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, Netflix Octopus Murders, Embodied AI, Pope Francis, Gender Ideology, Russia Propaganda, Canada Free Speech, Grok Legislation Analysis, Brazilian Government, Siloed Dissidents, Catherine Herridge Contempt, James O'Keefe Equinox, Judge Engoron, President Trump's Charisma, President Biden, Crime Rate Data, Whoopi Goldberg, SCOTUS Presidential Immunity, Biden's Accomplishments, Rural White Voters, X Misgender Deboosting, Elon Musk, California Reparations, 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
Now, I want to tell you that you don't have to be a racist to use YouTube or any of the other Google products, but it does help.
It does help.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that even a racist like Google can't understand, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker, chalice of stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Yay.
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 good.
That's good.
Well, let's see what's happening.
So Netflix apparently has some new series.
Texas Lindsay is posting about this.
And apparently it's a reality-based thing based on the allegation that there are eight ex-CIA people who run the world.
I would recommend that you watch that quickly.
Before Netflix coincidentally goes out of business, or possibly there's a terrible terrorist attack on their data center.
Because if any of this is true, they're all going to be killed.
And it's called The Octopus Murders.
So I'm guessing, after watching enough Mike Benz material about how the country is really being run, this is really interesting.
Now the allegation is that the octopus, which is all the tentacles of the, you know, the shadowy people, apparently they can just murder anybody they want.
You know I'm going to watch that.
I'm all in on that.
Netflix.
I'd be, I'm just kind of amazed that it even exists.
Are you kind of surprised that that even exists and got on, got onto Netflix?
Anyway, Speaking of that, by coincidence, if you were a subscriber to the Dilbert comic, which is the only way you can watch it now, either on X you can subscribe or you can get lots of my political stuff plus the comic on the Locals, scottadams.locals.com, but you'd be watching today the CIA doing a takeover of Dilbert's company.
How long do you think it takes the CIA to completely dominate and take over Dilbert's company?
It goes like this.
Have you ever been to any sketchy islands?
Not since Epstein died.
Here's a video of you in a blue dress.
And we're done.
Ten seconds.
Ten seconds it took the CIA to take over Dilbert's company.
While the robots are coming, I guess OpenAI is going to use a company called Figure to make the robots that their AI will go into.
So, they're calling it Embodied AI.
Embodied AI?
We don't need a new name for robots.
Unless they're smart robots.
I mean, do we really have to call them smart robots?
That's sort of like, do you remember years ago when they called computers multimedia computers?
And he knew that would go away because all computers are multimedia, you know, eventually.
So it seems to me since all robots are going to be AI, we don't need the word embodied AI pretty soon.
Maybe by the end of the year that one will be gone.
And what do you think?
Is this the beginning of the robots taking over?
Are you worried that there will be real robots that are doing their own thinking?
I'm gonna say no.
Gonna say no.
I think that we will easily handle that risk.
I'm not worried about the robots.
I think, you know, we know how to make consumer goods that, you know, get rid of most of the risk.
I worry about AI that's in the system.
You know, some AI that gets loose in the Internet in general and it's disembodied.
So I'm not worried about embodied AI, because I think we can stop them by stopping the body.
We'll probably have, you know, a kill switch on the physical body.
But I do worry about AI that's a virus someday.
That seems like it'd be a problem.
And I think there's some report now that there is an AI virus that can hop from one AI to another.
That's pretty scary.
So I'd be worried about that.
The Pope has made a strong stand against gender ideology, he calls it.
Pope Francis.
And I realize that if I had not read that the Pope's name is Francis, I don't think I would have remembered it.
How many of you, if you were quizzed on the street, would know that the name of the Pope is Francis?
It's Pope Francis.
I'm just curious.
How many of you would have known that?
Now, is it because I'm just not paying attention and all Popes look like the same guy to me?
A lot of you would have known it.
Okay.
I'm kind of impressed.
I suppose if you're Catholic, it's easier.
Yeah.
But I don't even know his name.
It's weird.
Is that because the Pope is that much less important?
Or this one's less of a superstar?
Oh, it's probably because he's less of a superstar.
He's not going around, you know, doing a lot of fancy trips and stuff.
But anyway, he says that gender ideology is the worst danger of our time.
It makes everything the same.
And I guess it gets rid of the special, what do you call it?
The special tension between the sexes that is productive.
Well, that's the Pope's point of view.
Do you think gender ideology is the worst danger of our time?
That feels like a bit of an exaggeration.
Really?
I would say DEI is more dangerous.
Because I think there's a natural limit on the gender ideology stuff.
I think it's mostly limited to the mentally ill and some very small percentage of people who have something that's more legitimate, like they're born different.
Would you agree?
I think gender ideology has a natural cap.
There's a limit to how brainwashed you can get.
I don't think you're going to brainwash the average person.
And I think, here's another, I don't know if this is a good comparison, but did you know that the percentage of young women who are vegetarians in college is like super high?
Did you all know that?
When young women go to college, the number, I think it's like a third, like one third of them are vegetarians or something.
It's a real high number.
But then as soon as they get out, you know, it normalizes with the rest of the population.
Probably the same with same-sex experimentation.
You know, there's a lot of stuff that happens when you're young that you decide not to do later.
Anyway, I see his argument.
I don't know it's the biggest problem.
I feel like it's naturally limited, but we'll see.
I think DEI is the bigger problem.
Glenn Greenwald is talking about something that could be called Russia Derangement Syndrome, but he hasn't used that phrase.
That's my own.
He's talking about a few current examples.
Somebody on the X platform says that Senator Schumer should investigate Speaker Johnson because he's working with Putin.
So now we're blaming the Speaker of the House, you know, who's never had any kind of suggestion of that kind of impropriety.
Suddenly he's working with Putin, because everything you don't like is Putin.
And then, separately, Pelosi recently called on the FBI, this is Greenwald saying this, to investigate pro-Palestinian protesters to see if they have Kremlin ties.
So now we think the pro-Palestinian people are maybe Russian-inspired.
Maybe Johnson is being run by the Russians.
And as Greenwald points out, it's a form of mass mental illness.
But is it?
Do you think it's mass mental illness is sort of the same as Trump derangement syndrome?
Because this feels a little different.
You know what it feels like?
It feels like more evidence that humans are no different than AI, and that what we think is our thinking is really large language model patterns.
If you just dropped in, you know, an unprogrammed person like a human being, you just dropped him into 2024, and you just say, you know, listen to how people are talking, you know, try to form some opinions, You would find that there's such a thick discussion that it's usually people know they're lying.
Remember the original Russia collusion thing, the people who created it knew they were lying.
I imagine a lot of the people who spread it knew they were lying.
So the large language model would be trained on nothing but lies about Russia.
Would you agree?
If you trained a large language model, explain Russia to us, it would be trained on 100% lies, because that's all we ever hear about Russia.
We never hear anything real about Russia.
It's all lies.
Or it's all, you know, put into context that's friendly to the people telling the story.
So how would people be different?
Everything that a human learns is by looking at what else is going on.
You know, they're looking at the total society, what people say, and it's exactly the same as AI.
So I'm not sure this is a form of mass hysteria the way Trump derangement syndrome definitely is.
This feels different.
It feels that there are so many lies on the topic that it has become Essentially embedded in our intelligence that the first thing you suspect is Russia It's just on the top of your mind.
So I think it's really a top-of-mind problem And the fact that there's so much repetition of these similar kinds of lies That I don't know if it's it doesn't look like mental illness to me like Trump derangement syndrome literally is mental illness Literally, it's a massive hysteria.
