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, Telehealth, Hacking AI, Ex-Trump CFO Weisselberg, Forbes, President Milei Cost Reduction, Biden SOTU, President Trump, Michael Moore, Patrick Ho Refund, Hamas Sinwar Missing, Unaudited Elections, Nate Silver, Haiti Uprising, Nikki Haley DC Primary, Axios, EU Fines Apple, Climate Change Revisionism, 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.
If you'd like to take this experience, which is already mildly orgasmic, up to levels that even people who have done hallucinogens can't even understand, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your Favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
It's famous, and it happens now.
Well, all the stories are funny today, but they're not at all trying to be funny.
They just turned out that way.
Funny story number one.
A man is being charged with grand theft.
We're trying to steal a self-driving car in Los Angeles.
He tried to... He tried to steal a self-driving car.
Now, have you ever seen a show called Bait Car?
Anybody remember that?
Years ago it was called Bait Car.
And it was a fake car that people would leave unlocked to see if people would try to steal it.
And the crooks would get in the car, and then somehow they could lock the doors remotely.
And you'd trap the thief in there, and they'd be trying to get out.
And it was very funny watching them trying to get out.
But I'd like to see that upgraded.
I'd like to see that show come back with self-driving cars.
But they start out as parked, and then the thief gets in and they're like, and the doors lock.
And then it drives itself to the police department.
Would that be awesome?
It drives itself to the police department and then honks.
Honk!
Honk!
And then when the police officer comes down and says, I have for you a potential thief.
I have video of his theft and we have fingerprints all over the inside of the car.
Please arrest him as I unlock this door.
AI is gonna be lit.
Can't wait.
Maybe we won't even need police.
Here's an update on a story that has some personal meaning to me.
As you know, the restrictions on telehealth were lifted during the pandemic.
Remember that?
If you wanted to Talked to your doctor.
You could do it only in person or in your own state.
Even if it was on the phone, it had to be in your own state.
And I had a small part.
In getting that changed, because during the, I'll remind you if you haven't heard of the story 10 times, when the pandemic hit, Trump put out the word through his network of followers that if anybody had any great ideas for an executive order that would help things during the pandemic, he was open to suggestions.
So I suggested that you get rid of that restriction about telehealth calling your doctor on the phone.
That you couldn't do it across state lines.
So you couldn't call the doctor in another state.
It was illegal.
So it took all of, I think, maybe two days or something.
For Trump to actually sign that executive order.
So it actually just went right up the chain.
Everybody looked at it and said, yeah, that makes sense.
You know, in the context of a pandemic.
Absolutely.
But it was a temporary change.
Which made it easier.
But now that the pandemic is over, I guess it's been extended once by lawmakers.
But there's some question whether they will extend it again.
To which I say, How many times do I have to solve the same problem?
Why is there even any question about whether I can call a fucking doctor in Vermont?
Seriously, government?
Seriously?
You're even going to let that even be a possibility?
That if I need health care, I can't call one in Vermont because I'm in California?
Like, that makes some fucking sense.
The idea that this is anything but some kind of gift to the, probably the American Medical Association or somebody, I don't know.
There must be somebody who wants this not to happen, otherwise it would have happened already.
So I assume that this is just another symbol that our Congress is corrupt.
Because why wouldn't they just make it permanent?
I mean really, do you even know the argument against it?
There is none.
Just somebody has some benefit of keeping competition, you know, low, I guess.
Anyway, let's see if Congress can get that right or if they're as bought off as we think.
I saw Mark Andreessen and Elon Musk and some others were having an online conversation on X about the security of AI.
Now if we think that AI is such a existential threat, Mark Andreessen points out, that shouldn't we be treating it that way with the most maximum security sort of like the Manhattan Project?
But instead, as Andreessen and Musk both point out, a state actor who wanted to hack these companies that are working on AI has already done it.
There's nothing that would stop him from being able to hack.
One of the examples that Andreessen gave is you could bribe the cleaning staff to stick a memory card into one of the computers.
That's it.
That's all you need.
Not a memory card, what do you call it, a little dongle?
That's it.
That's all it would take for China to get all of the AI source code.
Yeah, a thumb drive, a flash drive.
So, but here's the question I ask.
How would you know if China had already stolen Gemini AI?
Is there any way we could tell?
