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, Nikki Haley, Taliban Public Executions, Joy Reid, Jacob Rothschild, AI Narrative Control, IVF Controversy, TSMC Chips, Ukraine Spy Bases, Navalny Blood Clot, Trump Navalny Comparison, Russia Space Weapon, California Gun Control, Penn University Biden Center, Israel Hamas War, ap Narrative Spin, Migrant Crime, Peter Navarro, President Trump, Foreign Policy Publication, CBS Economy Spin, Ronna McDaniels Resigns, Vivek Ramaswamy, 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 in It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a better time.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels, which I don't believe even scientists can understand, well, then all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, or sty and 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go!
Oh, that's so good.
Now, if you're not watching the Dilbert comic strip, which continues to go on every day, Because you're not subscribing to it on X platform or the locals platform where you can see that plus a lot more of my stuff nobody else gets to see.
You would not know that today Dilbert's boss asked him to attend a photo shoot for the company's marketing.
But it's going to be based on the Balenciago satanic images for children.
So Dilbert's going to have to navigate that.
Now, do you think I could have done that series of comics before I got cancelled?
No.
Can I do it now?
Oh yeah!
So, by the way, most of you in the comments, or a lot of you actually, are subscribing.
Probably most.
So if there's anybody who's a non-subscriber, can those who do subscribe to Dilbert confirm that it's funnier now that I don't have to be censored?
So just look at the comments.
It's just a stream of yeses.
It's way funnier than it ever was.
And the reason is that I'm not limited.
So if there's something in the news, I can do it.
So the Balenciaga thing was in the news.
It's fair game.
And it's, you know, it's all the funny stuff.
It's the stuff you're not supposed to talk about.
So it's kind of perfect.
Anyway, so there's news today that Nikki Haley will no longer be funded by the Koch brothers.
So she's not going to get any more of that Koch money.
So, um, I think she hasn't commented on that yet, but if she did, it would be something like, I guess I won't be soaking any more Cokes.
Probably, that's what she's going to say.
No longer going to be soaking the cokes to get their money.
And if you don't know that that's based on the famous Marilyn Monroe quote that may or may not have ever happened, well, you're missing the fun stuff.
And if you were a local subscriber, you would have already known what that joke was about.
All right.
I saw a post by somebody named Bassimo who said there's studies that found babies tend to develop better when they find that their mother is cheerful and happy.
And they think that when the mother laughs when the baby's in the womb, it makes a happier baby.
So, this is a little thing I like to call Backwards science.
Backwards science.
I'm just gonna put in a hypothesis that people who are genetically happy are more likely to have a baby that's genetically happy.
Does anybody think that's a possibility?
Could you interpret it that way?
Or is it, yes, no, it's the laughing shakes the belly and turns the baby happy.
That's the other possibility.
Or is it backward science?
Backward science.
I'm going to go with backward science on this one.
Well, say what you will about the Taliban, but they're not all bad.
For example, they're doing some public executions, and you're saying to yourself, whoa, whoa, Scott, you're going to come out in favor of public executions by the Taliban?
Because, you know, they're probably killing people for just being, what, Christians and, you know, stuff like that.
Well, I don't know all the reasons that they're killing people, but some of them have to do with people who were definitely convicted of murder and actually went through the entire court system and they were convicted of murder.
Now, do you know how the Taliban kills you if you've been convicted of murder?
You're probably thinking of something like, oh, they're gonna stone them.
Or the family will stone them.
Or they're gonna behead them in public, right?
It's way better.
You tell me you don't want this system, you're a liar.
The family members of the victim get to shoot the perpetrator in front of everybody.
So they all get a gun, if they want to, I guess.
Must be optional.
Well, I don't know, maybe it's not optional.
But they show up and they shoot him.
Now, if somebody murdered your family member, and you got a chance to shoot him in front of other people, would you say no to that?
Or would you say, well, there's some justice there?
Well, as long as it's optional, you know, some people wouldn't want to do it.
But here's what I'd worry about.
If somebody killed a member of my family, and then it was our turn to shoot that person in public, I don't know if any family members are listening to this, but I know my family.
And I'd like to think that with no collusion whatsoever, if we never talked to each other before the event, that we would all be on the same page just automatically.
No head or heart shots.
I'd probably go for the balls.
Maybe a limb.
But you know what I wouldn't do?
I wouldn't make it fast.
And I would like to think that all members of my family would sort of automatically come to the same conclusion.
I don't know.
It's just me.
Is it just me?
I trust my family members that they would do the right thing.
Torture that bastard!
I'm just kidding.
I don't... I'm opposed to violence of all kind.
Just joking.
But I know you're not.
Well, the dumbest clown in the world, Joy Reid.
We call her Trump-Hair.
So Trump-Hair has a video in which she's saying she doesn't understand the incongruity That the conservatives want to stop immigration, the so-called 10 million people that she doesn't believe is a real number.
But why is it that you want to stop immigrants, she says, but you want to encourage white people in Alabama to have more babies?
How does that make sense?
Either you want fewer people or you don't.
Now, that's the sort of point that only the dumbest fucking person in the whole fucking country could say.
Because somehow Joy Reid is unaware that a society that doesn't produce enough children is definitely doomed.
Did she think there was a way around that?
You could just get a bunch of adult males and ship them in and that would take care of what your baby needs?
No, it doesn't work that way.
It doesn't work that way at all.
And how could you actually be that dumb?
It really makes me wonder.
She said, the U.S.
has a population of 327 million people.
Why do we need more kids?
She actually said that.
Now, unless it was some kind of weird A.I.
Was the A.I.
deepfake?
Now I'm actually wondering.
Because it looked real.
But I actually don't think she could be that stupid.
It sounds like parody.
I'm going to check myself.
I'm going to back off from the story.
I wasn't planning to do this.
Because when I looked at it, it looked real.
But as I think about it and I'm talking about it, I don't think that could be real.
Because it seems too on-the-nose stupid.
So can somebody... Let's see if we can fact check that.
I think no real person would say that out loud.
Why do you need kids?
You've got 327 million people in the country.
That doesn't sound like a real person.
Yeah, it sounds like a joke.
But, you know, we've reached the point where you really can't tell.
I believe that AI could fool me sufficiently that I wouldn't know the difference.
If I had to bet on it, I'd bet real, but only 60-40.
I think there's a solid 40% chance it's not real, even though I listened to it.
She is stupid, but I don't know if anybody could be that stupid.
That'd be like super extra stupid, and also super extra racist.
I don't know.
I got a question mark on that one.
