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, Mark Steyn, Steve Milloy, Climate Change, Michael Rapaport, Fine People Hoax, Natasha Bertrand, Bill Ackman, Catherine Herridge, Mayorkas Impeached, Barbara Lee Minimum Wage, Politico Spin, NATO Funding Hoax, AI Bot Election Interference, Electronic Voting Machines, Election Integrity, Ukraine War, Russia Collusion Secret Binder, Tony Bobulinski, Biden Cognitive Exam, Valentine's Day, 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
You might ask yourself, why is the X platform not live?
It's because the Rumble Studio has an odd user interface in which you can click things and not tell if they've been clicked for a little while.
Because it takes them a while to register.
So there are things I click correctly that when I go live are not clicked.
Because I don't have the patience to hang around to make sure they're registered.
So there's no, uh, there will be no X stream today.
Anyway, let's do the simultaneous sip.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need is a cup or a glass, a tanker, Charles Stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Well, that was pretty good.
Pretty good.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Now, it's kind of a weird coincidence because it's Valentine's Day, and it's Ash Wednesday, and it's Hump Day, all on the same day.
So, I like to celebrate my Valentine's Day by humping somebody's ash.
Alright, that wasn't the best dad joke of the day, but the best one is coming from Ian Bremmer.
Who told this joke on X. He said, the Dutch aren't so tall when you account for their land being below sea level.
Nicely done, Ian Bremmer.
Nicely done, dad joke.
How many of you saw Yay!
Kanye at the Super Bowl?
There's some rumor that Taylor Swift had him removed.
The rumor is that he... I don't know that this is true.
To me, it doesn't sound true.
I would guess it's not.
But the rumor is that he bought a seat that was in front of Taylor Swift so that he would show up and he could promote his new album every time they switched her.
Now, I hope that's true.
I don't think it is, but I hope it's true because it'd be hilarious.
But apparently Ye, some people say he was running out of cash, and he ran a commercial on the Super Bowl.
He spent $7 million to do his commercial on the Super Bowl.
And then the commercial, he says he ran out of money for the commercial itself.
So he films it just by holding his phone up and talking into it, doing a little selfie commercial, which turned out to be exactly the right thing to do because it made a lot of attention.
And he sold $19 million worth of stuff.
And apparently he'll be cash positive really, really fast.
Anyway, there's so much news today.
The Daily Mail, the U.S.
version, reported that nearly half of young men don't know where a woman's clitoris is.
I thought it was in my wallet.
But what do I know?
What do I know?
In completely unrelated news to half of men not knowing where a clitoris is, it turns out the U.S.
birth rate is falling.
Huh.
What could cause that?
I don't know.
But it's fallen somewhere between 14% and 20% since 2012.
And now 35% of women between 25 and 34 have never given birth.
And now 35% of women between 25 and 34 have never given birth.
Huh?
I've never seen so many reasons not to have a child.
I feel like it's not one thing.
It's everything.
From financial, to personal, to having more alternatives on the internet.
Just everything.
The body count, the different advice we're getting, the difficulty of being married, the tax laws about getting divorced.
Really, it's everything.
The entire system is designed for the complete elimination of American society.
And that's like a fact.
Now, that doesn't mean we'll all be dead, but the current design of our system would guarantee it.
You get that, right?
If all we do is what we're currently doing, we're guaranteed to no longer be a country, because our birth rate is falling off.
You know, you won't be able to, you know, field a military, get anything done.
Then you'll have to bring in a bunch of immigrants to get any work done, and then you've got, you know, other problems just trying to get everybody on the same page.
Well, in completely other news, You probably know a political pundit, I guess you'd call him, an author, Mark Stein.
He lost a defamation case to Michael Mann, a climate scientist.
And I guess it was over Mark Stein's criticism of the so-called hockey stick chart that Michael Mann is famous for, that showed temperatures would either have or would jump up in the future and we'd all die from climate change.
And somehow, The jury awarded him, awarded a million dollars in damages, although no damages were actually demonstrated.
And it seems pretty clear to me, although I think the million dollars will get reversed.
you know, by upper court.
But it looks like the process is the punishment.
I think Mark Stein said that, that the point of it is to make it impossible for a normal person to say something about climate change.
Now, consider this.
There are about a million people who have said, or a billion, who said the hockey stick graph doesn't look right to them.
And Mark Stein actually wrote a book in which that was a major point.
And in order for him to be found liable, the jury had to believe that Mark Stein didn't believe what he said about the hockey stick chart.
That is so far beyond anything I can even hold in my head.
I don't think there's anything more obviously true than Mark Stein believing what he said, which doesn't mean he's right.
That's a different conversation.
But he clearly believes it.
How in the world do you get a jury to say he doesn't believe something that he's been saying out loud for years and wrote a book about and shows his work, shows his argument?
