a better deal than I ever had because I can negotiate with other syndication companies.
The syndicator is who sells it to newspapers and you split the money.
So I thought that would do that.
But then my syndication company reminded me, Hey, There was a clause in your original contract that says, even at the end of it, if you go work with somebody else, we still get a portion of your money.
And I said, what?
Yeah, after 15 years, your new work, we would still get paid for, even if we have nothing to do with you, if you've gone to another company.
It says that right in your contract.
And I said, it couldn't possibly say that.
There's no way I would have signed that contract.
And they looked at the contract.
It was there.
Just like they said.
And I don't know why did I forget it.
Like, I actually don't know why I didn't know it was there.
So here's what I could do.
I could either take a big loss and go with the same company that I went with for 15 years, which had been a really good relationship.
But I would leave a lot of money on the table if I couldn't go to the free market and negotiate my actual value.
So you know how I negotiated out of that clause?
Irrationally.
Intentionally irrationally.
I looked the head of the syndicate in the eyes over lunch and I said, basically in these words, your contract is very clear.
I will quit the business before I'll sign it.
Now, I was at the height of my powers and quitting at that point would have been absolutely stupid.
And I looked them in the eyes and I said, this is so fucked up.
That I'll quit the business before I will agree with this.
Now, if he believed I would not quit the business, which would have been the more rational thing to do, obviously, because all I had to do is sign up with them again, and they would just start throwing money at me like they did before, and everything would be fine.
So the most rational thing to do is say, ah, damn, I made a mistake.
I never should have signed it, but I did.
And my life would go on, and I'd still make a lot of money.
They'd be happy, etc.
That would have been the rational thing to do.
So to get out of that, I went fully irrational.
And I had to sell that I would fuck myself up and down, backwards and forwards.
I would kill my family.
I would break a law.
But I wasn't going to sign that contract.
In the end, they were convinced that there was nothing they could do to get me to sign it.
And then I reached a very good deal and I ended up, I did sign with them, but not until they gave me a much better situation.
And in the end, I ended up going to another syndicate from, you know, just a business combination that happened later.
Now, let's go back to Biden.
So you see the idea, right?
And the irrational negotiating position is actually your strongest one.
So long as you seem to be rational in general.
Putin seems to be irrational in general.
And then he gave you that long, weird, incoherent history lesson.
What was the only thing he needed you to know?
Do you remember the dates and the names and who?
No.
Nope.
Does he need you to remember the history?
Nope.
Nope.
Does he need you to think that the history is a valid reason for whatever he's doing?
Nope.
He doesn't need you.
Does he need you to believe that the history is accurate?
No.
Nope.
Doesn't need that.
Does he need you to agree with him about the history?
Nope.
No.
He only needs one thing, and he got it.
He only needed one thing to win the negotiations that are upcoming, because he knows they're upcoming, and he got it.
And the one thing he needed was for the West to believe That he would burn down Europe before he would give up on this.
And he did.
He sold it.
He sold that.
Now, he didn't say it in those words, but he sure sold it.
He sold that the Russian heart is what has to be satisfied.
We can't do that.
We have no tools for that.
We can't rebuild you a pipeline.
Yeah, hey, we'll put your pipeline back together.
No, that doesn't help my heart.
Not even a little bit.
Well, we'll negotiate.
Yeah, you keep this, we'll keep... That doesn't help my heart.
What are you gonna do?
He may have, Putin, successfully established that there's part of the negotiations that are off.
They're just off the table.
By simply telling us we're not going to be rational about this in the way that you and I would think would be rational.
But in fact, he's hyper rational.
It was kind of brilliant.
The fact that he used, and I'm gonna say used, because, you know, Tucker was using Putin, but Putin was using Tucker.
As long as it's transparent, I don't mind it a bit, actually.
You know, that was transparent.
It was right in front of us.
Like, the entire intention of it was to show you all of it.
How could I be mad at that?
Transparency is the best we can do, folks.
If you have full transparency, you could wish it were better, but it can't be better.
That's just the best you can do.
And that was full transparency.
Am I such an idiot that I think Putin told me the truth?
No.
No, I don't think Putin told me the truth.
Not even a little bit.
Do I think that Tucker asked every hard question that he wanted to ask?