This doesn't look like it the Russia stuff looks like some combination of Pattern and lying and you know something a little more ordinary, but terrible terrible It's a problem, but more ordinary it feels Well, here's something that's not ordinary.
And apparently I became a semi-viral clip because I doubted that this could possibly be real.
And I still do.
Because I can't wrap my head around it.
I just can't wrap my head around this could be real.
That Canada, so End Wokeness on the X platform says this, says Canada is trying to pass a new law that will crack down on hate on the internet and other telecommunications.
And the bill would allow judges to sentence a person to life in prison, For advocating genocide in words.
So if you went on Twitter and said, everybody in some category should be killed, you would go to jail for life for your opinion.
Now, I think you're a very bad person if you think everyone should be killed.
But let's game this out a little bit.
So let's say that you say that the situation in Gaza is a genocide.
Now, I'm not going to agree or disagree.
I'll say, for example, that Erdogan from Turkey says it's approaching a genocide or is a genocide.
A lot of commentators are calling it a genocide.
Again, not my opinion.
I'm not giving you any opinion on that.
I'm just describing it.
So, suppose we get to the point where it's a common opinion That what's happening in Gaza, let's say it's a common opinion in Canada, hypothetically, that whatever's happening at some point starts to look like a genocide.
And people start using that word.
And then what happens, let's game it a little bit further.
If somebody goes on and says, you know what?
Goes on social media and says, I think what the Israeli military is doing is exactly right because, in my opinion, let's say it saves more lives later or there was nothing else you could do.
Whatever the opinion is.
Again, not my opinion.
I'm giving you some examples.
Would you be very close at that point to have advocated genocide?
Because other people Including the head of Turkey have said this thing's a genocide, and then you just said you're in favor of it.
You don't have to use the word genocide.
Apparently you just have to be in favor of it on social media.
Now did I just describe a case where everybody who said a pro-Israeli thing could be sentenced to life in prison?
I think so.
Is that too much for a stretch?
If it is commonly understood to be a genocide, I'm not saying it is, I'm saying if Canada, you know, decides government-wise it's totally a genocide, and that I say Israel is doing the right thing, do I go to jail for life?
Because I accidentally was in favor of a genocide?
According to somebody else's definition of that word?
Well, this is the worst looking thing I've ever seen in my life.
Now, let's take me.
If you follow the news, you know the news said that I said something terribly hateful about black Americans.
That's the way the news reported it.
What's the truth?
What I said was, oh, based on this professional survey, a very large percentage of black Americans seem to have a bad opinion about me.
For being white.
Now, that's either true or not, and so I said, if, if it's true, you should stay away from people who have a bad opinion of you.
Do I go to jail in Canada for saying that?
That you should stay away from people who are trained by DEI and CRT and DSJ, actually trained by the government.
Officially trained by the government to see me as the problem, and that I have their money and need to give it back.
Reparations, etc.
Now, you should stay away from that situation.
You should run away from it if you can.
I don't know how you could, really.
It's hard to get away.
You'd have to cease that or something.
But it has nothing to do with any quality of black Americans.
It's not about genetics or culture.
It's literally about white people brainwashing a segment of the population to hate me.
Because if it were for the white people, There wouldn't be any ESG and CRT and DEI.
It would be this marginal little idea that people ignored.
It's white people I was complaining about.
Did anybody understand that, by the way?
I don't know.
I don't think I've ever said it as clearly as I'm saying it now.
There would be no problem if white people weren't the main cause.
So, I think people took it as an attack on black America, because that's sort of the bad wording I used.
I said, stay away.
But not stay away because I don't like them.
I love black people.
I've had only positive experiences in person.
Only.
In person, 100% positive experience.
I like anybody who's got an interesting story.
I like anybody who's nice to me.
I like anybody who's got a sense of humor.
And that usually covers most people, right?
Most people are nice to you if you're nice to them.
So, I love black people.
But if the government is going to weaponize them against me, and when I say the government, I'm not talking about black people in the government.
I'm talking about mostly white people promoting and letting it happen.
So my problem is specifically with my people.
My complaint is my people.
The problem that my people are causing is a rift Between me and black Americans that I would very much like to enjoy, you know, a full relationship with.
But it's very hard when my people are teaching black Americans that I'm the problem.
How am I supposed to navigate that?
So I say I'll stay away from it because I don't know how to navigate a situation where my people are telling some other group they should hate me.
What do I do about that?
You should get away.
Try to find some way not to be in that situation, whatever it takes.
Now, according to me, I've said nothing that is hate speech, only good advice that basically anybody would agree with.
If you explained it the way I just explained it, literally nobody would disagree.
Nobody.
But if I traveled to Canada, Or became a Canadian citizen.
Let's say I'm just a visitor.
Could I go to jail?
How does that work?
I mean, it's a law in Canada.
I don't have to be a Canadian citizen, do I?
What if I just simply, I'm in Toronto, and I send down a post from Toronto?
Do I go to jail?
The fact that I don't know the answer to that question, at the same time we're watching Russia, I'm sorry, I called Canada Russia because it's so similar.
Watching them go after Jordan Peterson for his free speech, trying to take away his license.
I would never travel to Canada for tourism.
Canada is actually completely off my list as of today.
Before that, I would have said, eh, they're not going to bother me, I'm just a tourist.
I feel sorry for the citizens, but if I just want to visit, that's no problem.
But at the moment, if this were to pass, I would never go to Canada.
I would feel that that would be literally a risk of jail, and it would be a high risk.
It wouldn't be a low risk.
It looks like it would be a pretty high risk, because, you know, if you're a political person, you know, the feelers are out.
So, Canada, you just destroyed your tourism for people like me.
Elon Musk says that Grok, the AI he's created for the X platform, will soon be able to summarize complicated legislation so you know what's in it.
How much do you love that?
You might actually understand what you're... And it's funny that AI, we would have to use AI to untangle the confusopoly that our government intentionally creates, it's all intentional, so that we don't understand what they're doing.
We actually have a government that's a confusopoly.
Meaning that we can't really participate because they're lying to us about everything.
We don't even know what we're talking about most of the time.
We don't have real facts.
You know, what they tell us is too confusing to understand.
All the lawfare against Trump is so confusing now.
If you're not actually a lawyer, it's really hard to follow 91 indictments, four cases, several venues, different schedules.
Yeah.
So what if Grok could summarize the bills?
Do you think he can?
Do you think Grok, any time in the future, with any amount of correction and tweaking, could summarize legislation?
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say it's going to fail.
Do you know why?
It's going to fail because AI is trained on humans, and humans can't do this.
Do you get that yet?
In other words, if a human looked at one of these bills, and let's say we were smart enough, and AI is smart enough, to know what all the parts are, so we could at least sort out what it's doing, what would you do then?
Once you understood it, what would you do?
Suppose you had to describe it.
As soon as you go to describe it, which is the useful part, like this does this or this does that, it's a narrative.
So, AI can't do narratives, or if it did, it shouldn't, because the narrative is the brainwashing, the propaganda, the framing.
We don't want it to do that, but it can't not do that.
It doesn't have the option.
So you're either going to have one that's biased by its creators in one way or biased by its creators in another way.
Suppose the bill said something like like Biden is saying.
So Biden is saying the Republicans are to blame because they didn't approve the border bill that would give funding that would be very useful to reducing the illegal flow.
So what would Grok say about that?
That's a narrative, not a simple description.
Would Grok say, they're asking for some money for the border, and just leave it at that?
Because you wouldn't know if that's good or bad.