Yeah, this is actually just crazy.
So clearly our justice system is completely broken.
Steve Malloy from, he does, well, he's at Junk Science.
This is his name on the X platform.
And he reports, and again, this doesn't mean it's true, but just so you see all sides of an argument.
He says that even with all the biased temperature stations at airports, There's no warming in the U.S.
for the last 25 years.
Now, how do we live in a world in which a very well-informed guy, Steve Malloy, who's, you know, he's all over this topic, so this is an area in which he's really well-versed, and he says the temperatures haven't gone up in 25 years.
Now, you know, if you ask the climate scientists, they would present data and studies that would show a head.
So who's right?
They both pay attention.
They both pay attention to all the news and all the studies.
And one says, nothing happened.
And the other says, oh, it's happening all over the place.
It's completely beyond question.
Which one of those sounds more real to you?
Here's something that Zach Voorhees said on the X platform.
He said, I've discovered that nearly every single temperature sensor used for climate data is located on an airport.
Not near an airport.
On an airport.
Do you know what that means for temperature?
What it should mean is that the thermometers would show warming because they're near a lot of concrete.
And it wouldn't be representative of the country.
Now here's what everybody gets wrong about climate change.
I think that people who are not scientists, and maybe even some scientists, think that the part where they measure the temperature is science.
You know that's not science, right?
That's more about human beings.
It's more about organization.
It's about who owns the temperature devices, the sensors.
What companies put them out there, how maintained they are, where they put them, and why they put them there.
None of that is science.
That's more like an ordinary company doing ordinary things, right?
They're just trying to make their thing work.
Do you believe That you know any people who could have successfully placed thousands of sensors anywhere and gotten the right answer to within a tenth of a degree.
If you imagine how many of those sensors might be a little untuned or not exactly right, How many of them have weird readings for different reasons, technical or otherwise?
How many of them need maintenance?
How many of them are different models?
Do you think if you put in one model of sensor and then later you replace it with another one you could be confident you've got a good unbroken chain of cause and effect?
Here's what I think.
I don't think anybody who's lived in the real world believes that we can measure the temperature of the Earth within a tenth of a degree.
And I'm going to say that as clearly as possible.
I don't know what's happening with climate change.
I have no way to know because I don't believe any data.
I don't think there's any chance that given the complexity of measuring the temperature and all these thermometers and all the things that could go wrong, I don't believe there's any chance it's right.
It could be too high or it could be too low, but I don't think there's any chance it's accurate and we're making all our decisions based on it.
All right, well, and then there's another study Judith Curry was pointing out that apparently a lot of cities have added greenery.
You know, they've added plants and trees, which everybody would say, well, that's good.
That's pretty good for climate change, right?
Add a bunch of trees.
Well, it turns out that when you add trees, you don't have as much concrete showing.
And concrete is really good at reflecting sun back up into the atmosphere.
So it turns out if you plant a bunch of trees where you used to have concrete, it might actually trap the warmth.
It might trap the warmth because it doesn't reflect back out.
So they could actually be making the sensors Read a little bit warmer because they planted a bunch of trees in cities.
There's a study that suggests that.
Now, is that true?
I don't know.
But it gives you an idea of the complexity.
The level of complexity of measuring the temperature of the Earth over time, I think is zero chance that they could do that.
All right, big changes in AI.
AI is finally getting a memory, so ChatGPT will remember your last conversations.
That should open up a whole bunch of different applications.
And NVIDIA apparently is coming out with their own product, some kind of a chat with RTX, I guess it's an AI technology.
And their chatbot can run on your local PC.
I don't think that works on a Macintosh yet, or Apple computer yet.
But it's your own personal AI, no connection to the internet, and you can feed it all of your documents.
So you can give it all your files, all your videos, and it would know everything about you, or everything about the topic that you wanted to know.
Yeah.
So these are, they sound like little things, but if you add memory and you add that you can do it on your own computer, those are gigantic, civilization-changing things.
They're just small at the moment.
All right.
Have you heard of Ground News?
Ground News is a company that shows you where there is bias in the news.
So, for example, if there's a big political story and one side covers it and the others don't, that will show up on Ground News' reporting.
So they did a report on Michael Rapoport.
Is he actor, comedian, what is he?
Actor, comedian, I don't know what to call him, Michael Rapoport.
So the news was that he said he was wrong about Donald Trump's Charlottesville statements.
And how much coverage did that get from the political right?
A lot.
Yeah.
It turns out when a major hoax that was the centerpiece of the president's entire campaign, Biden's campaign, that when that gets debunked by a major celebrity who realizes not just that he was fooled, but he can tell you exactly how the mainstream media did it.
So how much coverage do you think that got from left-leaning outlets?
Zero.
Zero.
Not one.