No.
No.
Because he still had to survive.
So my take on this is that Putin won the interaction in the sense that he established an irrational point of negotiations that will help him in the future.
And at some point the West will back down because he sold it so well.
The whole incoherent part, the whole fact that he made you listen to it first before he even asked the question, the way he handled the whole thing is all supportive of the fact that he has an irrational connection to it.
And that was the sale.
And we all bought it.
Nicely done, Putin.
Nicely done.
Now it is possible he's just a crazy babbling old guy talking about our history.
That's not impossible.
Given that everything else he does seems to make sense, it would be weird if this is the one thing that was completely, you know, accidental.
So I do believe that his belief about history is probably, you know, it's real.
I think he's motivated by it.
But far more important than his motivation is that he sold the fact that he's not going to be dealing with that like rational things.
Very well done as a negotiator.
Now let's talk about the opposite.
So one of the things that came out of that interview with Tucker and Putin was the claim that there was some movement toward a negotiated peace that Boris Johnson killed and talked Zelensky out of it.
Boris Johnson is very angry at that interview, and among the things he says are that Tucker was a, quote, fawning, guffawing, and had a slack-jawed happiness at having a scoop.
And Johnson says that Tucker betrayed his viewers around the world.
He said he didn't ask tough questions, didn't ask Putin why even now he is using the most brutal means of modern warfare to maim and murder innocent Ukrainian civilians.
And then he said Carlson acted like a fan of Putin and, quote, boneheadedly accepted Putin's mixture of semi-masticated Wikipedia and outright falsehoods, Johnson said.
And he went on and he said, not since George Galloway.
I have no idea who that is.
But not since George Galloway went to Baghdad and held the indefatigable, indefatigable... Goddamn you, Johnson.
Can you use words that are a little bit smaller than this?
I know you're showing off, but I don't need to take four runs at this one goddamn word.
Indefatigability.
Indefatigability.
Indefatigability of Saddam Hussein.
Have we seen such a display of, this is actually something Johnson said, of bum-sucking servility to a tyrant.
And said Carlson was just the medium, the sewer, the hose for Putin to spread his message to America.
So was that good persuasion?
How did Boris Johnson do defending himself against the accusations?
Did you hear the part where he said the accusations are not true?
He left that part out.
He left out the part about the accusations are not true.
Shouldn't that be first?
Here's what I would consider a good response.
Well, you know, Putin's a liar, and the thing he said happened literally didn't even happen.
That never even happened.
And Tucker should have been more critical about that, because he's, you know, it's just fake news.
But instead, he decided to destroy Tucker's Personal credibility.
Who does that if they can just go after the fact?
Nobody does an ad hominem first if they can just say the thing didn't happen.
Now if you say the thing didn't happen, and then you go on and insult the person, then you're just Trump.
Right?
But when Trump insults people, it's usually over a thing.
Like a policy, a thing.
Right?
It's not just a whole bunch of insults.
And he looked a little unhinged.
I think if you do a full-on personal attack and you don't do more of a, just a matter-of-fact denial of the facts behind it, you can't really fail harder than that.
To me, it looked like another Putin victory over the West.
My current thinking is that everything the West did in Ukraine was wrong, and that, you know, I'm not going to support Putin.
But I can just talk about my own side.
Everything my side did looks wrong.
From the 2014 coup to today, it all looks wrong to me.
So I don't have to say Putin's good or Putin's right or anything like that.
But when Johnson says that what Tucker should have talked about is how there's maiming and murdering of Ukrainians by Russia, Really?
I mean, that's so transparently just trying to change the topic that it's almost like a confirmation of the accusation that he denied a chance to have peace.
I don't know if it's true, but the way he's reacting to it is as if it's true.
All right.
So apparently the House Judiciary Committee is going after this District Attorney Fannie Willis, who's after Trump, as you know.
So it's not a coincidence that they would go after her because she's after Trump.
But what are they trying to get?
They're trying to figure out if she used federal funds illegally for her boyfriend or whatever.
I would like to suggest the following strategy.
Does it seem to you that a lot of these Soros-backed prosecutors and DAs, does it look like they're all corrupt?
That they're all using public money for their boyfriends?
Or something?