Right?
Suppose it said, it's money for the border that definitely will make it easier to stop illegals.
Is that accurate?
Because I thought they do a clever thing where they say everybody's legal.
You see where I'm going with this?
We play this game where we call the illegal migrants legal because we just make them go through a certain doorway where if you say, can you say the word asylum?
Ah, asylum.
Good enough.
You're legal now.
You see what I mean?
So we turn them from illegal to legal simply by saying you're legal now.
That's all we'll do.
Now would Grok pick that up?
Would he know that the purpose of the bill, the funding to increase border funding, would they know that the secret real reason for that Is not to decrease anybody.
It's basically just to bring them in under the legal umbrella, but it's all the same.
Whether they came in and gave their name or not, it's all the same.
So, do you think Grok could ever learn to suss out what is the trick and what is the real implication?
I say no, because the only access it would have would be narratives that we've created.
So the best it could do is say, here's what it says.
I've simplified it.
Here's what the Democrats tend to say about it.
Here's what the Republicans tend to say about it.
But it's not going to go further than that.
And you know, that's all that we have on TV right now.
If you put, if I turn on the TV and say, hey, tell me about this border bill.
I'm going to hear Republicans say this, Democrats say that, and I don't know what's true.
I just know what they say.
So I think the problem is that we imagine that AI is intelligent in some independent way.
It's not.
It's just a reflection of us.
And we imagine that it can solve a problem that is sort of data factual, when that was never the problem.
The problem is not just understanding The details of what it says.
It's all the narrative interpretation.
You know, who's in on this?
Who gets helped by it?
Who gets elected because of it?
That's all the real stuff.
That's the stuff you got to understand.
Grok's not going to get you there.
All right.
Tucker Carlson is saying that the Biden administration helped install a pro-Chinese government in Brazil.
Which immediately shut down opposition media and began arresting dissidents.
They talked to two of its victims.
All right, every part of this statement makes your eyes go, what?
Wait a minute, the Biden administration installed a government in Brazil?
We installed the government of Brazil?
Of course we did.
Because we install all the governments in our hemisphere, and if we don't, the CIA has to get fired because that's their job.
The job of the CIA is to make sure that our hemisphere is kind of on our team, and everybody knows it, right?
So I guess nobody should be surprised at that, but it's just funny to see it in writing.
You're not supposed to write it down.
You're just supposed to sort of know it.
But was it a pro-Chinese government?
I don't know about that.
I suppose that would be an opinion.
But I would like to add that why do we think that our government is better than that?
You know, the way it's framed is, you know, too bad they don't have our freedoms here.
Am I wrong that we don't have anything like a free press?
We don't have freedom of speech.
Not even close.
We have in America the freedom to say things that don't bother people who matter.
We have the freedom to say things that don't bother the people who matter.
If it bothers them, you will get cancelled.
And you just won't be able to talk to anybody anymore.
Because it bothers the wrong people.
We don't have any freedom of speech here.
Not even a little bit.
We have only the freedom not to bother important people, which is exactly like having no freedom.
So we have fake news here that I mean, basically, the most of the press is controlled by the CIA, it looks like, at least for the geopolitical stories.
And so we have the freedom to be part of a fake news entity and we have the freedom to listen to fake news.
And on social media, we know that we're being suppressed if the government doesn't like us.
So in my case, I'd love to know if Elon Musk could even answer the question of why I'm in such a silo that not even no Democrat ever sees my material now.
On social media.
I have over a million followers and I don't think anybody who's a Democrat ever sees my material.
We're so little it's trivial.
So what is my point of even talking?
I have no persuasive capabilities because I don't cross over to anybody who disagrees with me.
I end up talking to people who largely agree with me, and maybe we'll learn something or a better way to say it, but, yeah.
Is there anybody here who's a Democrat that is here because they want to hear a different point of view?
Anybody?
Even one person?
I'm just looking at, see if there's anybody here.
Oh, we have an ex-Democrat.
That's as close as we can get.
Yeah, no.
So, we have fake freedom of speech because you can't get your speech to anybody who disagrees with you.
And talking to people who agree with you is like pretty close to, not even close, to free speech.
What other fake freedoms do we have?
Well, let's see, Catherine Herridge, the reporter, was fired from CBS.
And she was one of the people who reported on the Hunter laptop story, etc.
And so she might be too much of a truth teller, people are suspecting.
And now there's a judge that's holding her in civil contempt for refusing to divulge her sources.
Does that sound like Freedom of the press?
Freedom of the press?
Does it sound like the courts are doing their job?
Just objectively doing their job?
Well, let's find out a little bit more about this court.
Let's see.
The judge, Chuck Ross, who's at Chuck Ross DC on the X platform, he says the same judge and Obama appointee, so the judge who's holding Catherine Herridge in civil contempt, same judge,
An Obama appointee blocked special counsel John Durham from entering evidence against Clinton lawyer Michael Sussman that would have detailed their plot to leak false Trump-Russia info into the media.
Huh.
Okay, well, you know, it's a small town.
You know, everybody who's an important lawyer, an important judge, they've probably had contact with other important cases.
So, I mean, by itself.
That's not too alarming, is it?
That's not too alarming.
So why would we be worried about this judge being some kind of, like, biased judge?
Oh, also from Chuck Ross, the judge, his name is Christopher Cooper, he's married to a Democrat lawyer, Amy Jeffries, who represented Lisa Page.
Do you remember Lisa Page?
From the Russia collusion situation.
Yeah, Strzok's girlfriend.
So now let me ask you this.
When was the last time you could not predict the outcome of a trial based on the political leaning of the judge?
I don't remember a time.
I'll say it again.
When was the last time you didn't know the result of the trial Just by knowing who appointed the judge.
It's pretty much every time, you know.
Right, for the political stuff.
Not so much for the just ordinary crimes.
But why do we have a court if we always know how it's gonna go based on who took the case as the judge?
That's not even, that's nothing like freedom.
That's not even in the general neighborhood of any kind of a justice system that's, like, real.
That's not a real system.
I don't know what it is, but it's not any kind of real justice system.
All right.
Did you see the story about James O'Keefe?
He went in disguise again.
again.
This time he joined a gym, Equinox gym, and he found out the gym where Judge N'Goran goes to the gym.
And his disguise is he puts on a Tim Pool beanie, and it works again.
James O'Keefe, master of disguise.
It just works.
I'd like to give you now my impression of James O'Keefe going undercover.
Oh.
you Here I am, James O'Keefe.
You probably all recognize me, but watch this.
Not James O'Keefe.
You'd never recognize me now.
I swear to God, he could go undercover just by getting a haircut.
He could put like an earring in his ear and go undercover.
Nobody would recognize him.
And I don't know, it just gets funnier and funnier.
Every time he goes undercover, there's something about it that just gets funnier.
But here's the scoop he came away with.
The scoop he came away with is that the judge is kind of scrawny for a guy who goes to the gym every day.
He's got a little noodle arms, you know, he's a certain age.
So I mean, it's fine but But then but then the other part of the story is there's somebody else's Jim says that the judges is always creeping on the women And there's this grainy video with no audio I think where where the woman seems to go like this like put her hand out like she's you know Telling him to go away I suspect that's not what she was saying.
Probably it was just a hand gesture for whatever she was talking about.
But he did go away.
So maybe it was.
Maybe he was creeping on her at the gym.
I just love that story.
I don't know.
It's just silly.
The whole thing.
The disguise.
The scoop.
I love every part of that.
All right.
So, of course, Biden and Trump visited the border at about the same time in different places.