All kinds of right-leaning entities covered it, but zero.
Now, if you were a Democrat, do you think you would know that this is necessarily a hoax?
The fine people hoax?
You wouldn't know.
There's no access to news.
How would you know?
Unless you figured it out yourself.
Well, CNN promoted one of their people, Natasha Bertrand.
So that's good, right?
Honest reporter, working hard.
Gets her promotion.
I think we can all be happy about that.
So, Natasha Bertrand.
Let's see.
Where have I heard that name before?
Natasha Bertrand.
I feel like I've heard that name before.
Let's see.
Molly Hemingway reminds us that she was behind the Fusion GPS Russia collusion reporting.
She was one of the main people behind that.
Well, I mean, that's just one mistake.
I mean, come on.
Can we let people have one mistake?
Nobody's perfect.
Uh, she also was one of the main people promoting the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation.
Okay, two mistakes.
That's just two mistakes.
Which seemed coincidentally compatible with the intelligence operation in the United States.
So the people who are smarter than I am tell me she's an intelligence asset and CNN is promoting her for spreading some of the biggest lies in the political world.
Right in front of you.
Does that blow you away?
Now, you tell me how many Democrats saw the news that somebody who's famous for spreading hoaxes, the political ones are really the intelligence-driven ones.
Do you think that they're aware that CNN just promoted one of their primary hoaxers?
Probably not.
No.
But the right saw the news on X.
All right.
This is amazing.
So Thomas Massey is posting that this week the House will vote on whether the U.S.
government needs to get a warrant to search your private communications.
Wait, what?
The House will vote on whether the U.S.
government must get a warrant to search your private communications.
Didn't you kind of think that they already needed that?
Or can they just go looking for a crime?
Oh, you did know that they can do that.
Because they can do that.
If, I suppose, if this gets passed.
And they would do it by collecting the information that's used to surveil foreigners.
So as long as our intelligence picks up some foreign conversations, And they talked to any Americans.
Apparently it's legal to go look at all of the communication of the American they talk to, even if no crime is alleged or involved.
Can you believe that?
Here's the part that I think is funny.
I think it's funny that anybody thought they had any privacy.
You've never had privacy.
You've never had privacy.
I mean, never for years.
So every time we have a conversation about protecting our privacy, I think, in what world are you living?
That whole privacy thing went away a long time ago.
Yeah, they're in anything they want to be in.
All right, we'll talk more about that.
Oh, here's a little mystery solved with Bill Ackman.
You know, he was so active in going after Harvard for their wokeness and their bad comments about Israel.
And I didn't realize, you know, I wondered why he was so active about that.
I mean, I realized that the Israel part might be personal and Harvard was his college, so it's personal.
But it turns out, He said that his daughter went to Harvard and they turned her into a Marxist.
So imagine being one of the biggest, most famous capitalists in the entire country, and you're so proud because you send your daughter not only to the school you went to, but to Harvard.
And she comes back being an anti-capitalist.
That's got to hurt.
And apparently it caused a lot of tension.
She would, quote, freak out at the table when capitalism came up.
So basically, they ruined his daughter, and not only did he pay for it, but he did a massive donation to them.
And then they destroyed his daughter.
You know, at least they ruined her mind, according to this report.
Well, CBS News fired reporter Katherine Harridge, who you probably know and have respected.
She's one of the few people When her name comes up in terms of usually political reporting, let's say, but a lot of it involving other countries, and when her name comes up, at least among conservatives, almost universally there's respect attached to it, which is very weird.
Because generally speaking, you know, journalists on both sides get a lot of criticism.
But she's generally held up as like the one who's obviously just trying to do her job and doing a good job.
However...
There is some rumoring that CBS wanted to get rid of her because she was reporting things that were true.
And so they used the excuse of a mass firing that involved many other people to take her out at the same time.
I don't know that there's any way to confirm what people were thinking when they did it.
But it is another example of one person who is known for telling the truth.
Could not hold a job at a major news organization.
Does that remind you of anybody?
Who else would be famous for telling the truth and therefore got kicked off a major news platform?
Well, I could think of Tucker Carlson.
Now, he's accused of not telling the truth.
That's always convenient.
But it seemed to me that's not exactly why they got rid of him.
Probably because he was telling too much truth.
And I told you the story about Steve Cortez, who was on CNN, and he was debunking the Fine People hoax, which is a staple of their reporting and never been true.
And he was let go.
Yeah.
So there is a There's a very clear pattern that when people try to tell the truth in a news organization, they get fired.
That's actually a real thing.
Getting fired for telling the truth, and there's a very clear pattern.
Now, there could be coincidences involved.
Maybe there's more to the story, but it's kind of a weird coincidence that every time you tell the truth, your odds of getting fired are very high.
Now, I got canceled.