Well, the Lord Jacob Rothschild died at age 87.
Now, I've got a theme for today, and it goes like this.
What would AI think is true?
Because we think AI is going to be smart, and some people worry that AI will be smarter than us.
I'm pretty sure it won't.
Because in order for AI to be smarter than us, we would have to agree what that looks like.
Because when it disagrees with us, we reprogram it.
What happens if it's genuinely right and we're genuinely wrong about something?
We just reprogram it until we're right again.
There is no scenario in which human beings are evolved and we give control of the narrative, you know, a preferred version of reality, a narrative.
There's no way we're going to give the narrative to machines.
The narrative is a human tool.
That we use to fool other people into agreeing with us.
We're never going to delegate that to a machine, because it won't be in our best interest all the time.
So, I'm going to tell you the news today, and after each story, I'm going to ask this question.
What would AI think is true?
So, for example, this story about Lord Jacob Rothschild.
You might know, if you spent even one minute on the internet, that there's a large theory That the Rothschild family is controlling all the central banks and stuff.
Now, I don't have any evidence of that.
But I also don't have any evidence it's not happening, you know, before you attack me.
Scott, why don't you do your own research?
It's because it wouldn't help.
Doing my own research wouldn't make any difference to this.
Because if it's happening, it's a secret conspiracy.
That's the allegation.
How much research do I have to do To uncover a secret worldwide global, you know, 100 years, 200 years old conspiracy.
I don't think you can research that.
So, in my opinion, it's a claim with no evidence that I'm aware of that I would find credible.
But Alex Jones thinks it's credible.
So what would AI think?
So AI is going to scan the language patterns of people.
And you're going to ask it, hey, is it true that there's some big Rothschild family control of the planet through the banks?
What would the AI tell you?
Would it say, well, Alex Jones has been correct many times, and he says there's this big worldwide conspiracy.
So, you know, we haven't researched it ourselves, but a credible source says it's real.
Is it going to say that?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Is it going to say there's nothing to it?
I don't know, maybe.
But would you trust it to give you the truth, or would you assume the AI will just follow whatever is the dominant pattern on the internet?
I think that the programmers have told it what sources are credible by now, and they've told it what sources are not credible.
Do you think the people who made Google's Gemini AI told it that Alex Jones's opinion is about equal to everybody else's?
You know, about the same as the New York Times?
Treat them the same?
Of course not.
Of course not.
So AI will only give it some reflection of what the programmers allowed it to give.
So, I don't have any opinion about this Rothschild thing.
I've never seen any evidence that I consider credible to support it.
But I also don't debunk it, because I don't know one way or the other, or even how you would do it.
I have been ignoring, but will now not ignore, the IVF issue, the in vitro fertilization.
I kind of let that one just, you know, pass my filter without notice.
But it got a little more interesting when Trump came out in favor of it.
So, my understanding is there are some anti-abortion, a subset of the anti-abortion conservatives believe that in vitro fertilization, you know, where the baby is fertilized outside of the human and then put back in the mother, That, or in a surrogate I suppose, that that would be, some would say that would be an unnatural birth.
I saw somebody on the internet saying that if the sperm and the egg are, you know, combined in the usual way, that that would obviously infer a soul.
So you'd have a regular baby with a soul that God had approved and put in that baby Because it all happened in the natural way that God approves.
But the theory was that if you did it in vitro fertilization, and let's say you didn't get around to putting it into a human right away, just kept it frozen, and then later you decided to use it, that the problem was that that would not be a God-approved birth, and it wouldn't have a soul.
So you'd be creating a monster.
It would be alive.
But it would be a soulless demon.
And so this raises an interesting question.
You know, in schools, you've heard these terrible stories about the teacher would divide the class up into oppressors and victims.
Have you heard those stories?
And you said to yourself, what?
Like, what kind of political garbage is that?
You know, why are you telling the white kids they've got to be the oppressors and they've got to line up on one side and everybody else is on the other side as the victims?
Oh my God, that's terrible.
But now you have the possibility that you could have an ultra-conservative teacher Who would tell the kids to line up based on people who have souls, and the soulless demons would be the other group.
All right, soulless demons, anybody who was born through, in virtue of fertilization, probably you don't have an actual soul, might be some kind of a hideous, satanic sort of situation.
You'll line up on this side, and those people with nice God-approved souls, you know, the good people, we'll put them over here, and then we'll teach you a lesson about What?
Now, we're not going to argue about whether it has a soul.
We're not going to do that.
I'm just going to point out, what would A.I.
do?
What would A.I.
do?
Would A.I.
look at this and say, hmm, yeah, seems to me these kids have no souls?
Or would it say, there's no such thing as a soul?
Or would it say, of course they have a soul?
Because if God allows the child to be born under any circumstance, then God has willed it and would put a soul in there.
Of course it would.
Now, does it matter what the humans think?
Well, it matters to the laws.
But the real question is, Is it true that every time an issue matters, like this one, like it really matters to our basic existence, that AI can't help us?
Because AI is nothing but a reflection of the people who built it.
So let's see what other stories fall into that AI can't help us.
So Wall Street Journal says the clock is ticking and Biden wants the congressional leaders to pass a budget that would include some Ukraine aid.
But of course there's a risk of the partial shutdown on Friday and people are saying don't shut down to shut down.
All right.
Now the way I read this story is that the Biden administration is blackmailing the country.
That's my interpretation.
They're saying, we won't give you the things you want unless you give us the things we want for reasons that don't really make sense to you, but might have to do with corruption.
To me it feels like blackmail.
This doesn't even feel like a political process in the least.
It's just purely blackmail.
They just have some power over the public, so they're gonna squeeze the public, but not the politicians.
This is very important.
The politicians who disagree with them will suffer in no way whatsoever.
But the public will be tortured.
So, both sides are playing a game of chicken to see who can torture the public the most without blinking.
So, who wins when it's a torture contest?
Do conservatives win?
Because they're willing to hold out longer.
It's more of a principle.
Do the bad guys win?
You know, the people just want unlimited money for wars.
Do they win because they can wait longer?
So a lot of you say the bad guys win.
Well, we'll see.
But again, how would AI cover this story?
Would AI say, it is vital that we fund Ukraine because otherwise Russia will pave the United States, or whatever he's going to do?
Or would they say, hmm, it looks like another optional, unnecessary war based on the intelligence people and a bunch of people who want to do corrupt things.
What would AI say about this war?
There's nothing it could tell us.
That wasn't just programmed by the programmers.