Biden went where there wasn't much problem, and Trump went where there was a big problem.
Now, I saw a video yesterday, and I need a fact check, because I don't know if it's real.
Because if it were real, it would be all over the news, but it isn't.
Is it true that Trump waved to the illegals who were on the other side of the fence because they were chanting Trump, Trump, Trump?
Is that true?
Oh my God.
Do you know that Trump could stop immigration just by standing there?
Trump could stand there with voter registration forms for the Republican Party.
Just stand at, you know, wherever the legal people are coming through legally by claiming asylum.
And after they've been processed and they're basically freed into America, You just have Trump, literally Trump, like actually Trump, just stand there and hand out Republican ballots.
And then you'd want, in different languages, you'd want to say, you know, what's the basic idea of a Republican?
And what's the basic idea of a Democrat?
Now, since it's the political season, you get to exaggerate.
So you say, all right, come on in.
You can sign up for a Democrat, to be a Democrat or Republican.
And on each of these forums, there's a brief summary of what that means.
You see where I'm going with this?
Every one of those people are Republicans.
They just don't know it yet.
It wouldn't take much.
So on the Democrat forum, you'd be on the team where your teacher can change the gender of your child without asking you.
We don't think religion is important.
Not so sure about God.
We don't think you should have this free speech or whatever.
And then on the Republican one, you'd be like, strong religious faith, but freedom of religion is important, so you could have your own.
It's just, you know, we like God.
You could have your God.
We're really big on God.
We oppose abortion.
And the Democrats would like the right to kill you if you've only recently been born.
Or something like that.
I mean, that's an exaggeration, obviously.
But I think you can come up with something that's close enough to being true that characterizes both teams in a very simple way that a migrant would come over and say, OK, well, I like all of that stuff.
And this stuff is exactly what I don't want.
And they say, sign up for either one.
And you would probably get, I don't know, five to one picking the Republican.
And they would just register as Republicans without knowing too much about the system.
And it would scare the crap out of the Democrats.
Because I think maybe the ultimate third act for Trump would be turning the migrants Republican.
Now let me ask you this.
Do you remember in 2015, I boldly told the world that Trump would be the most persuasive person we've ever seen?
And people laughed.
Ha ha ha.
He's a big old clown.
He's not persuading anybody.
He's just getting a lot of attention.
And I said, no.
Attention is the first step, the most important one, of persuasion.
So you just validated that he did the best thing anybody's ever done for persuasion, which is you can't take your mind off of him.
Now watch what he does.
A few years later, he's convinced a majority of the country that the election was rigged.
Look at the things that people believe now, that are now completely compatible with Trump, by majority, not everybody, but he is the most persuasive individual in all of American history, and nobody's even close.
Suppose I told you in 2024, based on my spectacular Trump prediction track record, that he, and maybe he alone, could make three out of four migrants Republicans, and nobody else could do it.
Think about it.
All he'd have to do is try.
He would just have to try.
Because you know that chanting, Trump, Trump, Trump?
I'm pretty sure that migrants, especially male, have you noticed that Trump appeals to men more than women?
So you've got just, you know, reams of men over there who are, you know, I would say personality and character wise, maybe not that far from Trump.
And they're coming to America because they want part of that American dream.
They don't just like him, they want to be him.
Let me say that again.
I think you would find with just a little bit of scratching on the surface, that just right underneath the surface, you're going to find that men who can pick up and leave their country to make a new life, primarily on economic terms by working, They don't just like Trump.
They want to be Trump.
And I don't think the Democrats see this coming, which is hilarious to me.
Now, I'm not saying Trump is likely to make a case for it, because it might look like a problem, because he's also saying we should stop them and send them back.
But if he did try to convert them, he might find a lot of people in the Democrat Party who are very pro-Wall all of a sudden.
You know what would be interesting?
He doesn't have to convert them all.
Oh my God.
He only has to have one meeting with a group of them.
Oh my God.
Trump just has to walk into a room with 50 recent migrants that came in legally through the asylum system and just talk to them with translators.
What would that do?
Do you think that they would be impressed?
Of course they would.
Do you think they would respond to his personality and charisma?
I've been in the room with him.
Yes.
He has more charisma than you've ever seen in your life.
When you stand in the room with him, it's just, you know, like you're bathed in it, basically.
Yes.
Watching a short video of him converting an entire room of migrants into Republicans would be such a game changer.
And he'd only have to do it once with one room and it would become, it would just be legend after that.
Now, I suppose if it didn't work out, you know, let's say it's a, you know, put together by Republicans.
If it didn't work out, I suppose you could get rid of all the video.
Say, well, we tried.
I think it would work, though.
So there's lots of contrast about the border visit.
Biden could barely walk, and people are chanting for Trump, and all the Border Patrol people seem to love him.
Yeah, big difference.
Trump said something!
That is so perfectly Trumpian that, I don't know, I can't stop laughing at it.
I'm just going to read it to you.
He actually said in a speech at the border, they're getting people who don't speak languages.
He said, we have languages coming into our country and nobody speaks those languages.
They're truly foreign languages.
Nobody speaks to them.
Nobody speaks to them.
Yes.
Now, obviously, what he means is that there are very few Americans who would speak some languages besides Spanish, I guess.
But just the way he says everything is so freaking funny.
Because it's so provocative that he would go all the way to nobody speaks those languages.
All right, so I wanted to compare.
I thought it'd be funny to compare the way Biden lies to the way Trump lies.
And I'd like to point out a dog not barking.
You know the Sherlock Holmes thing?
There's a dog that's not barking really, really loudly.
You're gonna laugh when I tell you what the dog is.
When's the last time you saw a fact checker?
Think about it.
When's the last time you saw a fact-checker?
Remember, they used to get a lot of attention, didn't they?
Checking all those Trump lies?
Let me tell you some of the terrible lies that Trump has told.
You ready?
Here's two of the big ones.
The migrants coming in, they don't speak any language that anybody's ever heard.
Here's another one.
This is terrible.
If the wind stops blowing, your TV will go off. If the wind stops blowing, your TV will go off.
Ah.
Now, let's compare that to things Biden has said lately.
He literally ran his campaign on the fine people hoax.
Let's get a fact checker in here.
Hey, Daniel Dale, is the fine people hoax a real thing?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Almost everything that Biden says is an obvious lie.
Like, just easily, verifiably obvious lie.
Biden went on the late night show and said that Trump forgot the name of his wife.
Quite observably not true.
Where's the fact-checker?
Fact-checker on vacation?
Now, before I mentioned it, how many of you had noticed that there were no fact-checkers?
They'd all disappeared.
When before it was like every single day, there'd be like, here's 25 new lies that Trump told.
Just disappeared.
Have you noticed that Trump is not saying things that just invite the fact-checking that way?
He's running a very different campaign.
Yeah.
Part of it is that, you know, the less he is provocative, the more he's going to win, because basically he's on a glide path.
He can only take himself off the glide path, right?
He can't put himself on it.
He's already there, but he could take us all off.
So, uh, watching Trump run what I would consider a very disciplined campaign.
Would you agree?
I would say that his campaigning is super disciplined.
Not like anything we've seen before.
I think it's only speculative to think that Vivek's, let's say, his influence is having this much of an impact.
But, you know, remember I told you.
That Trump is not who you think he is, the, let's see, the caricature part.
You know, he's often portrayed as having a fragile ego and all that stuff, and therefore you would think, oh, he wouldn't want a strong personality, somebody as powerful, mentally especially, as Vivek, because, you know, he might feel threatened by it or something.