Um, just about a year ago.
So it's almost exactly a year, a few weeks from now.
Um, how did newspapers do after they cancelled me?
Oh, turns out they had an unprecedented decline in readership, uh, immediately following getting rid of Dilbert in the newspapers.
Now, I don't think that's totally causal, but it does tell you that they're, you know, not capably run.
And if anybody doesn't know, I don't think any Republican ever canceled me.
It was entirely political.
You know, when it first happens, you're not sure, because it's, you know, a fog of war.
But a year later, I haven't gotten a single complaint from anything I've ever said, at least in terms of, you know, cancellation kind of stuff, from any Republican.
As far as I know, it was 100% Democrat action.
And maybe there were some Republicans who just had to go along with it.
So I know that's my speculation.
I don't know for sure.
All right.
Mayorkas, Homeland Security Secretary, was impeached, which doesn't mean much.
He was just impeached by one vote in the House.
But then he goes to the Senate and either won't go to a vote or voted down.
So it's not going to he's not going to actually lose his job.
But I'm very happy that the Republicans pushed it.
Because they need to get on record saying, you're destroying the world, if not just the country, right now.
And you're doing it right in front of us, and we're all watching, and there's no way we can be silent about it.
So yes, good job for the Republicans getting the impeachment through.
So at least it's on record.
At least it's on record.
And that's good work.
We're also learning the Judicial Watch, Tom Fenton, is saying that they have learned from a FOIA lawsuit that it was Mayorkas who personally denied security for RFK Jr.
Are you concerned about Mayorkas being on our team yet?
Mayorkas looks like he doesn't even work for the United States.
He acts like he works for a foreign country.
Because his behavior is so contrary to the American interests.
I mean, it's just so obviously contrary to our interests.
How in the world does this go on?
How in the world does this keep going?
Amazing.
Senate candidate Barbara Lee, You heard about this.
She had a solution for the high prices in San Francisco.
She wants minimum wage to be $50 an hour.
Now, she said that during a debate running for Senate in California.
How does it happen that somebody could have an opinion that's so monumentally stupid and they could get all the way to the debate floor And nobody told her how stupid it was.
How does that happen?
I'm going to make a controversial speculation.
I don't know this.
But I think she might have the black woman problem.
Do you know what the black woman problem is?
Nobody wants to tell you the truth.
That's the black woman problem.
And that's not an insult.
It's not an insult.
It really is maybe a reflection of how much power you have in society.
If nobody wants to tell you the truth, that means you have power of some kind, either personal or political or financial or something.
So it does seem like There is one group that I don't know anybody who would tell the truth to.
I don't know any white person who would, because it just doesn't pay.
But imagine the cost of this, the fact that we can't talk to each other honestly.
You don't think there was even one person who knew that if Barbara Lee recommended a $50 an hour minimum wage, There wasn't one person in her world to tell her that's not just a bad idea, that's just stupid.
And by the way, I'm not going to insult you by describing why it's stupid.
Because you all know.
Am I right?
Is there one person here who doesn't know why that's stupid?
Anybody?
Right now there are thousands of people watching.
I'll bet there's not one person Who thinks that's a good idea?
Or that it's even just a preference?
It's not even a preference.
It's actually just stupid.
Because it couldn't work.
There's no world in which it would be smart.
So I think her problem is that she doesn't have anybody who can tell her the truth.
Because it wouldn't pay for them to do it.
They'd rather just say, all right, just do what you're going to do.
Just speculation, but you should worry when you reach a level of power where people will lie to you.
Because I think that's happening probably to a lot of people in power.
They just can't get the truth.
Politico has this headline.
Trump advisers rush to spin off-the-cuff NATO remarks.
To spin them.
To spin them, you say.
So those are remarks where Trump indicated that he might not support a country that didn't pay up all of its NATO dues.
Now, 100% of smart people know that he was just saying that to negotiate.
It's just the obvious smart A responsible thing to do, that if you don't pay your bills, we might have to withhold the service.
You know, NATO protection.
Now, nobody thinks that he would withhold NATO protection if it made a difference to the United States or even Europe.
I don't think he would.
It would be crazy to think that he would make that decision because somebody was short on their dues.
But threatening people to not do it is perfectly acceptable.
It's perfectly acceptable because that's the way everything works.
If you don't pay, I can't guarantee I'm going to give you the service.
That's the way everything works.
So yes, Trump was perfectly reasonable in saying that.
But this must be phase two of the NATO funding hoax.
So in phase one, they report that, you know, Trump said something that's out of context, and they act like they don't understand what he's saying.
That's phase one.
In phase two, they act like the people who are explaining that the news is fake, that those people are spinning.
So we've entered phase two of the hoax, where they just say that the people who are debunking the hoax are spinning.
It's always here.