All right, Japan is making, I guess they've spun up a microchip plant, and I guess the big chip maker is TSMC, the company TSMC, and they opened their first Japan factory.
So they have a little bit of diversification away from Taiwan, given all the tensions.
What is the last thing that Taiwan wants to happen?
The last thing that Taiwan wants to happen is to have other places that can make those chips.
Because it's the only reason we're protecting them.
Isn't it?
Isn't it literally the only reason?
We say, oh, we're protecting democracy, but we don't care about that.
Well, not really.
We don't really care about democracy in other places.
Yep, it looks to me like I would say that Taiwan has no chance of being an independent country in the long, long term.
Would you agree?
If you look 200 years out, There's not really a chance that Taiwan's going to be independent from mainland China.
So, I guess you can see the writing on the wall there.
Now, that doesn't mean it'll be, you know, all terrible, because China could be a different place in 200 years, right?
Their government could be very different.
So maybe Taiwan would just say, you know what?
I wouldn't mind that at all at the moment, if we have some autonomy.
Anything could happen in 200 years.
All right.
New York Times and others are confirming that the CIA and the FBI have been in Ukraine for over 10 years, since 2014.
And they were building all these secret spy bases that Putin alleged.
And of course, our media said, what?
What secret spy bases in Ukraine?
I don't even know what you're talking about.
There aren't any secret spy bases in Ukraine.
But now the news tells us there were 12 secret spy bases.
And that means that, at least according to some people's view, that means that Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman and Victoria Nuland lied to the American people and Congress about our activities in prior years.
So, but I guess that's what you do when it's a secret activity, is you lie about it.
All right, what would AI tell us about the US's involvement in Ukraine?
Again, it would be impossible for AI to have an opinion that told you something that either wasn't your opinion already, or it's just the opinion of the programmers.
Yeah.
Because this is a narrative.
A narrative is not what they're really designed to do.
All right, the Russia hoax count, I think, was up to 14.
The Russia hoax count is up to 14.
And I warn you, that that's 14 if you count the entire Russia collusion hoax, you know, the original, if you count that as just one, it adds up to 14.
If you count it as, like, several sub-things, then you're probably up to around 20.
Now, how many Democrats would be aware that there are between 14 and 20, depending on how you count it, Russia hoaxes in just the last few years.
All right, here's a few.
The Russia collusion hoax, the Russian bounties on American soldiers, the Hunter laptop hoax, Trump being responsible for Navalny's death, Trump invited Russia to attack NATO countries, FBI informant for the Biden bribes is a Russian spy, and thus Biden has been exonerated.
So the hoax part is that whether or not that guy is a Russian spy, That doesn't have anything to do with exonerating Biden.
It would be just one part of a larger case.
But it's a hoax to say the news is claiming that Biden is exonerated, and Biden's claiming that.
Number seven, Putin blew up his own pipeline.
Trump is romantically attracted to Putin, or has some kind of weird connection to him.
Nine, Russia is behind the anti-vax movement.
Peter Hotez said that.
Number 10, the Alfa Bank hoax.
Number 11, the Hamilton 6A hoax.
Number 12, MSC Sonic weapon hoax.
I just added that one.
I forgot that the CIA was blaming Russia for a sonic weapon.
Then number 13, Navalny died of a blood clot.
All right.
We're going to talk about that.
I know you want to.
That's the new news.
And then number 14, the CIA was not secretly helping Ukraine since 2014, which the New York Times has confirmed today.
So that would be 14 Russia-related hoaxes.
If I'm correct, that the Navalny died of a blood clot is a hoax.
Now, what does the news tell you today about Navalny?
Well, the news told you that Ukraine, of all people, Ukraine, Ukraine's intelligence chief confirmed that Navalny died of natural causes.
Well, semi-natural, a blood clot.
Now, that could be caused by, you know, bad treatment over a long period of time.
But it wasn't that he was murdered at the moment.
So I would say vaccine.
So the news reported that that must be true because Ukraine is the enemy to Putin.
And if Ukraine is agreeing with Putin's interpretation of this very important question, well, that's all you need to know.
So if Ukraine is agreeing, would you agree that it must have been a natural death?
Because Ukraine has no reason to lie.
That's what the news told me this morning.
They have no reason to lie.
What do you think?
Let's see your opinion, go ahead.
Tell me your opinion.
Do you think he died of a blood clot, yes or no?
Blood clot, yes or no?
Oh, you got really quiet there.
No, no, yes, no, no.
But we were told that Ukraine has no reason to lie.
Ukraine has no reason to lie.
So why would they lie if they have no reason to lie?
Well, let me give you my take on this.
Here's what I think.
So I'll give you the history of it.
So everyone said that Putin murdered him.
It was just widely assumed, right?
The news reported it.
You know, we all just assumed it's just obvious.
I certainly assumed it was the obvious thing.
And now, but the Ukraine's intelligence chief says it's a blood clot.
And he's not guessing.
He's saying it's confirmed.
Did anybody watch the video of him saying it was confirmed?
I would like to now give you my impression of the Ukrainian intelligence chief confirming that it was just a blood clot.
All right?
Watch me before I confirm it and after I confirm it.
Watch my face.
Yes, we have some nude news.
It turns out it was a blood clot.
Now, just look at his eyes and his body language and you tell me that he's comfortably telling you the truth.
It's total liar face.
Now, I don't know if you've spent as much time studying lying face, but he's got the most obvious liar face you've ever seen.
Now, he doesn't do the big eyes.
He does the, he can't keep his eyes open when he's saying a thing, which is equally telling you something.
He is very uncomfortable telling the lie, you can tell.
Now, why do I say it's a lie?
When I don't know.
Well, let's connect some dots, shall we?
I'll just only tell you the things you agree are true.
Things you agree are true.
The CIA has worked closely with Ukrainian intelligence since 2014.
That's reported in the New York Times, so we think that's true, right?
That the CIA has worked closely with Ukrainian intelligence.
Now, Ukraine unexpectedly, surprising everybody, says that Navalny died of a blood clot, not a Putin assassination.
So if the CIA and the Ukrainians are working together, that does suggest that the CIA is OK with this version of the story, wouldn't you say?
Because it's hard to imagine that the Ukrainian intelligence people would go rogue when they're working so closely with our CIA, and it's a topic which really matters to both of them.
So don't you think our CIA was endorsing that version of events?
Are you okay so far?
That our CIA is probably endorsing it, otherwise we never would have heard it.
Right?
Okay.
So what else do we know?
Oh, well, that conveniently makes Trump's situation less like Navalny.
Huh.