So, would it make sense for the Republicans to, since they have that big legal fund that Stephen Miller's doing, wouldn't it make sense to simply investigate every one of the Soros DAs to target them for lawfare?
And just take them out with lawfare?
Because you could actually take down the whole Soros network by targeting them one after another and just really go horribly at them.
Now, keep in mind, under a situation of normal politics, I would never suggest this.
I don't think you should be going looking for crimes.
That's the worst frickin' thing you could do in America.
But the Soros prosecutors I consider an invasion.
To me, that's an unfriendly force operating domestically.
I mean, it's almost like domestic terrorism.
So under the sense that it's not almost, it is domestic terrorism.
It is domestic terrorism.
It is.
They're operating as domestic terrorists.
Because they're hunting Republicans.
And I'm literally afraid of being locked up for not doing anything illegal.
So that's exactly terrorism.
Making people afraid to do legal things in their world because they think this horrible person will put them in jail.
So I would put a billion dollars behind this, if I had a billion dollars, to fund an absolute investigation of every Soros-funded candidate.
And anybody who takes money from a Soros entity should know that their underwear is going to be turned upside down, and that the Republicans will target them only because of the Soros connection, not because they're Democrats.
If this were happening just because they're Democrats, absolutely no.
Absolutely no.
I do not approve of just looking for crimes because somebody's a Democrat.
No, no, no, no, no.
Don't do that.
But because they're Soros-funded, and they seem to be fitting a pattern of domestic terrorism in the sense of legal, misusing the legal system, I think that they are completely legitimate targets for lawfare.
Completely legitimate.
And I wouldn't use lawfare in any other situation unless it was, you know, something that looks like literally terrorism or an attack on our nation.
So yeah, lawfare it up.
Kamala Harris was talking to some folks, some class of future leaders, and she said this, and it's so brilliant, it'll probably be quoted much like the Martin Luther King, you know, I Had a Dream, possibly like Abe Lincoln, Fourscore, 20 years ago.
Maybe like Kennedy, Kennedy-esque.
You know, ask not what your country can do for you.
But somewhere in that category is this.
The brilliance of this inaugural class and its leaders is the ability to see what can be unburdened by what has been, and then to make it real.
I don't know, has anybody ever said that before?
Yes, it's the only thing she says every time she goes anywhere.
Because if you haven't heard it before, it sounds kind of awesome.
If you've heard it over and over again, it gets less awesome every time you hear it.
So I would like to suggest that the funniest thing about 2024 is watching DEI destroy the Democratic Party, because that's what's happening.
So DEI, as you know, would be the favoring of minority and women over white men primarily, but also Asian Americans.
In this case, DEI caused the Democrats to hire Kamala Harris as the Vice President, and I don't think there's anybody listening to this who would disagree that she's a DEI hire.
Is that fair?
Because I can't imagine it was because of capability, right?
Would everybody agree that she's a DEI hire?
It's obvious, right?
Now, likewise, just to be fair, if Trump had picked Tim Scott, I would say that's a DEI hire.
Even though Tim Scott's a solid senator.
Would you agree?
I mean, it would be sort of too on the nose.
I was like, OK, all right, it's because you're black.
Now, if Trump picked as his vice president Vivek Ramaswamy, I would not say it's because he's brown.
I would say we just watched him impress the country with the best communication skills and political policies I've ever seen.
Right, so it would be hard to sell that one as some kind of a minority DEI thing.
That would be a genuine case of the, I'll call it the Bill Ackman style of diversity.
Or really what Mark Cuban wishes it were, but it isn't.
Which is, you pick the best person, and whoa, they're brown too.
Then you get yourself some free diversity.
But if you're not getting it for free, Then it's a DEI hire.
Tim Scott's solid.
Tim Scott is solid.
But you would see it as a DEI hire, because he's not a Vivek, right?
If Vivek didn't exist, I might feel differently.
But he's such an obvious better choice.
So here's what makes it funny.
Because Kamala Harris was hired as vice president, Biden can't quit.
Because everybody knows that she's too weak to take over for the president, which was the entire point of a vice president.
The entire point is you have to be smart, you know, good enough to take over.
Now you could argue that Pence, you know, wasn't as strong as Trump, but you know what?