As soon as the hoax gets debunked, you can count on the press coming and saying, well, look at those crazy debunkers who are trying to spin it and they're trying to torture that story to make it sound like something is not.
Or they're just all the smart people who are on the same page.
Well, there was a special election last night in Pennsylvania, I guess.
And it snowed, so not as many people went to vote in person.
But of course, there was a massive difference in mail-in votes.
And the early mail-in votes from the Democrats tipped the tide.
And so the Democrats were victorious in the special election.
Now, did anybody see that coming?
Could anybody have predicted?
That there would be an election.
And then, I guess, the Santos election, same problem.
So could anybody predict that massive mail-in voting would tip the election to a Democrat?
It's kind of predictable.
Kind of predictable.
Yeah.
And we're going to go into a major election, and we don't have an election system that I would consider even a little bit credible.
And we're going to be okay with that.
We should definitely cancel the election.
Now, I don't mean cancel democracy, but we should cancel the election until we have a system that the public trusts.
Whatever that takes.
All right.
There is new information that there are AI bots that are going to interfere with the election.
Now, an AI bot Could come from anywhere and it could interact with you on social media and because it's AI It might do a much better job of interfering with an election than a human would Because it could work all day and night and it could you know enter every comment and you know It could do all that stuff, but I'm wondering if there isn't an AI bot solution to all the hoaxes
Wouldn't it be nice to have an AI bot that scoured the internet for anybody who is pushing a hoax, and then it just left a comment with really good sources debunking the hoax?
And just at every time, because it would be AI, so it would be working, you know, 24 hours a day, every time anybody mentioned it, boom, first comment, here's the debunk.
I feel like that's inevitable, right?
Yeah.
So, you've got the AI bots, you've got the mail-in ballots.
Here's a question I asked.
I said, what's the point of electronic voting machines?
Now, I've got a... My background is economics.
I've got an economics degree, an MBA.
So I tend to see things as business models.
I look through an economic filter at most things.
But why is it that we have electronic voting machines?
I can think of seven possible reasons.
See if any of these seven reasons for having electronic machines sounds good to you.
Are they faster?
Are they faster?
Are they more credible to voters?
Are voters more likely to believe them than other ways?
Are they safer from cheating?
Is it harder to cheat?
Are they more accurate?
Are they more easily audited?
So if anything goes wrong, you can find out what went wrong really fast.
Are they less expensive than, let's say, paper ballots?
Are they easier to manage and maintain?
Now those would be seven reasons.
Are any of those seven reasons true?
I'm not aware that they would be true.
Because I can't imagine they're faster, more credible, safer, more accurate, more auditable, less expensive, easier to manage.
Now, Joel pointed out that where there are exclusively paper ballots, it may be in places where they're only voting for a party.
So it's more of a, you know, two situations.
Whereas we have lots of, you know, lots of sub things to vote on.
So our voting is complicated.
So maybe that wouldn't work on paper.
Well, it wouldn't work as well, but he's saying it wouldn't work.
I mean, if I had one piece of paper that had everybody's votes, I feel like I could count that, no matter how many there were.
Might need some extra people to do it.
But in my opinion, It looks far more likely that the purpose of an electronic voting machine is to cheat.
It looks like it's designed for cheating.
It doesn't look like it's designed for the obvious benefits of automation.
You know, automation usually has really obvious benefits.
Save money, faster, more accurate, that sort of thing.
But since none of those things are obvious to the voters, it looks like the system is designed to cheat.
Now, can I say that that's actually true?
No.
No.
Because I can't prove it.
But as an observer, and as a citizen, I look at the facts that I do know, and even with Joel's, you know, context that it might be hard to do if you have a lot of issues on the ballot, I don't get it.
I still think you can do it, and that if your alternative is to do something that isn't credible to the voters, you should do the extra work to do it.
Now, what about the mail-in ballots?
What would be the purpose of mail-in ballots?
Well, if you asked, people would say it's to make sure that you have enough participation.
Now, I certainly understand if you're in the military, you're out of the country.
I understand if you're disabled.
I don't think anybody would argue with any of that.
You know, there are special cases where you should be able to vote, and you just legitimately can't get there.
So those people should have an option, for sure.
But what is the argument for the other people?
And now you say to yourself, but Scott, the argument is very clear.
It increases voter participation.
To which I say, Can you point me to a country that does only same-day voting and the public is unhappy because they didn't have mail-in ballots?
Does that exist?
Anywhere in the world?
Anywhere in the world?
Are there people saying, you know, I would have trusted our election outcome.
My only problem was there were no mail-in ballots.
I don't think that exists.
As far as I know, it's solving a problem that the public doesn't believe is a problem.
Because they wouldn't say the election was rigged.
At most, they would say, I didn't bother to vote.
Am I wrong about that?