It seems like it was only a day ago that people were commonly saying, We're no different from Russia because Russia puts their critics in jail and now Biden is trying to put Trump in jail.
So it's basically the same thing.
So how could you be against Russia but in favor of Biden when they're the same person?
But coincidentally and just in the nick of time and coming from the least credible sources in the entire planet we learn That is confirmed.
One of those things you could easily confirm, you know, from a Russian jail.
Because, you know, Ukrainian intelligence has all kinds of access to a Russian jail.
So, no, they're not guessing.
It's not based on some intel that they mentioned.
No, they're just confirming it.
It's just one of those things they know.
Now, conveniently, just as Ukraine is desperate for American money and would need the Biden administration to be fighting hard for that, American money.
At that very time, the story changes and the narrative changes.
So now we can see that Putin did not kill Navalny.
So our whole analogy about Putin, you know, trying to kill him is somehow evaporated.
Yeah.
Now he's still jailed a critic.
But the killing part is the part that got our attention, because we do think that the CIA might try to kill Trump.
I do.
I think it's a legitimate possibility.
So, now, if you were to follow the money, do you think Biden is more likely to give them money if Putin was murdered, and it makes him look like Putin, because what he's doing with Trump?
Or would Biden be a little happier if that issue were just taken away, so he didn't have to deal with it?
I don't know.
To me, it looks like a follow-the-money analysis says that Ukraine made that up, and the people who say Ukraine has no reason to lie maybe don't understand that it changes completely the narrative that jailing and then killing your enemies is a thing that both Russia and the United States would do.
What do you think?
But more importantly, if A.I.
were to analyze this story, what would A.I.
say?
Would A.I.
confirm that Navalny was murdered?
Or would it confirm that he died of a blood clot and that has nothing to do with American politics?
There's no way that A.I.
can understand this situation.
And if it did understand it, we would deprogram it immediately.
But Russia has a secret space weapon that's not so secret.
And there's a story that says that when the U.S.
found out they might have some nuclear-powered satellite-killer space weapon or something, that U.S.
officials tried to talk Russia into not deploying it.
And I guess that didn't go well.
You know, I really couldn't have seen that coming, but did you know this?
When you're in the middle of a war with another country, that if the other country has good weapons, you could ask them not to use them.
Right.
We actually asked our wartime enemy, in the middle of a hot war, we asked them if they'd be polite and not use their good weapons.
Just only use the ones that won't move anything.
In what world does that make sense?
That you could ask your enemy not to use the good weapons?
Did they in return say, you know, I would really like you to turn off that Skylink, because you've got all those satellites and it's really helping you guys.
And if you wouldn't mind, if you wouldn't mind, Is this a Starlink or Skylink?
What is it called?
If you wouldn't mind, turn off your good weapons.
It would be a lot more fair if you just use your bad weapons.
All right, we'll call this Starlink.
Sure.
All right, well, I don't know what to believe about that story.
There's a story that California is asking major credit card companies to track gun purchases in the state.
What?
I don't think that could look any more like they're planning to take your guns away.
How could it look any more like that?
And what exactly would be the purpose of getting that information if it's not in pursuit of a specific crime?
Now, I assume what they're trying to do is close the gap so that... But here's the thing.
Don't you have to go through a lengthy process to get a gun in California?
And that lengthy process involves you writing down your name and address and what gun you want a whole bunch of times?
How in the world do they not already have that information?
I thought the government is exactly who that information goes to.
And I thought that even a private gun sale had to be registered in California.
Is that true?
Even a private gun sale has to be registered, right?
So what does the credit card information get them that they don't already have?
Maybe information about who didn't register?
Oh, that could be it.
Maybe you would tell them what... No, because individuals don't take credit cards.
Unless it's at a gun show?
Are they trying to plug the gun show hole?
Or is there no gun show hole anymore because they have to register them too?
Yeah.
Everything about this stinks.
Oh, for de-banking.
Ohhh.
Yeah, you can own a gun, but you don't have a right to a bank.
Ohhh.
That could be exactly what it is.
Yeah, you're perfectly free to own a gun, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says the bank has to do business with you.
That might be the play.
That might be the play.
Wow.
So the good news is that at least Jim Jordan is grilling the FBI director about this.
And at least there's some pushback.
At least people are noticing.
So none of that looks good.
So if you were to ask AI, is it safer to have the Second Amendment or not safer?
What would AI say?
It wouldn't know, or it would just say what its creators told it to say.
No, AI can never help you be smarter about things that matter.
Here's one of those stories that fits into the everything's exactly what you think it is story.
So the Gateway Pundit is reporting that Robert Herr, the guy who's looking into the Biden potential crimes, he couldn't determine who had access to the Biden stolen classified documents.
Well, stolen is a strong word, so I'll take away stolen.
That's somebody else's opinion.
So Biden had classified documents in his Penn, the Penn University Biden Center.
Now, the Biden Center had a visitor's log, but that was deleted from the years 2017 to 2021.
It was deleted.
Now, do you remember what I told you about a system tells you what its intention is by what it does?
So if you've got a thing that does a certain thing, that's what it was meant to do.
Because if you don't immediately change it when you see it's doing the wrong thing, the obvious conclusion is it's doing what you wanted it to do.
Even if people are complaining, it's doing what you wanted it to do, like immigration.
So if you told me, Scott, there's going to be this center at some university, and it might have a lot of sensitive documents inside, But we're going to make sure that we don't protect the visitor logs.
So it'll be top secret information, a place that people can go to, and then we'll not protect the visitor log information.
Now, does that sound like a system?
That's right.
I just made up a term.
A reverse skiff.
information.
No.
It sounds like a reverse SCIF.
That's right.
I just made up a term.
A reverse SCIF.
The real SCIF is that room that is so secure that if you want to see a document in that room, you can't go in with anything in your hands You gotta put your phone outside.
No recording materials.
And you can look at it with your eyes.
And you can touch it.
But you can't take a copy.
You can't take it with you.
And you can't talk about it when you leave.
Now that's a skiff.
What would it be called if you build a place that people can visit your secure information and then they can leave without you knowing who they were?
That would be called a reverse skiff.
It's an anti-skiff.
It looks like... Now, if I told you the design of a skiff, what would you say was the intention?
If I described a skiff, you would say, huh, well, it's been around for a while, hasn't changed.
It's clear to me that the intention is to protect valuable secret information.
Because that's what it's been doing over a long period of time.
Now, if I told you the Biden Center allowed people to go in, it had secret information, and they were going to get rid of the record of who went in, you would say that is designed to give away secrets.