He could have taken over.
You know, you could imagine him winning an election.
I could imagine it.
But, you know, he wouldn't be my choice for president either.
But you could imagine it.
He's like, he's a serious person, right?
But Kamala, I don't even think the Democrats think she has a chance or would be the right person for president.
So they've got themselves in a bind where they can't get rid of Biden and they also can't win with him.
They can't get rid of him, and they can't win, and it's only going to get worse because he will keep degrading between now and Election Day.
In theory, the DEI hire should make Biden lose bad when in fact it would be an obvious solution if she were a strong candidate.
Right?
The obvious solution would be, oh, Well, Kamala can take over and I'm not feeling so good and she could win this election as easily as I could.
Go ahead.
Obvious, an obvious solution.
But they can't do it.
Because they hired Kamala and they can't fire her.
Can't replace her with another black woman.
Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine?
Some people say that Michelle Obama... Let me tell you why Michelle Obama can't happen.
100% can't happen.
You're not going to replace a black woman with another black woman.
It would make it look like the whole thing was a joke.
It kind of looks like that now.
But no, you're not going to do it.
So here's what I think is going to happen.
Kamala Harris got hired as a DEI hire.
She's made it impossible for them to win the presidency.
And if you lose the presidency that hard, usually it has a down-vote, down-ballot effect, right?
Am I right?
I mean, usually, the people don't say, we like all the Democrats for Congress, but we want a Republican president at the same time.
You know, on the same ballot, they don't usually say that.
So it's more likely they're going to say, you know what, let's give the Republicans a shot.
Or, you know what, let's just not vote this time.
You don't have to shout at me that she's half black and half Indian.
I know it.
But in the real world, she's considered black for political reasons.
But I understand.
It's the same as calling Obama black.
In my mind, he's never been black.
Not a single day.
Do you agree?
In my mind, Obama's never been black even once.
He's a person who is part white and part black.
And he's chosen that black is his better branding.
Because you know why?
Because claiming you're white is a disadvantage.
No better example.
Right?
Now, obviously, if he claimed he's white, nobody would believe it.
But he can claim he's black and people are like, oh, okay.
Like, where's that come from?
Why can he claim he's black when you're half black?
Who makes those rules?
And by the way, I don't mind.
It's perfectly fair.
But where does that come from that we all just accept that that's a normal thing to do?
You just ignore half of him.
Why does that make sense?
Is it because society would treat him as black?
Which is a fair point.
It's the same point I make with Kamala.
I think that the non-Indian public just treats her as black, which is not accurate either.
All right.
So President Biden, one of the ways he likes to prove that he's not mentally incompetent is sending other people out to argue that he's not mentally incompetent.
Because that's how you do it, right?
If you want to prove that you can speak in public in a capable way, you send other people to speak for you in public to say that if you were there, you could actually make sense, but you're not there.
Because that's very persuasive.
Oh, yeah, I guess he could just pick up his phone and point it at his face and prove that he is coherent simply by talking into his phone for 15 seconds and then posting it.
I mean, that would do it.
But instead, he's going to send out an army of people who are not him to say that behind closed doors he's totally lucid.
I don't see how that could be less persuasive.
But something good came from it, which is his lawyer saying that the special, what is it, the prosecutor guy, Her, went beyond his remit.
I was listening to that in the car, and I heard the lawyer say that they think that the special prosecutor went beyond his remit.
You know what the first thing I said to myself was?
Mental note, keep that word for later.
I'm totally gonna say something went beyond his remit.
Maybe before the end of this live stream, because I like it so much.
It sounded so smart.
I heard him say, and I believe he went past his remit, and I was like, What?
What?
I'm totally using that.
So, you can make comments here, sure.
But don't go beyond your remit.
All right.
Yeah.
And the real problem is that he pointed it out.
Not that it's true.
We're acting like the real problem is that the special prosecutor pointed out that Biden is mentally degraded.
I feel like the reality should be the only conversation here.
Did he get it wrong?
And the thought that if that's what the special prosecutor really thought and believed, how in the world is that not relevant?
That's pretty relevant.
I'm seeing a dad joke, which I'm going to repeat, that the definition of remit is when Mitt Romney runs for president yet again.