If you weren't one of the people who was a shut-in for health reasons, you're not in the military.
You had the option to drive in and vote, and you just decided not to.
Do you complain about the outcome then?
Not as much, and you certainly wouldn't say the problem was I didn't get to mail in my vote.
Like, you might complain on a personal level, but you wouldn't think that it changed the outcome of the election just by its nature.
So, in my opinion, The mail-in voting and the electronic voting machines are signals that the people in charge of our system prefer cheating over a credible system.
Is that too far?
Now, I'm not saying that I could read their mind, because I can't.
I'm saying that the signal they're sending is a fraud.
That doesn't mean I can identify any specific fraud.
I'm saying that everything about this looks like somebody is intentional creating a situation to control the elections.
It doesn't look like it's even designed.
It doesn't even look like a good try to make a fair election.
It doesn't look like a good try.
If somebody tried, and it was obviously tried, and they failed, then I'd say, well, that's just a capability problem.
But if you design it so it clearly looks like it's designed for cheating, what would you expect the public to do?
How are you supposed to expect us to react when you design a system that, on the surface, looks like it's designed for cheating?
You can ignore that if you want, I don't know why you would.
In a world in which every system and bureaucracy and department is corrupt, it seems like everyone, that would be a lot to accept in your election system so that it's the only one not corrupt.
And let's see, Rasmussen Report, backing up my opinion, showed some data that says That the public doesn't think the mail-in ballots are necessary and it looks like it's an opportunity for cheating.
So yes, the public doesn't think there's a problem that needs to be solved.
It's the government telling you it needs to be solved.
And that's a huge red flag.
If the government is solving problems that the people don't recognize as problems, that's a problem.
All right, there's some reporting, who knows if it's true, that Putin proposed in late 2023 for a ceasefire.
And it looks like Biden didn't want anything to do with it, or whoever's running the country didn't want anything to do with it.
Now, do you think that if we had said yes to a ceasefire in 2023, that we would have ended the war in a way that will be very much like however it ends, whenever it ends?
I think so.
If we had said yes, we probably would already be done.
I think.
Now, just to make things interesting, Ukraine took out a Russian, some kind of a landing ship or something, and they did it with some drones, and now they're saying that they've taken out a third of Russia's Black Sea fleet with their drones.
I don't know if I believe any of that data, but Ukraine is, you know, picking up the pressure.
So, anyway.
Does it look to you like our government wants this to be solved in the way that it should be solved, which is some kind of negotiated settlement?
It does not.
Our government is sending us every signal that whatever is the reason for this war, it's not what they're telling us.
It doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine, because I think it's obvious that Ukraine would be better off ending it right away.
Isn't it?
Isn't it 100% obvious that the Ukrainian people would be better off negotiating an end to this right away, even if they end up being ruled by Putin?
Because Putin has very high approval.
I'm sure he's done bad things, and that's all true, but he has a very high approval record, if we were to believe that data.
So would the Ukrainian people be that worse off?
Because right now they've got a leader who's kind of sketchy, and sending all the young people to die.
You don't get any worse than that.
And he's gaining nothing in it.
They didn't get any extra land.
So.
All right.
So keep an eye on that.
I would say everything about that war is corrupt.
And if we give them a penny more, it's a huge mistake.
Well, there's a story that there might be a reason the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago.
Do you remember when you thought to yourself, hey, I wonder if the real reason that Mar-a-Lago, those, you know, the boxes there, the secret documents, maybe the real reason is that there was something they were looking for that Trump had that would embarrass them.
Well, we don't know for sure, but there's some reporting saying that there's a, quote, missing binder that would have proven that the CIA was behind the Russia collusion hoax.
So Michael Schellenberger, and I think Matt Taibbi is involved with this, are now reporting that John Brennan, who was the head of CIA at the time, got our allied countries to spy on 26 Trump associates Because that would make it illegal for America to look at them, too.
So, the reporting is that we now have documented proof that the CIA asked our allied countries, you know, the main allies that we always deal with for intelligence, and asked them, gave them a list of 26 people to spy on who are Americans.
Let me say that again.
Our own country gave foreign countries, the Five Eyes people, gave them a list of American citizens who had committed no crimes to spy on for the purpose of then making it legal for Americans to spy on them too, because the foreigners would write up reports that made it sound like there was something suspicious going on.
And that would be enough for the Americans to have cause to go through a legal process to spy on them as well.
And that the only point of it was to find things that they could embarrass and keep Trump out of office.
So.
And then the CIA took those reports and fed it to the FBI, who started the crossfire hurricane thing.
Now, and then maybe Trump had that, you know, binder that had that evidence, and maybe The FBI rated Mar-a-Lago just to take that out of circulation.
Now, that part seems a little iffy to me.