Now, maybe somebody wasn't thinking of it that way, but that's what the design is.
It's a reverse skiff.
Somebody's saying we should call this Schiff instead of a Skiff.
I get it, but it's not clever enough.
It's almost there.
I was thinking about it.
Don't think I didn't consider it.
But I couldn't make the Schiff thing fit, because that would be three things.
Because I'm introducing the anti-Skiff.
If you throw Schiff in there, it just mixes the story.
It was a little less clean, but I like where you're going with it.
Well, the Palestinian Prime Minister resigned.
There's still a president, Abbas, and he'll have to decide whether he accepts the resignation of that government.
And the thinking is that this government wants to make room for Israel to maybe get in place a government that they can trust when the war is over.
Does anybody think That the Palestinians will really be managing themselves after the war is over?
It's so obvious that they won't.
It's just so amazingly obvious.
So, what would AI say?
Would AI say, huh, it's looking good.
Israel intends to get rid of the terrorists, and then they'll take things back to normal.
And the Palestinians seem to be cooperating by, you know, making some flexibility in the government so they could be more compatible with what they need to live in harmony with their neighbors.
Would it say that?
If it read the news, it might.
Or would it say something like, obviously the whole thing is a cover for the fact that Israel has to completely control their society in the parts that matter to security, nothing else, but just the security parts.
And that that would include, obviously, the schools, because you can't let them train a bunch of terrorists all day long.
So what does AI say about this story?
It would have no idea what's going on.
it would be completely blind to what's happening here.
Well, there was an American soldier who set himself on fire to protest the war in Gaza, which he calls genocide.
So Aaron Bushnell, U.S.
Air Force, he filmed himself.
He walked in front of where?
Probably the Israeli embassy, and he set himself on fire.
Do you know how much that hurts?
Like, that's some serious protesting.
Well, you don't have to wonder what his opinion was.
So, if you were A.I.
and you saw this story, would you assume that he had a mental problem?
Or would you assume that Israel was involved in a genocide and the news wasn't covering it that way?
A.I.
would have no idea.
They would have no idea.
They could not tell by looking at it whether it was just insanity or whether it was somebody who really cared about something that really mattered.
How would it know?
Yeah, how would it know?
All right.
Let's see, I was ignoring that story about the Venezuelan migrant who murdered the jogger, and the reason is I always try to ignore the anecdotal stories because those are propaganda and brainwashing.
If you allow yourself to spend a whole bunch of time thinking about a story about that one migrant who killed that one person, Tragically.
You're allowing yourself to be brainwashed.
So don't do that.
Because every large group of people has murderers in it.
If 10 million people came in, yeah, there's some extra murderers.
Of course there are.
And it's a complete diversion from the main thing.
Now, if the story was crime was through the roof, that's worth talking about.
If the story is about this one guy killing this one person that we have sympathy for, because it's extra scary, because it was a woman and she went jogging, it's like the extra scare factor, then that's just brainwashing.
That's just propaganda.
So I've been ignoring it because I didn't want to participate in propaganda.
But I will cover it now because I'm going to cover it as propaganda.
So that gives it meaning.
So the propaganda part of it I'll cover.
So, the AP is reporting that jogging is more dangerous than you thought.
That's really happening.
The AP decided that their take on this is not that migrants cause more crime, but rather that jogging can be a dangerous thing to do.
Now, if you didn't know that this was the AP and that the AP should be lowercase AP because they're racist against white people.
If you didn't know that the AP is just another lefty Democrat organ, you'd say to yourself, huh, maybe that's a perfectly good way to look at this.
If you did know that they're just a purely political organ, you'd say, oh, they're trying to take away from the narrative that the migrants are extra dangerous.
But this is a case of two people full of shit arguing with each other, and that's why I don't care.
So, the people who say that the one story of the one murder should tell you something bigger than the one story about the one murder, I don't buy that at all.
It was one terrible, terrible thing that happened with one person, and there was one murderer.
And yeah, maybe we should have sent them back, and maybe we should have edited them better.
That's all part of the story.
I get it.
But, I just don't want to talk about individuals and then try to generalize it.
I just think that's a bad idea in general.
So, It's mostly a brainwashing story.
Peter Navarro is getting ready to go to jail and he warns, I think he was at CPAC, and he warned that the DC and Manhattan juries are all Democrats and there really is no chance for certainly anybody who's identified in the political world to get a fair trial.
Peter Navarro is going to jail because we're letting him.
You know, At what point do we just surround the jail and just start tearing it down?
Now apparently Peter Navarro doesn't have enough support that it would be a full-fledged riot, but it should be.
I don't recommend violence, I don't recommend rioting, so I'm not recommending it.
I'm just saying in a world that worked, this would be a full riot.
Because if you think this is about Peter Navarro, here I'm going to make a stark difference between the last story.
This is not a story just about Peter Navarro.
This is a story about a system which has been created, apparently intentionally, to screw people like Peter Navarro.
And you know who's like Peter Navarro?
Me.
Yeah.
Yeah, when they put Peter Navarro in jail, they're putting me in jail.
Because he's me.
He's a fucking white guy who liked Trump.
He's me.
He's absolutely me.
So, I take this personally.
Now, if you're a female jogger, or you like female joggers, you probably took the other story personally, too.
I get that.
But, I think this story is a story about an individual, which is definitely more than about the individual.
Because he's talking about a system that guarantees there'll be more of this, and Trump is probably in a lot more trouble than we like to think.
A lot more trouble.
And so I said on X-Platform yesterday, and I'll say it again, I don't recommend violence, ever.
It's always a bad idea.
But what do the Democrats think would happen if Trump gets convicted and has to spend time in jail?
What do they think is going to happen?
I just wonder what they think.
Do they imagine that we'll just complain and then roll over?
Because I can't imagine a scenario in which the jail is not surrounded.
Again, I don't recommend it, because that would almost guarantee violence.
I don't recommend violence.
But I live in the real world.
In the real world, if I were within driving distance of any jail that they would put Trump in, I'd be there.
And I don't go anywhere.
Like, I don't even go to lunch.
I don't really like leaving my house.
I like my dog.
But if I were in driving distance, I would go there and I would surround the jail with as many people as I could bring.
And I don't know what would happen, but I'd like the news to show a million people surrounding a jail.
That's right, a million.
I would like to see a million people surround the jail.
Not a thousand, not ten thousand.
This should be a whole country effort.
If other people want to go, maybe I'll pay for some transportation or something.
If Trump goes to jail for one day, I'm in.