Totally bad reading of the man.
He likes smarter people.
And he likes their advice, and he seeks it.
So if you put somebody as smart as Zveig anywhere in the inner advisory circle, he's going to soon dominate the advisors, because he's smarter.
And Trump will soon learn that the things he say, you should pay attention to them.
And that is a sign of strength, not weakness.
And I think that's one of Trump's great strengths.
He can take advice, and he asks for it.
When he was president a lot of this is this is a Not so reported as it should be when Trump was president.
He often would query Smart people just to get more opinions.
It was a common thing.
He did and not just political people commentators as well so Do you remember when he was asking for executive orders?
Does anybody have any good ideas for executive orders during the pandemic?
Well, the call went out, you know sort of below the The range of the media.
And individuals were contacting other individuals just because they were smart.
Or just because they might have some domain of knowledge.
So, that's what I suggested through the system.
You know, a series of connections.
That you do an EO allowing doctors and telehealth to work across borders during the pandemic.
And he immediately signed an EO.
Now, did he ever say, Hey, I should have thought of that myself.
I can't do that because that's a good idea that came from somebody else.
No, he just said, good idea.
Signed it.
All right.
That's, that's the confidence he has.
And if, if you imagine he doesn't have that confidence, you're missing the best part of the story.
He does have that confidence.
The confidence to listen to another opinion.
All right.
So let's watch the fact checkers.
That's pretty funny.
Speaking of facts, Biden is crowing that the crime rate is dropping, even the violent crime rate.
It's all dropping.
So I guess he wants to take credit for that.
Does anybody believe that the crime rate is dropping?
I do believe that the violent crime rate probably dropped since the peak in the pandemic.
That seems reasonable.
Yeah, but beyond that, I don't know.
Now, let's combine two stories.
Story number one, the Americans are not replacing young people.
So we'll talk about that some more.
So we know America is not having enough babies.
At the same time we're not having enough babies, and that's going on for some time now, the violent crime rate is dropping.
That's the same story.
If you have fewer babies, the violent crime rate goes down.
Does everybody know that?
Violent crime is mostly correlated with how many babies you have.
Because young people are the murderers.
Senior citizens aren't killing a lot of people.
So as soon as your mix of population goes from a ton of young people to biased toward old people, Every single day along that path should be a lower rate of crime.
If you did nothing, if you did nothing, your crime rate would drop every day.
The violent crime would drop every day just because of the aging population.
Did Biden mention that?
Did Biden say crime is going down because the population is getting older?
No, no, because that wouldn't work for him.
Did he say that there was something that he did?
That made the crime rate go down.
I don't recall.
Does anybody recall that he said he did something?
I'm not aware of anything he did on crime, are you?
Now, we do know that locally, the Soros-funded prosecutors, et cetera, are just releasing a lot of people without charges or greatly reducing the charges.
Now, I have a fact check I need.
Does the criminal data register it as a crime if you know the crime happened but there's nobody to arrest?
It's not just a crime if you arrest somebody, right?
It's a crime if it's reported as a crime.
So I think I saw some Fox News commentary where they were speculating that maybe if you free somebody who's a suspect, it doesn't get counted as a crime.
But I think the crime is still counted as the crime, if it gets reported.
Now, I would think there's less reporting of crime.
Cause there's probably a lot of stuff that you just don't think is going to happen again.
So let's say you're walking down the street past some dangerous drugged out person and they do something that would be considered assault.
You know, in other words, they threatened to kill you or something.
And you say to yourself, well, I could spend forever.
Uh, yeah, I could spend forever going after this street person who assaulted me, basically a threat.
Threat of violence.
Or I could just keep walking.
What would you do?
I wouldn't report it.
Because I don't want to be involved with some street person who's crazy on drugs.
But it doesn't mean the crime didn't happen.
Now, as you're saying in the comments, and I was going to get there, I don't know if the stores are reporting the crimes, if they know nothing's going to happen about it.
But here's my bigger question.
50 people run into a Target store, and they clean out the whole store.
And it's so bad that the Target store just closes because they can't have it happen again.
How many crimes is that?
One?
Is that one crime?
Or would you count every item that they took as a separate crime?
I'm just gonna guess they don't count it as a thousand crimes.
If there are a thousand people, things that leave the store.
I'm pretty sure that's one.
Am I wrong?
That's one.
I think.
I mean, I don't know, but I'll take a fact check on that.
But I think it's one crime.
If somebody knocks over a jewelry store and takes everything in the store, it's one crime.
So these are crimes that are destroying cities.
And Biden's up there like, crime is down.
Well, it was only that one crime at target this week.
Took everything.
Took everything.
But I saw this reported on NBC.
It's the only place I saw it reported in the news.
I saw the news report that Biden said it.
And it's probably in other news, I'm sure it is.
But where I saw it was NBC.
It's the only place I saw it.
Did I ever tell you, too many times, that if the only thing you know is what is reported, you don't know anything.
You have to know who's involved, and then you know everything.
NBC is famously considered the, basically a Democrat tool, CIA tool, and not really a real news organization.
So it's not really a surprise that NBC would be the one reporting this as if it were true and there's not much to talk about.
Because I'm pretty sure it's just bad data.
Why would people be moving out of cities if they didn't observe the crime being bad?
Do you think people are moving out of San Francisco because they were fooled into thinking the data is worse than it is?
Nobody moves because of some data.
They move because they got mugged.
They move because they were attacked on the street.
They move because someone they know personally just got raped.
That's why you move.
You don't move because the crime data looked one way or the other.
So, as I often tell you, if the data disagrees with your observation, that's a big red flag, and that's what's happening there.
All right, we'll see.
Supreme Court, as you know, is hearing the immunity question about Trump.
So the question is, can a president who's in office be charged after being out of office for things that were done in the course of the job?
Now, Whoopi Goldberg had the stake.
She said, let's look at a scenario where the Supreme Court says he is immune from everything because he was president.
You know what Joe Biden could do since he is presently president?
He could throw every Republican in jail.
Huh.
Well, you know, on one hand, it's a ridiculous argument, but on the other hand, it actually forwards the conversation a little bit.
It actually does.
Because there's definitely a problem of figuring out what is too far.
Or let's put it this way.
What is he doing within the course of his official job?
Now, if you simply rounded up Republicans because he wants to win, I would say you could immediately remove him from office and arrest him.
Because that's not the course of his job as a president.
Am I wrong?
That if he did a crime that clearly had nothing to do with his presidential duties, He'd still be arrested.
In other words, if he just goes and murders somebody in the White House, you don't get to get away with that because you're president.
Does anybody think that?
Am I wrong?
It's only if you did, let's say you did something like, something in the name of national security.
Let's say you issued an executive order, and it got implemented, but then later a court found out that it was illegal.
Could you be prosecuted after you get out of office?
Because you, you know, you did something in the course of your duties, but it was actually literally illegal.
But it was in the course of your duties.
Now, I wouldn't want to see that be prosecuted.
The trouble is, we know that Democrats, specifically, and I'm sure Republicans do, can take any situation and bend it into any scenario or narrative they want.
So could a Democrat come up with a situation where they're just doing the work of the president by rounding up all Republicans and putting them in jail?
And the answer is yes.
Yes, Whoopi, you actually have a good point there.
I hate to say it.
It's not a bad point.
How hard would it be for the Democrats to say, well, I know it looks bad, but the president is in charge of making sure the country is not overthrown in a coup.
And it's now obvious that all the Republican leaders are involved in a coup, so it's the President's job to enforce the laws and protect the country.