I'm not sure I would go all the way to that's the Mar-a-Lago thing.
But you have to put it in the mix.
You have to assume it's possible.
At the same time, Tony Bobulinski, who is Hunter's business partner, is testifying again yesterday, and he confirmed a lot of what we've heard before, that the big guy was Biden, that the only product was Biden, and that the big Chinese energy company gave Biden so much money that it suggests that they're beholden to China.
So, that's amazing.
Does it seem to you that every suspicion you ever had was true?
Climate change looks as sketchy as you thought.
Everything about the war in Ukraine is exactly as sketchy as you thought.
It looks like it's just a money laundering operation.
It's completely crooked.
It has nothing to do with what's good for Ukrainians.
None of that.
You know, the media people getting fired for probably all fake reasons.
I don't think there's anything that's not corrupt at this point.
It looks like just everything's corrupt.
Maybe it always was, and we didn't notice.
I don't know.
Here's another example.
Did you know that Biden, refusing or not taking a cognitive test as part of his annual exam, he would be the first U.S.
president in history to refuse a cognitive exam.
Now, that's all you need to know, isn't it?
That's all you need to know.
If he's not willing to take a cognitive exam, it's obviously because he's going to fail it, and he knows it.
Now, if you were Biden, wouldn't you at least take the exam and then sit on it if it was the wrong result?
I feel like you'd take a practice one, wouldn't you?
You know what I mean?
Maybe off the record?
Maybe the doctor said, look, you're going to have to take a cognitive exam later.
This isn't the real one.
It's exactly like the real one, but it's just practice.
Just to get a sense of how you might do if you did a real one.
And then let's say he fails the practice one.
Then the doctor can say, I didn't give him a cognitive exam.
No, I gave him a practice exam.
So he'd be familiar with it when he saw the real thing.
Right?
Now, I'm not saying that happened.
I'm saying that, uh, I'm saying that it's very sketchy that they're not going to give the one person who has obvious cognitive decline a cognitive test.
It's exactly what it looks like.
However, I would like to offer this possibility.
If Biden did decide to do a cognitive test, it would probably be rigged.
He'd probably try to rig the results.
And here's the questions I think would be on his cognitive test.
It'd be a three-question test.
Number one, which of these people is the one they call Jill?
That'd be question number one.
Question number two is, how does C-3PO walk demonstrate And then number three, do you like ice cream?
Now I think if he were asked those three questions, he'd probably nail it.
So I do expect if he takes a cognitive test, it will be rigged.
Anyway.
The special counsel reported, of course, that Biden had poor memory and was forgetting stuff because he's an old man.
So the Republicans cleverly said, why don't you show us that transcript?
The public needs to see that transcript.
And apparently that will not be released, at least as of now.
Maybe later we'll get it.
But there's some resistance to getting that.
However, shout out to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, who quite cleverly showed the video from Trump's depositions, in which he was saying he doesn't remember a variety of things that you think a person should remember.
Now, I don't think he was necessarily lying, although he may have not wanted to commit to anything he wasn't 100% sure of, so he might say he doesn't remember.
That would just be good strategy.
But, I would agree that the confusing of names and the forgetting of dates is not super indicative of cognitive decline.
It could be, but not by itself.
So, I'd really like to see the transcript too, because I'm open to the possibility that it was exaggerated.
If you saw the transcript, do you think you would have the same feeling?
You know the part where he said he didn't remember when his son died?
I don't believe that.
I mean, it was reported that he didn't know when his son died?
I don't believe that.
I don't believe it at all.
I believe he knew when he died.
I think he maybe misheard the question or he was tired.
Because there are times when there are things I know I know that I can't recall at the moment.
And then later I'm like, oh, obviously, you know, like dates of things.
Every now and then I can't remember a date of something important in my life.
But then like a few days ago by, you know, like, oh, obviously that was 2004.
Now I remember.
So I'd really like to know more.
Because I do think there is some chance that we've been misled about how bad it was.
What we see in public is bad enough to want him removed from office, obviously.
But I'd like to know what does happen in those transcripts.
Vivek is doubling down.
He said that on the X platform.
He said it at the debate three months ago and he'll say it again.
Biden isn't going to be the nominee.
The Democrats need to fess up on the plan and tell the truth about what's really happening.
Well, I think he's obviously right.
To me it seems obvious that the Democrats have not decided he's going to be the nominee, for the obvious reasons, and that they're working on alternate plans.
But I doubt that they've agreed on one.
My guess is that the Democrats are like everybody else in the world, and there's just lots of different opinions.
And so when it looks, you know, if it looks to you like they've all made some kind of, like, master plan, it's probably closer to they're still fighting it out because they can't agree.
Because whoever they decide as the president or the candidate, in place of Biden, Would give some group of Democrats more power than others.
Let me say that again.