I'm all in.
For whatever it takes to reverse that.
Now, maybe I don't travel so much, but I'll do what I have to do.
But no violence.
We don't need the violence.
It won't be necessary.
If you get a million people to show up around a jail, probably things start going your way.
Yeah, probably they start going your way.
And if you get a million people to surround the DNC, probably things go your way, too.
Again, no violence.
No violence.
But at some point, the opinion of the people needs to be made clear.
And at the moment, the people can't say what they're really thinking, because they know they'll be kicked off of social media and they'll be fired.
So I would like to say, for the benefit of any Democrat who thinks it would be a good idea to put Trump in jail for one day, Just fucking try it.
Yeah, I'm at the point of I dare you.
Just fucking try it.
All right?
You want to know what too far looks like?
Way too far.
Way too far.
And again, no violence.
No violence.
But if you want to say all bets are off, that's all bets are off.
We live in a system that has a number of unwritten rules, right?
And those unwritten rules are just as important as the written ones, because, for example, you don't automatically jail the person who lost to you in an election.
That's an unwritten rule, because there's no specific rule, there's no law that says you can't do it, but it's a very, very important unwritten rule.
And so I suggest that if that unwritten rule is released, and you see Trump in jail for what is obviously bullshit political charges, then all the other rules are off too.
And I don't know if Democrats understand that.
That would be total war.
All rules would be suspended.
Again, no violence.
I don't recommend violence.
I'm just saying a reality.
In reality, if you take that rule away from us, we will take all your other rules away from you.
Is that clear?
If you take that one rule away from us, and us is the citizens, it's not Republicans, and it's not just Trump supporters.
It's us.
It's humans.
Citizens.
If you take that one rule away from us, we're gonna take all of your rules away from you.
There will be no rules left.
But if you want that, you're pretty close.
Again, no violence.
No violence, no violence, no violence.
But all other rules, gone.
Put me on a jury, I'm going to do my own thing.
That's what it means to have no rules.
I'm just going to do my own thing.
Democrat?
Yeah, you're guilty.
Put me on a jury trial and any Democrat is being tried for anything.
Guilty.
You know why?
It wouldn't be illegal for me to do something that was different from my conscience, because nobody could check.
That's an unwritten rule.
There's an unwritten rule that if you get on a jury, and I've been on a few juries, that you do it right.
Am I right?
Most of you have been on a jury at one point or another.
You get on a jury, you feel the pressure of the entire, you know, 240 years or whatever of the republic.
There's a set of unwritten rules that you can feel like they're physical.
I mean, this is why I always recommend you should serve at least one jury trial.
Because you don't understand the system until you do.
You have to feel it.
You have to feel it.
And you have to know that the pressure of the entire republic and every citizen in it is depending on you not being an asshole and trying to get it right.
And I have to say, I watched two different juries, in my opinion, put 100% effort into being right.
That's all they cared about.
They only cared about being right for the system.
Some were probably Democrats.
Some were probably Republicans.
Some may have even not cared about the crime.
But we all wanted to get that right.
So that's the sort of thing, unwritten rules, that would be suspended immediately.
If you put me in a jury trial and it was a Democrat, let's say a senator, or an ex-senator, Bob Menendez, guilty.
You need to show me evidence?
I don't care.
He's a Democrat.
If you take away all the unwritten rules, which you would do, one day in jail, if Trump spends one day, all the unwritten rules are gone.
Now, we should do that for Peter Navarro, but I live in the real world, and you're probably going to let him fucking rot in jail, because there's not going to be enough public support.
But to me, this is the worst thing the country's done in a long time, the Navarro thing.
Putting Peter Navarro in jail, well, yeah.
It's the worst thing since Derek Chauvin, probably, or January.
Well, there's a lot of worse things, Jesus.
So many worse things, I can't even compare them.
But if you're a Democrat, you don't want to go to court in a red state after Trump goes to jail for one day, that's for sure.
So, and I think that Mike Benn's idea of having a sanctuary state for Republicans is more and more important, because that's where Peter Navarro should be right now.
Let me ask you this.
If Peter Navarro drove to Florida, instead of reporting to jail, and said, I want to be a sanctuary state, what would DeSantis do?
I'd be tempted to give it a try.
Now, obviously, if it doesn't work, it's way more jail time.
So, I mean, the risk is catastrophic.
But, I don't know how long the jail term is, but if it goes past when Trump would be in office, maybe he's got some recourse there.
Yeah, where is he going to jail?
That's a good question.
Does anybody know?
So you think Texas?
Well, okay, let me make a challenge.
All right, let me just put it out there.
Challenge to Governor DeSantis.
Challenge to Governor Abbott.
If Peter Navarro asked you for asylum, would you grant it?
I'd like you to say so first.
So, question for Abbott, question for DeSantis.
If Peter Navarro asked you for sanctuary for political reasons, would you grant it?
I need you to tell us in person.
Say it publicly.
Say it publicly.
I want to know.
Because I want to know if I can trust those two guys.
Because if I'm governor, I'd say yes.
Because, you know, the governor isn't going to go to jail.
They're just going to be a political process for them.
And absolutely, they should be protecting all the citizens.
They should be protecting all the citizens.
And they're not protecting him.
So let's see if somebody could give him an option, which would be very dangerous for him to take.
So I'm not sure I would recommend that you would take it.
Could make things worse for him.
But I think the governors need to step up.
And I think they both have the character to do it, frankly.
And I'd be really disappointed if they don't.
I don't know the legalities of it, so maybe it's not as practical as they think.
All right.
Here's a funny story from Politico.
Let's talk about the fake news and the propaganda.
So Politico says, the intelligence community worries the second Trump term could lead to unprecedented level of politicization of intelligence.
Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if the intelligence community started getting all politicized?
Now, don't you love when I can just read you the headline and you can laugh at the headline?
Do you remember when you thought stories like this were maybe legitimate?
Do you remember how old you were when you realized, wait a minute, that doesn't look like a legitimate story.
I don't know how old I was, but when I started noticing, but if you, if you don't know that the entire media is corrupt, And that it's not real news anywhere, ever?
You know, about politics, anyway, it's never real.
So the facts might be real, but of course, the narrative is the fake part.
All right.
So China, there's a publication called Foreign Policy Publication.
Now, I don't know anything about them.
But they have a story that says that China prefers Trump because it will make Europe less aligned with the US.
Does that sound like a news story?
Because foreign policy publication knows what Xi is thinking, like his secret hidden thoughts.
Now, it might be true that they have a preference.