And so, of course, putting all the Republicans in jail is perfectly legal within our framework.
And even if you thought it was illegal later, it's still in the course of his job, so that should be fine, right?
There is a little bit of a risk here, and I think that Whoopi is actually correct.
That if you can define things, you know, within a wide range, as we often do, you might create a loophole here that you didn't expect.
Now here's why I think that we currently don't have to worry about it.
You know, it hasn't been a problem in the past, right?
We haven't had a big problem with this issue in prior presidencies.
And I think it's because we all know what is too far.
And if the Democrats try to round up the Republicans under the story that they're doing the right thing, I think the citizens would just know it was too far, and they just wouldn't get away with it.
January 6th is too far, but also will be corrected by history.
It will be corrected.
The correcting forces are coming, I think, meaning that they will be pardoned, and the history will report it was one of the worst abuses of citizens by its government.
I think in the long run it will look better than it looks now, but it's pretty terrible now.
So what I'm wondering is, is Joe Biden going to pack the Supreme Court with the cast of The View?
Because it wouldn't be any dumber than anything else that's happening.
But I don't believe that the cast of The View are where you should get your legal advice.
Or for me, that's for sure.
But I'll be real interested to see how this goes.
In my opinion, Trump easily could say that the things he was doing were within his official duties.
On the box gate stuff, even though he kept the documents after he was in office, so theoretically they could say that part's a crime.
I think the fact that he took the stuff while he was in office is close enough to a de facto declassification that I would be satisfied with that.
And I would be satisfied if the same were true of Biden.
If the decision to take it happened while you were president, I'd call that good.
I'd be satisfied.
And again, if Biden did the same thing, I'd say the same thing.
If you declassified it, even without saying the words, just the fact that you took it home, I very much agree with the fact that if you took it out of the White House, you've declassified it by obvious intention.
I'd be good enough on that.
And then on the question of January 6th, I do think it was the President's duty to make sure that there had not been a coup.
Because remember, Trump suspected a coup.
He thought he won.
He thought it was obvious.
And he thought, maybe there's some way to correct it if we just wait a day to check a little more carefully.
That's about as close as you can get to exactly his job, making sure an election didn't get rigged.
So I think the Supreme Court has a fairly easy path on this one.
But again, let us see if we can predict how this will go.
I know nothing about the law.
I know nothing about the Supreme Court.
I don't know enough about these individual cases, but I know Trump is a Republican.
I know the majority of the Supreme Court are conservatives.
How will I ever predict which way this could go?
I assume that it'll go exactly the way you think.
I think.
Now, if I'm wrong, oh, my God.
All right, if I'm wrong on this one, Then the Supreme Court doesn't care about the United States.
Because part of what the Supreme Court does, I'm sure they don't admit it out loud, but I think one of the things the Supreme Court, probably all of the members, really, really feel strongly is that even more important than getting the law exactly right is holding the country together.
Now you could say, but Scott, that's not their job.
Their job is just to get the law right.
Very specific.
And you're right.
Technically, that is all they should do.
But in my opinion, it's sort of the Spider-Man problem.
Great responsibility, great power.
They have to come together.
So with the great power of the Supreme Court, I do think they have a responsibility that is larger than their job description.
And while I would respect an argument that says, no, no, you should never act that way, I get it.
I respect the argument.
But I'm quite OK with people seeing their responsibility as bigger than their job description, if they have good intentions about it.
And I think the Supreme Court does.
So I think they'll save us.
We'll see.
We shall see.
Apparently, Biden has decided to run on his accomplishments.
Okay.
Here's a question.
So here's another way to know that we don't have, like, a real press in this country.
There's some questions that you say to yourself, well, I understand why the Democrat press doesn't ask those questions, but why doesn't the conservative press ask the question?
Here's the question.
Biden's going to say the economy is great, therefore we care about the economy, therefore re-elect him.
Here's a question I've never seen asked.
What are the things you did that made the economy improve?
Because if you just did nothing, economies generally improve in our country, you can almost do nothing.
Just stay away from them and they kind of recover.
Free market.
So, could you please tell us what you did that caused the outcomes?
Because one of the things we know you did is run up the debt.
How did that help us?
Well, maybe it juiced the markets, but doesn't it come back to kill us later?
Can you explain how that works?
Can you explain how your increased fuel costs Help the economy.
Can you explain how destroying the culture of the United States and all companies with DEI, how did that help the profits?
Can you tell us how the inflation helped the stock market?
I can.
Everybody raised their prices and that made the price of stocks go up.
It's just inflation.
Explain what you did that wasn't just inflation.
How about all the abusive regulations that you got rid of?
Did he get rid of any regulations?
Or did he add them?
How about that infrastructure bill?
Can we trace the benefits of the infrastructure bill and what percentage has been spent?
Is that why the economy is good?
Did they kind of stop saying infrastructure bill there for a while?
For a while they were saying, oh, big accomplishment.
But I think everybody stopped saying it.
Why'd they do that?
Is it because it didn't translate into anything important?
Or it takes too long?
I don't know.
How about the war in Ukraine?
Was that so good for our economy?
Was that good?
Well, maybe.
Because some of the money's coming back to our own industry.
So I'd like to see somebody just ask the question, you've made a claim that the economy's good and you should get some credit for it.
Please tell us what you did that made a difference.
Now if this were Trump, here's what the story would be.
I reduced regulations.
Oh, okay.
I can understand how that would be good for things.
I increased the pumping of oil and other energy things, so I decreased the cost of fuel, which helps every industry.
Oh, I get that.
Okay, I understand that.
How about I You know, kept our military strong, but I kept us out of wars, because war is really bad for economies.
You know, even if it gooses it in the short run, they're bad for economies.
That would be a good argument.
That'd be a good argument.
So I think that, and then Trump could say, I cut taxes, et cetera.
He'd still have problems explaining the debt, but he would have a story where the thing he did seemed to be quite directly connected to some economic advantage, tariffs, maybe.
You know, tariffs are, nobody really understands them.
All right.
So Mark Elias.
Democrat lawyer, as Molly Hemingway is reporting.
She says he ran the Russia collusion hoax in 2016, and he was ahead of the efforts to change just hundreds of election laws in 2020, which allowed the election to be rigged.
What's the comment today?
He raised dementia awareness.
Yeah, I guess he did that.
Anyway, so Mark Elias, you could say he rigged the election, but legally.
Nobody suggests he broke any laws.
But by legally changing the laws so there's more mail-in ballots, it guaranteed the Democrats would win.
And now, as Molly Hemingway says, he's bragging about his efforts to get non-citizens registered to vote.
Yeah, it's exactly what it looks like.
I do caution you again that if you think the only reason the border is open is Democrats are trying to get more voters, I don't think so.
I definitely think there's something else going on, but that they're also taking advantage of trying to register them to vote.
So I think the extra voters is more like the side benefit of something else, but I don't know what it is.
MSNBC had some authors on, they've got a book that says that rural white voters are the most dangerous threat to America and that it talks about all their dangerous beliefs and they're super racist and they're all brainwashed and they believe wrong things and all that.
Yeah, oh my God.
It was written by two white guys.
Two white guys wrote that their own people, except the rural ones, are the most dangerous threat to the country.
Well, here's how I see it.
Rural white voters are the single group that you could describe totally with the following three words.
I'm going to give you three words to tell you everything you need to know about rural white voters.
Leave me alone.
How did you do that?
Somebody wrote exactly what I said as it was coming out of my mouth.
That was good.
Nicely done.
You know me too well.
Yeah, leave me alone.