Like, what would you look for to find out if they'd actually gotten it already?
I don't know.
But here's the next news story.
Oh, it turns out that China is rolling out DEI everywhere.
DEI and all the corporations, and the people in charge of the DEI are the, well this is surprising, it's the Uyghurs.
The Uyghurs are actually running the DEI everywhere in China now.
It's quite a turnaround, I didn't see it coming.
No, I'm just making that up.
I made that up.
No, just because Gemini AI is totally racist, and DEI is ridiculous, it doesn't mean if they steal Gemini AI that they'll Put in diversity, equity, and inclusion rules, but I don't know why they wouldn't, because if they ask the AI, it's gonna say it's the best idea I've ever had.
So, I have another question for you.
So we keep talking about AI is going to take jobs, which means that corporations should make gigantic profits, wouldn't you say?
Imagine being a big corporation that normally employs a bunch of people, but you can reduce your employee costs by, I don't know, 500% or something.
And so you're gonna make a lot of money, right?
And then the other customers are going to do it too.
Or the other companies.
So the other companies, they'll also reduce their workforce.
Wow.
So you should probably put a lot of money in the stock market.
Because all these big companies are going to make just tons of money.
Right?
Because they'll get rid of all their employees.
Right?
Or... How do people afford to buy anything if they don't have jobs?
I'm seeing people say 9-0.
Did the Supreme Court rule on something?
The Supreme Court ruled Trump can remain on the ballot.
All right.
Well, it sounds like we're getting an update from the comments section that the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Trump can remain on the ballot.
In every state?
In all states, apparently.
There we go.
There we go.
What good would the Supreme Court be if they ruled any other way?
I think that would be the end of their credibility.
Because that was sort of an easy one.
I got to say that was sort of a layup.
Nine to zero is the right answer.
And by the way, that does give some credibility to the liberal justices.
Because I do like to imagine That the justices at least try a little bit to follow the law and not just their political leanings.
But I think this was just too obvious.
This was too obvious.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You had to.
You had to do it that way.
All right.
So back to what happens if all the companies get rid of their employees for AI?
Who's going to be left to buy stuff?
Have we thought that through?
Who's going to be around to buy stuff?
How's that gonna work?
But I've got an even more interesting take on it.
If we assume that AI will be massively disruptive, who do you believe would survive it best?
This is where it gets fun.
AI will be massively disruptive, but countries will handle it in different ways.
Compare how the United States is by character and history, education, just the nature of the United States and the people in it.
Now compare that to the nature of China and their history and their current economic situation.
It feels to me that China is in real trouble, and the United States is too, except that we're flexible.
Our system allows insane amount of flexibility I don't know if they have as much in in the way that matters But for example, I could easily imagine that we will pass laws to say you can't replace all of your employees that quickly or something It's gonna be something like that.
So I think the laws will Surround AI and just cripple it you know I've been predicting that for a long time because I don't think that the let's say Democrats probably the the ones who are leaning communist and socialist They're gonna say you have to stop AI and they're gonna say you have to stop it for two reasons One it might start telling the truth.
That's gonna be a big problem and two it's gonna take all the jobs and So you would expect that there will be an anti-AI political party forming to make the politics of it work for their team.
So do you think there's any possibility, if you project a year or two in the future, that the Democrats and the Republicans will have a similar opinion on AI and how to deal with it?
Not a chance.
Not a chance.
I think the Republicans are maybe slightly more likely to say, let the free market work it out, you know, with certain safeguards.
And I think the Democrats are far more likely to say, you've got to ban it because it's going to take all the jobs of people in the lower economic group.
Here's what I think is actually going to happen.
I think that for every robot Maybe not every robot, but you're going to need people doing a bunch of things that you just don't want to trust robots ever to do.
And one of those things is to check their work.
So, I think we're going to go from doing the work to checking the work.
Because if the robot, you know, misfires, and I would imagine it's like every other technology, it's going to need upgrades and it'll be defective and it's going to have a virus and, you know, a hundred other things, you're probably going to need a human there just to, you know, turn off the assembly line and, you know, make sure your robot gets serviced and stuff like that.
Now I realize they can service themselves unless Unless they fall over, but then you could have other robots service them.