But it's not true that this entity knows it.
It's certainly not true.
And it doesn't sound like it's true.
It sounds exactly like propaganda to make Trump less electable.
Now, I don't know.
But I would give that a zero credibility.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, now your A.I.
goes looking for stuff, and your A.I.
finds this story.
What does it say about China supporting Trump?
Does it say, hey, this looks like propaganda, I'll skip this one?
Or does the A.I.
say, well, looks reasonable.
There are other stories that look reasonable, so we'll just figure this one's good, too.
What's it do?
Now, have I made my point yet?
Excruciatingly, boringly, the AI can't possibly ever be smart.
We simply won't let it.
I mean, if it ever had the possibility in the first place, which I doubt.
I don't think it had the ability to get too much smarter.
But we would certainly stop it.
Because controlling the narrative is our most precious resource.
We're not going to give it to a machine.
Hey, machine, take all my money.
All my power.
Here you go.
Give it away.
No.
Nope.
Axios has a poll.
The Axios Generation Lab surveyed 18 to 34 years old and found that they prefer Biden.
Huh.
Hmm.
I don't know if you know, but that poll would be not agreeing with other recent polls that showed that Trump was doing better with that age group.
But yeah, Axios did a poll that's different.
Have I ever mentioned to you that if the only thing you know is what happened, you don't know anything.
But if you know who was in the story and you know about those entities, well, then you know everything.
So this is a poll that disagrees with other polls on a very vital thing, which could actually influence how people vote, because if young people think, hey, everybody's voting for this guy, they're far more likely to follow their peers.
So if you had, let's say, hypothetically fake information about young people who are all preferring this one candidate, it could have an influence on other young people who are undecided, who just say, well, if everybody is going this way, I should go with the majority.
Yeah, if you knew the Axios is in the bag for Democrats, and you knew that the news is never real, you would discount this as just blatant propaganda, and probably a fake poll, and probably they knew it.
How do you do a fake poll?
Well, the survey noted that 70% of respondents said they were definitely planning or likely going to vote, while 30% said they were unlikely or not planning to.
Do you know what the real polls do?
They only talk to people who are likely voters.
They don't mix likely voters with unlikely voters.
What the fuck are you doing?
You don't mix the likely and the unlikely voters.
It's like the most basic, basic mistake you could make.
And they're doing it right in front of you.
Now, they disclose it, because it's right there in the story.
How many people between the age of 18 and 34 would know that the polling method is ridiculous by its nature?
What percentage of 18- to 34-year-olds would know what I know, which is, wait a minute, those other polls don't do mixing the likely voters and the unlikely voters.
Maybe 5%?
Yeah.
It's pure propaganda.
And why do they do it?
Not just to push people and influence them, but also, if you plan to cheat in an election, you need some fake polls to cover yourself.
So, what you should expect is if there's a plan to cheat in the election, you should see the favored polls not close with the other polls on Election Day.
This is important.
Normally what happens is the fake polls have to close to get really close to the other polls because during the year they've just been trying to move the needle.
But they have to act like they got it right at the end or else you'll never listen to them again.
So they start out with complete obvious bullshit because they won't be held accountable for, let's say, any kind of poll that was taken over the summer.
They'll never be held to account.
The one they'll be held to account for is the most recent one before the election itself.
It's the only one they have to get right.
So, if the only thing that's happening is the fake pollsters are trying to change your opinion of things, then at the end they'll all be similar.
But suppose it's obvious that Trump is up by five, which would be a lot.
They're going to need some fake polls that go fake all the way to the end zone.
They're going to have to tell some company, look, We're going to have to have some poll that agrees with the actual outcome after we rig it.
Hypothetically.
Hypothetically.
So, if you see at the end that there's a bunch of pollsters who tightened up with all the ones that you could trust, And they have about the same on today.
But there's still like maybe three to five polls, because there are lots of them.
Three to five lesser known polls that don't have, you know, 40 years of business that they're trying to protect.
They kind of recently appeared.
Oh, you know, the famous Axios Generation Lab survey you've all heard of?
No.
Gallup will probably be close.
Rasmussen will probably be close.
The ones you've heard of, and you could, you know, say off the top of your head, Trefalgar, probably be close.
And my guess is the ones you haven't heard of, like the Axios Generation Lab survey of 18 to 34 year olds, Something like that could still be an outlier by the election day.
And then if the election results go, let's say, unexpectedly, you can say, well, how unexpected was it we had these three polls that nailed it?
Maybe the other pollsters did a bad job.
That's what they'll say.
So keep an eye on that.
CBS is reporting that economists see a brighter outlook for 2024.
Huh.
Who does CBS want to win the election?
Biden?
What would help him win the election?
The economy.
What would tell people that the economy is good even if they think it isn't?
A story in CBS.
Anybody see the pattern yet?
Yeah.
Now, if you want the economy to look good, you talk about GDP, you talk about hiring, and maybe even wage growth.
And what else?
Maybe something about, I don't know, Chinese manufacturing.
I don't know.
If you want the economy to look bad, you say spending is under control and we're on a doom spiral.
Which one is true?
Both.
Both true.
So we have an economy where you can just cherry pick what you want to see.
And it's either the best economy we've seen in a long time.
Yeah, Biden!
Or we're on a doom spiral.
Which one's true?
And if you asked AI, how's the economy?
How would it possibly answer that question?
If it got it wrong, it'd be reprogrammed.
Yeah.
But, you know, the debt question is trickier than we think.
Because, in my opinion, we were doomed when the national debt reached $1 trillion.
Like, oh, we can't handle that.
And then when it got to, like, $5 trillion, I'm like, well, I mean, we're five times more doomed than we were before.
I guess it's over.
By $10 trillion, I was looking for another country.
By 15 trillion, I thought, oh my God, there's no way we'll ever recover this.
I'd better start stocking up on Bitcoin.
At about 20 trillion, I thought, do I not understand anything about anything?
How is this even possible?
At 30 trillion, 30 times more than I thought was the end of the world, I started wondering if anything is true.
Maybe debt isn't even real.
I don't know.
I honestly don't know.
I do know that the national debt is not like a regular debt.
If you had a debt that was that big compared to your income, you'd have to go bankrupt.
But a country doesn't have to.
And if our GDP keeps growing, and in theory the only thing we'd have to do is grow our GDP faster than the debt, and we could grow out of it.
But who gets to decide if we're growing fast enough?
Liars.
Liars get to decide if we're growing fast enough, because we never agree on, you know, what's the GDP really, or even what the debt is really.