Is the biggest threat to America that people want to be left alone?
In what world is that true?
Do you remember all of those KKK murders?
I don't.
Haven't they stopped recently?
Have you seen a lot of racist murders?
I mean, not by white people against anybody else.
They're all in the news, if they ever happen.
I haven't even seen one in the news.
I think this group of people have been so marginalized And there's no group that has less power.
Literally the least powerful group in America would be rural white voters.
Except if there's a lot of them that will vote for somebody they don't want to be president.
Somebody the Democrats don't want.
The Amuse account and others have warned us that apparently the X platform has reinstated a penalty for misgendering people.
So on the X platform, if you repeatedly call somebody the wrong pronoun, you will be de-boosted.
If you deadname or use the wrong pronoun.
So even on the X platform, you won't be kicked off, but you'll be sort of de-boosted.
People won't see your stuff.
De-boosted means people don't see it as much.
So, this will be the real test.
Yeah, this is a real test.
It's a real edge case for Musk.
So we'll see if he keeps it there.
My guess is that he wasn't directly involved with that decision.
So, you know, the staff probably has some, you know, holdovers.
Anyway.
I don't know.
I could see how that could be hate speech.
But that's one that society is going to have to work out.
I think we're going to need to decide if that's hate speech.
If it were racial, it would be.
If you said some racial insult to somebody and X de-boosted you, We wouldn't complain too much, would we?
So if somebody is giving the same kind of treatment to an adult who chose to transition... I don't know.
I think we're in an area where we need to maybe get together a little bit better as a country.
It's a dangerous one.
Megan Kelly's having a good laugh over this Fonny Willis and Nathan Wade stuff, and apparently the evidence from the friends of them is pretty clear that they were in a long-term relationship long before.
Which I assumed from the beginning, actually.
And I'm not going to tell you why I knew that they were in a long-term relationship, except maybe I will tell you in the man cave.
I don't want to tell you in the open format, but there is a clue that they had been in a relationship for a long time, and it was never in the news.
It's speculation, but it has to do with how men and women operate, and us being shallow.
Okay, you just want to hear it, don't you?
You're terrible.
You're going to make me say this, and I know I'm going to get in trouble for it.
I saw photos of Fonny that were a few years old, and I've seen photos of her currently.
She doesn't look the same.
Are you with me so far?
She doesn't look today the way she looked allegedly when the affair began.
Allegedly.
Have you seen a picture of Wade's ex-wife?
Look at his ex-wife.
She's not just pretty.
She's really pretty.
Like, she's really, really pretty.
Now look at Fonny from the photo from about the same time period.
She looks pretty good.
She looks pretty good.
How does she look now?
In my opinion, he does not leave that wife and cheat on her for what Fonny looks like lately.
I'm positive this affair started when she looked different.
I hate to say it because it's so... I mean, it's so icky.
But as soon as I saw the pictures of how she used to look, compared to how she looks now, and then I saw what the guy's wife looked like, I said, all right, human nature.
You don't leave that for that.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
You know, I'm not happy that I'm saying it.
I'm sorry.
You just don't.
It would be a very rare thing to see that happen.
Anyway, next story.
Elon Musk is suing OpenAI and Sam Altman.
And the other founders, I guess Greg Brockman and some other folks.
And the lawsuit is because, quote, OpenAI has been transformed into a closed source de facto subsidiary.
And, you know, Elon Musk wanted it.
He invested under the clear understanding that it would be an open source.
It became a for-profit, Microsoft-owned thing.
And he's suing over it.
You know, I'm a little surprised.
Because the way he talked about it, he gave it sort of an oh well.
You know, oh well, they took a zillion of my dollars and lied to me, but he's going after him.
Now, of course, he also competes with Grok, so it kind of makes sense from a competitive standpoint.
All right.
Zion Lights, which is the name of a living human woman, talks a lot about nuclear industry.
It's a good follow.
If you want to follow somebody who's always on top of what's happening with nuclear, especially, and green stuff in general, but nuclear in particular.
Zion Lights.
Who goes by the name on the X platform as Zion Tree.
All one word.
Zion Tree.
Anyway, she's saying today on post that Germany, once known for its engineering prowess, tried to replace all baseload power generation with wind and solar, and now has some of the highest prices for electricity, which of course is reflected in all their product costs.
And so the entire German economy is in the doldrums, according to some.
So, what do you think of that?
Is that accurate?
Do you think that they became too woke, still feeling guilty about the Holocaust, of course, and so feeling that they have to be sort of extra, extra liberal and nice, I guess, And that as soon as somebody said, oh, this climate affects minorities worse than other people, then Germany had to go, oh, all right.
I guess we're all in.
Because they can't say no to anything that would even be a whisper reminder of the Holocaust.
So certainly you can understand why they are the way they are.
But it does look like they sabotaged their own economy.
I do expect they'll figure a way out.
Eventually.
So.
Watching the Democrat pundits flip out and really look like they have mental illness, especially on MSNBC, because there's a possibility that the Supreme Court will make it possible for Trump to become president and not put him in jail.
I mean, the effect of it might be that he goes to jail if they don't rule he had immunity.
And watching the level at which they're flipping out suggests that they know it's their only play.
Now that's scary, isn't it?
The people who we believe are the legacy, you know, sort of the natural evolution of the people who murdered JFK, allegedly, are the same people who are looking at Trump and saying, ah, under no circumstances can he become president.
So they think that putting him in jail will work because even if he's not in jail, you know, like physically, the Democrats are all saying that they've polled and people are far less likely to vote for him if he's a felon.
I'm trying to give my dastardly conspiratorial laugh.
I have to do that better.
Let me explain human beings to apparently a large group of people who have never met one.
It goes like this.
If he murdered somebody and you put him in jail, less likely he would get elected.
Are you following me so far?
If he robbed a Target store, got caught, got convicted, well, that wouldn't be a felony.
But let's say he sold over $950.
That's a felony.
He gets convicted.
Probably fewer people would vote for him.
If he gets convicted of anything that's like a real crime, Probably.
I think people are less likely to vote for him.
But suppose it was obviously lawfare, and obviously bullshit, and obviously a political prosecution, and he gets a felony.
What happens then?
They think he'll give fewer votes.
I think Republicans will walk through glass to vote for him if he gets lawfared into a felony.
Walk through glass.
People who have never voted will register.
People will take Grandma in her fucking wheelchair and they'll drag her through the whatever snow.
I will vote if he gets a felony.
I haven't voted in years.
Because I don't like to vote, because it makes me a team player.
Makes me more biased than I already am.
But if you put him in jail for lawfare, or even just put the felony on him, whether he spends a day in jail, I'll vote.
I'll vote.
There's nothing, you couldn't stop me.
You couldn't tie me up to a chair.
I'll be voting.
Yep, that's all it takes.
So I love the fact that Democrats are so not understanding.
Let's see, what were they called?
Let me look it up.
The dangerous white rural voters?
Have you ever heard of them?
Because those dangerous white rural voters are going to come from everywhere.
They're going to materialize like you didn't even know there were that many of them.
If you want Trump to win for sure, lawfare him.
I dare you.
I dare you.
Because we'll stop at nothing.
At that point.
All the controls are off.
Now I've said, if he spends one day in jail, and I don't mean to sound this is like a threat, and I definitely don't want any violence.
No violence.
But if he spends one day in jail, all the rules are suspended.
All the rules of civilization are suspended at that point.
Now, I'm not saying they should be.
I'm not saying do anything violent.
I don't recommend it.
Don't do that.
I'm just telling you what's going to happen.