Yeah, it's gonna be real hard to figure this out But I do think that it will create all new jobs Where one person in one AI can do something that we couldn't all do on our own with their own AI And one of the things that looks like it's gonna do is tell us which AI to use and use it for us and Because once again, I'm in that situation where I tried to make AI do just anything useful.
Just anything.
Have you had this experience?
I have ChatGPT and I've got Grok.
And I've tried to make them do anything useful.
And usually it's things that are within their ability.
You know, a simple search, summarizing something, that sort of thing.
It's wrong almost every time.
Or useless, or I can't figure it out.
It's too much work.
So we're still definitely in the demo-ware stage for most of it.
For most of us.
And I don't know if I'll ever get out of it.
If I'm 90 years old, am I going to be able to use AI?
Or am I going to have to ask a human to use it for me?
Will AI get to the point where the human is totally out of the loop?
We're nowhere near it right now.
Nowhere near it.
I just... I don't know.
All right.
But I think China is more doomed by AI because they have more of a manual workforce manufacturing system.
The fact that we lost our manufacturing could end up to be our savior.
Isn't that interesting?
The fact that we got rid of our manufacturing might be The thing that saves our economy.
Because we can build a robot factory from scratch to be just a robot factory.
And it will compete with anybody's workers or robots anywhere.
And get rid of the transportation costs, because it's local.
So, if you already have a gigantic manufacturing plant, and you've employed all these people, it's going to be hard to turn on a dime and turn that into robots.
Because you probably have to redesign the whole plant to make it robot-friendly instead of people-friendly.
So, I think we could end up leapfrogging manufacturing in other countries and just automate that kind of thing.
Forbes Magazine got the ex-CFO of Trump, the Trump Company, in trouble.
The CFO's name is... Am I pronouncing this right?
Is it really Weisselberg?
Am I pronouncing that correctly?
Like, really?
Is it really Weisselberg?
Because that's a weird name for a CFO who's been charged with some irregularities.
So he does a Forbes interview at some point.
And in the Forbes interview, he said something that apparently conflicted with something he said in a trial.
So now he's going to allegedly plead guilty to perjury because what he told the Forbes people didn't match what he said in the trial.
Now, Weisselberg.
I'm being told it's pronounced Weisselberg.
You know, if that were my name, and I had two choices, which way do you pronounce it?
Wise or Weasel?
I'd go with Wise.
I'd go with Wise.
I think that was a good choice on his part.
Wise, not Weasel.
Anyway, So apparently during the trial, he said this, quote, it was talking about the difference between the size of Trump's personal penthouse apartment that he claimed was 33,000, but it was really like 11,000.
And asked about that in the trial, Weisselberg said it was almost de minimis, meaning he didn't care about it because it was such a small number, relative to his net worth.
So I didn't really focus on it.
I never even thought about the apartment.
So where he said he didn't think about it, when he talked to Forbes, Forbes had a long back and forth with him, in which I guess he was arguing it was $11,000, but then they argued it's not, and then he ended up agreeing with them.
So they're saying that that conflicts with what he said in court, and therefore he must, you know, either go to jail or plead guilty or something.
Now, here's the message for this.
Number one, I'm looking right at a statement and it doesn't look like a lie to me.
It can be true that he argued with Forbes about the size of it, believing it was actually $11,000 until they proved it wasn't.
Maybe he thought so.
I don't know.
Most people can't judge 11,000 from 33,000 just by thinking.
But in the trial, he just said it wasn't important to what he was doing because it was such a small number relative to the net worth.
So, So he said, I never even thought about the apartment.
It's not literally true that he never thought about it.
But what he said was, it wasn't important.
Now, that's still true.
So he's going to go to maybe jail or have to plead guilty to perjury for saying something that's literally true, that it was a very small part of the deal, didn't really make any difference, didn't pay attention to it, but it might have been wrong.
Now here's the lesson.
I feel sorry for Weisselberg because he might not have known when he gave that interview to Forbes that Forbes had changed.
Forbes used to be a publication that if you were a, you know, a Trump executive, you might think they'd give you a fair shot.
That's what it used to be.
Today, Forbes apparently is just another political rag.
I think it has different ownership or something.
And it looks like it's just sort of anti-Trump.
It's certainly anti-me.
I mean, they've maligned me there.
So I wouldn't trust Forbes.
And I would say that Weisselberg might be going to jail because he trusted the media and they sold him out.