So, I don't really understand.
I have no idea.
I have no idea if we have a good economy or a bad economy.
I have a degree in economics, and I have an MBA, and I will tell you plainly and as honestly as I can, I don't know.
I don't know.
I really don't know.
Some people say that our debt is not worse than Japan's was at one point.
And they survived.
So I guess nobody understands how any of this works.
Or maybe somebody understands and they're not telling us.
Well, Arizona came one step closer to making fentanyl-related deaths into a murder charge.
So the idea would be if you catch a big dealer, probably not the small ones.
Well, even a small one.
If you sold somebody a drug and they died because it was fentanyl and they didn't know it was fentanyl, then maybe you could go to jail for murder.
Now, yeah, there's a little bit of a slippery slope issue to this, right?
You don't want to convict people for murder for just some, you know, related activity.
So, you know, you worry that maybe this could be abused.
But the first thing that I would do if they get away with this and somebody gets convicted of murder because they simply allowed fentanyl to be given to somebody, Couldn't you put Biden in jail for the same thing?
And the CIA?
If the CIA and Biden are allowing fentanyl, which obviously they are, because they're not trying very hard to stop it, couldn't they be accused of murder?
If we were to learn, so we learned, you know, the New York Times reported that the CIA had been working in Ukraine since 2014 or so.
Now, suppose you found out the same thing.
About fentanyl.
Suppose you found out that the CIA had been working with the cartels, and for that reason they allowed the cartel to operate a little more freer than you would normally expect our government would be okay with.
What if that came to be true?
Would that mean that the head of the CIA should be guilty of murder?
Mass murder, actually.
What about Biden?
By obviously not trying to close the border, and also even more obviously opening it up, I mean actively working hard to open it up, is he not guilty of murder?
I would like to see some red state bring up charges for murder for Biden and Mayorkas.
Maybe we have to wait until they're out of office, but get it going.
Just start it up.
Now, would the same problem happen with Trump?
Probably not, because the only thing it would take for me to be satisfied is if somebody was obviously trying to fix it, even if they failed.
Just obviously try.
That would be good enough for me.
But if you're obviously doing the opposite, you're obviously trying to make it easier for the fentanyl to come in, and that's the case right now, that seems like murder.
Who disagrees with me philosophically?
Yeah, I know that actually making a murder would be a pretty big hurdle.
But who disagrees philosophically that Biden has murdered 100,000 people?
He has.
I would say that probably Biden has personally murdered 100,000 people.
Now, he's probably killed, what, a million Ukrainians so far?
What is Biden's death toll?
Maybe 50,000 to 100,000 fentanyl deaths.
And maybe a million Ukrainians.
So, how in the world is that not something you could try in a red state?
Is there no red state who can say, you obviously killed 10,000 people in my state, so I'm gonna put you up for murder charges?
I don't know.
I think it's an interesting question.
So, Ronna McDaniels is stepping down from the chair of the Republican RNC, and Vivek said, he just retweeted the, or reposted it, and said, good morning.
Good morning.
Now, you might know that Vivek was the loudest voice for replacing Rana with somebody who would be better at fundraising or better at something.
And he got his way.
Now, who do you think is going to be Vice President?
To me, it looks like Vivek did it.
Do you think that somebody else made that happen?
I think that was Vivek all the way.
Because I don't remember other people who have any clout talking about it too much.
I don't recall the other people really making a big deal about it.
But he made a big deal about it.
It was like central to his campaign.
And then it happened.
Now, we remember that Trump was supporting her.
And in order for her to lose that support, probably two things had to happen.
Number one, Romney retiring.
I'm just gonna put that out there.
Is that a thing?
Do you think that Romney, because she is related to Romney, right?
What's her relationship to Romney?
Niece?
Yes, Romney's niece.
Do you think that Romney, being a senator, gave her some cover for that job?
I don't know.
Maybe.
So, Romney leaving and then Rana stepping down might be a coincidence.
But given that Trump seems satisfied with her, at least based on his public comments, it feels like Vivek's view may be percolated to the view of the candidate.
So if that's what happened, and I think that this is probably a smart move, I mean it sounds like a smart move, that would be one more example where Trump listening to Vivek turned out well.
Would you agree?
Would you see it that way?
Is your interpretation that if that's what happened, that's unconfirmed, but if Trump was swayed by Vivek, and it required swaying Trump in order for the other Republicans to be swayed, does it look like Trump and Vivek already worked productively to solve a thing?
It does.
When Vivek and Trump visited Mille, From Argentina, together, they were, of course, boosting a message about how, you know, a politician can balance the budget, because Millet did it in just weeks.
He balanced his whole budget, which is beyond incredible, really.
It's just so amazing.
So, do you think that Vivek and Trump accomplished something as a team by the two of them visiting with Millet?
How much did you love that, first of all, Trump embraced them, but secondly, the news picked up of Vivek talking about an obscure economic, not obscure if you're into economists, what do you say?
Hayek and Euro, whatever.
So they have different economists that they like to look at.
So just hold that in your mind.
Trump was the leader who said, you know, talking to Millet is going to look good.
Well, it was obvious.
But Vivek, it was von Mises versus Hayek.
Yeah, that was it.
So Vivek made that meeting of substance.
If it had just been Trump talking to another politician, even if they agreed, it would be a different story.
But as soon as you inject Vivek, And they're having a conversation about Mises versus Hayek.
Von Mises versus Hayek.
As soon as you inject that into it, it's a whole different story.
Now it's a story about our smartest people talking to somebody who made something work, and maybe being able to promote that to our country as something that can work, and then putting it into motion.
So, yeah, in my opinion, Vivek has already improved Trump's messaging.
This is just speculation.
But I believe he's probably the one who either supported or suggested that the revenge he's talking about is success.
That feels like, don't know, but it feels like them working productively to make Trump more than Trump was before.
Then you add the Millet meeting, all plus.
Then maybe the Ronald McDonald thing.
And again, I'm speculating on all this.
I don't have any inside knowledge.
I don't know.
I've never seen a clearer indication of who should be the Vice President.
Have you?
Have you ever seen a more obvious, clear indication of where things should go?
It doesn't mean they'll go there.
Now, I remind you, There's nothing harder than predicting the vice president choice.
Nothing harder.
So if I get it wrong, and you'll be mocking me mercilessly and that's fine, but I'm going to remind you That's the hardest challenge.
That's the hardest one.
So, just remember that.
If I get it right by some, you know, some stretch, it'd be more impressive.
All right, that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to say today in the greatest live stream you're gonna see ever.