You're remitting.
Yeah, it's not bad.
B minus.
All right.
Trump's talking about Biden's classified documents and he says, if Biden's not going to be charged, then I should not be charged.
This is nothing more than selective prosecution.
Well, now the Democrats would argue it's not about the documents, it's about the resisting of the process for giving them back.
But is it good persuasion for Trump to ignore that fine point and just say, hey, it's documents, we should be treated the same?
It is.
It's not honest.
It's not honest.
Because if we were being honest, he'd say, okay, a little bit of it is about my, you know, resisting giving them back.
But he should also say, if you're being honest, we thought we had a, like a legal process going.
You know, we were in conversations, you know, probably could have been resolved.
But it's good persuasion because the country doesn't know the difference between those two cases.
And no matter how many times MSNBC explains, no, it's not about the documents.
Oh, yes, we were complaining about it was just about the documents before.
But now, now it's not about just the documents.
Now it's about the process.
Nobody listens.
The average voter is just going to look at those two situations and say, they look alike to me.
They both took documents.
One got away with it.
One didn't.
That's what it's going to look like.
Right.
So yes, Trump's instinct on persuasion is exactly right.
It's exactly right.
It's not fully honest, but it's very persuasive.
All right.
And Trump said about the border bill that, I think I mentioned this, that if the Senate wants to pass a real border bill, they should establish criminal penalties for senior Biden officials who refuse to enforce the existing law.
Now, I have two thoughts about that.
I don't think you want crimes for not doing your job.
I feel like that's a bad precedent.
Because everybody accuses everybody of not doing their job.
So if you make it a crime to not do your job, even if you're a government official, it feels like the wrong move.
Like that's going to come back and bite you in the ass later.
It seems like the right move for not doing your job should be impeachment and getting fired and all the usual remove from job kind of things.
But it's good persuasion.
It puts you in the frame of understanding that what they're doing is criminal in its impact.
It's not technically illegal to not do your job, but it's criminal-like in its impact.
It has a criminal outcome.
So yes, good persuasion, not totally technically correct.
All right, let me finish this off by reading a summary by Uncommon Sense.
That's an account on the X platform.
And it says, Tyranny is Here.
And I'll just read it the way it's written.
They want to charge Tucker Carlson with espionage for journalism.
Now, the they is the Democrats.
So they want to charge Tucker Carlson with espionage for journalism.
They already charged the January 6th protesters for protesting.
They charged Trump for being a good president and not going along with their plan.
They rigged the Democrat primary for Biden.
They're charging RFK Jr.
for financing issues, in quotes.
All the Bidens have been implicated in well-documented crimes and not charged.
That's not true.
Hunter's being charged for the gun stuff.
They want to remove the most popular candidate from the ballot and tell you why he's a threat to democracy.
Tyranny is not in the future, it is here.
The emperor has no clothes, all we have to do is acknowledge it.
See, that's one of those emperor has no clothes things that gets a little overused, but in this specific case, I allow it.
Now, this tyranny thing sneaks up on you, doesn't it?
Because I don't wake up in the morning saying, oh, I'm in tyranny.
But when you see the full list, it doesn't look like any kind of republic, does it?
Did I retweet it?
I don't remember, I may have.
Yeah, so we do look like a country which has lost its core principles.
We look like a country that our systems have been destroyed and we're resulting to tribalism.
You know, insults and tribalism, because the system is destroyed.
And why is the system destroyed?
I think it's Wokeness and DEI.
I think that they have destroyed the American system so that we don't have the option of using the system.
We only have the option of arguing like, my tribe has to kill everybody in your tribe.
So Wokeness did in fact, and I think it was Tim Pool was pointing out, That goes all the way back to Gamergate days, and if you trace the wokeness all the way through what it's become, you know, DEI and CRT and everything else, that it is, indeed, it's really clear to see that as the complete progression of tyranny.
So, there you are.
There's a whole summary of everything.
I believe that's all I needed to tell you today, so I'm going to say goodbye to the folks on X who are watching on the Rumble platform and on YouTube.
Thanks for joining.
I'll be here tomorrow, same time.
By the way, if you watch this show on the big screen TV with a blanket over your legs, And a cat laying on the blanket on your legs?