Whoever Democrats decide will be the candidate, if they replace Biden, whoever that person is, is going to have more connections to some subset of the Democrat world than to the other part.
So I would think that each of the power centers within the Democratic Party would be pushing hard for their own preferred candidate.
So there's got to be people pushing for Gavin, people pushing for any number of other people, Hillary, who knows.
So I think it's lack of, I think it's lack of agreement that's keeping Biden running.
That plus the fact that nobody can tell him to quit if he doesn't want to.
Because, you know, you're saying Mark Cuban?
I don't think so, but anything's possible.
So, um, yeah, that's what we got going on there.
No, my God, did I cover everything that's happening today?
So, so succinctly and so clever that I got done in an hour.
My God, I'm good at this.
There was so much today that I actually wondered if I could get through it in an hour and a half.
So I was kind of rushing, but I overrushed.
Um, Biden forgot the year of his Corvette.
Yeah, I mean, to me that doesn't seem like an abnormal thing.
That wouldn't be abnormal for me.
I would forget the year of my car all the time.
Even if it was a classic car, I would forget the year.
You wouldn't believe the things I forget.
And I'm still reasonably functional.
And it doesn't seem to be age-related.
Because it was always like that.
All right, how many of you have a Valentine's date in the comments?
Who's got a Valentine's date?
How many of you have been brainwashed by the system to believe that you must put on a show of love on this date specifically, and it must be accompanied with merchandise?
because that's the way you show your love with your merch.
Well, I'm happy for you if you've got a valentine. - Yeah.
better than not having one I guess so how many of you have convinced your spouse not to celebrate the day I'm I tried that once.
Would you like to hear how my experience went?
I'm pretty sure Christina wouldn't mind me telling this story.
I don't think this would embarrass her.
I think she'd be fine with it.
So in my prior marriage, my more recently ended marriage of my two, I thought I was going to be clever.
And so right out of the chute, way before Valentine's Day, like nowhere near it, I started saying, I do not celebrate artificial holidays.
I will be generous and nice to you every day.
But I will not be forced to celebrate Thanksgiving.
And to her credit, and you know, one of the things I found attractive about her, was that she absolutely agreed.
And I thought, wow!
I found my soulmate.
I found a woman who, you know, doesn't put a high, you know, any kind of importance on Valentine's Day.
And I thought to myself, I might be the smartest man in America, because I beat the system.
Now, how do you think it went on Valentine's Day when I didn't have a gift?
Just about the way you'd think.
It turns out that the theory of not exchanging a gift on Valentine's Day is very attractive, because nobody wants to think that they're forced into being romantic.
But when it's the actual day, and everybody you know got a present, but you?
It's just not a good relationship situation.
It's just not.
So I'm not criticizing her.
I think that every woman in America probably wants to get something on Valentine's Day, even if they tell you they don't.
So my little message to you is, if you have negotiated with your woman, To not celebrate the day and not give her anything?
It's possible she totally agrees with you.
But I would at least suggest that maybe you ought to have something in the, you know, in the trunk of your car.
Just in case things get tense.
And then you could do, of course I got you a present, honey.
It's in the trunk of the car.
Go out and get it.
Maybe.
I mean, just to make sure you could get through a few Valentine's Days within a fight.
You know, just have a backup plan, and then don't bring it out if there's no fight.
But if you manage to get through the whole day and everything's good, then you're probably free.
But I would not assume that your average, normal American woman, even if she says Valentine's Day should not be important, I don't know that it feels that way when you get to Valentine's Day.
It just doesn't feel unimportant.
It's kind of like saying that Christmas is just another day if you don't have any plans.
It never really feels like just another day when you're in it.
It's just something you can say in advance.
So I'm gonna say I was the dumb one on that transaction because I should have just known that, you know, Americans are just too conditioned by that holiday to imagine that it's nothing.
We're just too well trained.
Thanks for helping men not trust women some more.
I I'm not sure if that's even about trusting women.
I think you could reverse the genders and it would be the same thing.
I sometimes say I don't want anything for my birthday.
Do I mean it?
Do I mean it?
You tell me.
Because I often say I don't want anything for my birthday.
I 100% mean it from non-family members.
I 100% mean it from non-family members.
And certainly I mean it from any family members who are not local.
Like, I definitely don't expect anybody to mail me something.
That's more than I would ask from anybody.
But, if I had a spouse, And I got literally nothing for my birthday.
I would feel about the same way as a spouse would feel about getting nothing for Valentine's Day.
I would think, I know I said I don't want anything and I know I meant it, but really?
You didn't get something anyway?
So I gotta, you know, we're all, we're all irrational when it comes to that stuff.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
It's a newsy day, lots of fun.
Go have some fun Valentine's Day, and thanks for joining on YouTube and Rumble.