It's just cause and effect.
If you take that control off of the country, that we just don't do that, we just don't lawfare the other side, if you're going to break that rule, all the other rules go away at the same time.
There's no rules.
We'll just do what we have to do.
And I don't know what that looks like.
Honestly, I don't know what that looks like.
But it's dangerous.
All right, let's talk about other dangerous things.
This is Glenn Greenwald again.
Gaza is at risk of... It's just so horrible.
One quarter of Gaza's population might be at risk of famine, which sounds perfectly in keeping with what we're observing.
And, you know, it's tons of children, and even the malnutrition that they're having now will be a lifetime of problems.
You know, even if they survive, it's going to be a lifetime of problems from the malnutrition.
And more and more people will call it a genocide.
That's, you know, that will be up to you to decide.
I'm still firmly on the position that if you weaponize your own children, don't complain to me.
So that's sort of my whole, that's my whole argument.
Don't weaponize your children.
And there's no right side on this anymore.
There's just what Israel is going to do.
Like, it's hard to be in favor of what you're seeing.
You know, children starving.
How do you be in favor of that?
At the same time, At least Hamas, not the starving children.
But Hamas created a situation where it was almost guaranteed.
So if you create a situation that's almost guaranteed to kill your own children, I don't know.
It's hard for me to know what to do with that.
But I think Israel has to do what Israel is going to do.
And the faster it gets done, the better off they will be, I think.
Meanwhile, California reparations are still alive.
That's the dumbest thing.
I'd like to help calculate the reparations.
I've told this before, but among the things you need to do to do it right, if they want to do it right, and of course they do, of course you want to get it right, is you'd have to include, of course, some calculation of what the descendants of slaves should be owed.
But you'd want to make sure that calculation included the 30 years of direct employment discrimination against white men in every major corporation in America.
If there's anybody here who is a Democrat, this would be the part where you say, that never happened.
And then we laugh at you.
Does anybody want to say that never happened?
That there wasn't 30 years of direct employment discrimination against white men?
Anybody want to give me a laugh and say, I don't think that ever happened?
How about this?
So you'd have to include that and just subtract it from the reparations.
What do you think would be more?
I don't know.
I'm not even sure which number is bigger.
I know it cost me millions, but I'm a special case.
You'd have to factor in crime if there's any differential by race, because crime is an expense, and in a way it's a privilege to the criminal, because the criminal often gets away with it and gets to keep free stuff, and then there's some money to keep them alive in prison, etc.
Somehow you'd have to factor in differential crime levels.
You'd want to include any excess social programs if there's a racial difference and who gets them.
So if there are more of one group that was getting social programs, you'd want to include that in your calculations.
You'd want to have a comparison group, a baseline, so you know what you're comparing to.
And the baseline would be a control group of people who stayed in Africa, their descendants grew up in Africa and were never put on slave ships in the first place.
So you'd want to see how Americans are doing versus that.
You'd also want to compare How black people are doing at the moment to white people with similar educational options.
Not similar educational outcomes, but similar options.
In other words, there are poor white people who go to terrible schools, and there are poor black people who go to terrible schools.
If you had any way of ranking them, you could say, okay, let's see how they both did.
If it turns out that the white people who went to bad schools that are just as bad as the black dominant schools, and they excelled, that's a good argument for reparations.
There might be something to that.
Like, oh, maybe that's where the systemic racism is coming in.
If you found out that the black people with similar education We're actually doing better, let's say, because everybody who had a college education, the black candidate is more likely to get hired in America at the moment, and for the last 30 years, that's been true.
So you'd say, oh, more likely one group than the other.
So you'd have to calculate that in.
I wouldn't be surprised if at the lower education levels, there is far more discrimination against black applicants.
You know, just trying to get a small company job, and maybe it's a white employer, Korean-American, and they're looking at the white guy or the Korean applicant versus the black guy.
And they both have a bad high school education.
Probably there's more discrimination against the black applicant.
Probably.
I don't know for sure.
I'm guessing.
But in corporate America, it's the opposite.
So you'd have to do some kind of net of that if you could figure it out.
But here's the shorter version of that.
All our data is fake because the only thing that drives the outcome is the assumptions.
Now, I did data analysis for a living.
I mention it all the time in my corporate life.
And I knew I could make any outcome I wanted by changing the assumptions.
The data is the same.
I just changed my assumption of what matters.
So reparations is like that.
There's no such thing as a number that is the right number.
There can't be, because it's all narrative and assumption.
And should they come up with some dollar amount that just robs me and gives it to other people?
I'm going to have to deal with that.
And that would be a pretty strong argument to leave the state.
I'd hate to do it.
Because I, you know, I like a lot of things about the state.
But I don't think I could stay here if they just decided to take my money away and give it to other people.
You know, taxes are bad enough.
But at least I understand taxes.
Taxes at least have a, you know, taxes make sense to me.
Even progressive taxes.
Because I think it is literally true That I pay the highest tax rate, and I have more to protect.
Isn't that fair?
I have more to lose, because I acquired more.
So therefore, the infrastructure of the country, and the military that protects me, is doing more work for me than for somebody who doesn't own anything.
Right?
I think that's actually fair.
That I'm getting more out of it because rich people simply get more services.
Now, if you're... Hold on, hold on.
We'll get to that point because this is a good one.
So people are pointing out in the comments, but wait, wait, the people on welfare are just basically getting money.
If you were to look at a welfare, let's take one person to one person.
All right.
So that's the right comparison.
Just one person to one person.
If you took one person on welfare, how much public services would they get?
Let's say their whole life.
Well, I don't know.
What would you think?
$300,000?
What's your guess?
$300,000?
Like a person who's just on public service all the time.
You're saying a million, a hundred thousand?
Some say well over a million.
Let's take a million.
You know, just to work through it mentally.
Let's say it's a million dollars.
So let's compare me and what I pay in taxes.
To the person who contributed nothing to the country and cost a million dollars.
Do you think I didn't cost the country a million dollars?
Over my whole life?
I don't know.
I use a lot of resources.
If I have two cars instead of one, I don't.
I have one car.
But, you know, a normal person with wealth Let's say I need police to protect my home, but the poor person doesn't have a home, and they live in apartment buildings, so it's like cheaper to police it.
What if I owned a private jet?
I don't.
But that would require some protection, some government services, some airport fees.
I don't know.
I think if you really dug down and found out what the government is doing for me, and compared it to what the government is doing to a person who doesn't have money, you might find that I'm getting a lot of services.
But I don't know if it would net out exactly.
But you see what I'm saying, right?
I am getting more services from the government than a poor person.
Because the government takes care of people's assets, not just their physical body.
So the government is protecting me, my stock market investments, you know, their government regulations.
That doesn't apply to a poor person.
So all the government expense to make sure that my stock portfolio is safe, that's because I have money.
So don't I cost the government more?
Now you could also argue that I pay more.
Right?
But that's why I pay more.
I pay more because I'm getting more services.
How often do you need, do I do insider trading?
Not often.
Do I pay for it?
See, I don't know.
So if you think it's obvious, I would argue at that point the hardest.
I don't think it's obvious.
You could certainly be right.
You could certainly be right that I'm adding more to the system than I'm taking, and the poor person is taking more than they're adding.
That could be true.
But I don't think it's obvious.
It's definitely not obvious.
I'd love to see a calculation on that.
All right.
That's all I got for now, and I'd like to thank the people on Rumble, The Next Platform, and the highly racist Google product called YouTube.
Thanks for joining, and I hope you all find a way to rumble, because way less racist.