It wouldn't have been hard for Forbes to say, yeah, that was slightly different.
He said it wasn't important.
But he also separately argued that he thought it was the right number.
It would be easy for this not to be a thing.
So to me, it looks like Forbes is corrupt and the court is corrupt.
And, uh, that's what it looks like.
I mean, it's hard to tell from the outside.
Well, uh, President Millet, Down in Argentina just announced three more steps to cut spending.
See if you think these are good ideas for cutting spending.
He's going to ban the state from buying advertisements because it's used to essentially buy journalists.
So apparently the government could buy advertising in a publication and it would guarantee that they got good coverage.
So he's going to make that illegal.
But just think about it.
The government was buying ads.
He's just saying, how about the government doesn't buy any ads?
Yes, please.
How about exactly that?
That's a good idea.
How about another one?
He's gonna close the state news agency.
There's a state news agency?
Again, I'm gonna call this was an easy one.
Another layup.
Yes.
If you have a state news agency, yes, close it.
Of course.
Of course.
How about this?
He's going to disband the State Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Racism.
Yes, please.
Because you know that they just turned into racists.
Like, I don't have to know anything about the country, or anything about this specific organization, except that he's banning it, to know it probably just turned into the DEI, CRT business in the United States.
So, yes.
You need to get your country out of that business.
So three more winning plays by President Millet.
I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and there to be something wrong with that guy.
Do you?
I have a little bit of the too good to be true feeling about him.
A little too good to be true?
I don't know.
I'm just gonna say I don't think he'll have a completely unbumpy run, but I'm liking what I see so far.
Well, the State of the Union is coming up in a few days, and a National Review article by Noah Rothman, he said that President, this is just an ex-post, he said that President Biden reportedly plans to spend a portion of his State of the Union address leaning heavily into the notion that his fellow Americans are idiots.
That's really what it is.
The State of the Union for Biden literally is hoping and praying that there are enough idiots that will believe what he says.
But apparently one of the things he's going to talk about is shrinkfish.
Shrinkflation.
Now, come on.
The fact that doddering old Biden can't be trusted to talk about any topic except that he's getting less potato chips because it's the only thing he understands.
He can take a question on that.
Uh, I think my potato chips have fewer chips in the bag.
Uh, Mr. Biden?
I'd like to drill into that.
Are you saying that there's a bag and it's got chips in it?
And your contention is that there are fewer chips?
Yes, fewer chips.
All right, all right.
But you're saying that the size of the bag...
Has shrunk?
Or the number of chips?
Well, I'm not sure, but there's fewer chips.
Sometimes the bag's smaller and the chips, sometimes just fewer chips.
Good.
Well, you seem to have a strong grasp of this problem.
Can you tell us something about, oh, inflation or the war in Ukraine?
Well, I'm running out of time, but it was great to talk to you about the shortage of chips in my bag.
I feel like you go like that.
You know, the thing that makes me laugh is whenever I see a politician look into the camera and say, voters are smart.
They'll understand what's going on here because voters are very smart in this country.
And I always laugh and I think, are there any voters so dumb that they think they're smart?
Like, you'd have to be really dumb to think you're smart about politics.
So, the AP, and this is important who it's coming from, they say that Biden is preparing to address the nation while more than six in ten U.S.
adults doubt his mental capability.
Has that ever happened in the history of politics anywhere in any country?
Has there ever been a free press that could say, in polling, they could say six out of ten people think you're mentally retarded.
And then we just go on like that's okay.
We're just skating along.
Yeah, you'd think that'd be a problem.
You'd imagine that could be a problem, but no.
And then as Vivek Ramaswamy points out, the New York Times is also You know, dumping on Biden a little bit.
So it does look, when you see the AP, who is pro-Democrat normally in their reporting, when you see them going anti-Biden in at least their headlines, and you see the New York Times going anti-Biden in their headlines, it is signaling that they plan to replace him.
But here's the best signal.
Apparently Biden has indicated that he thinks that if Trump were the winner, that at the end of his second term, he would refuse to leave the office.
Now, first of all, it's just so stupid that it's hard to even address.
But the part people miss is that that's a case of thinking past the sale.
Can you imagine any candidate for president Talking about what could happen four years after his opponent wins the race.
That's what Biden was doing.
He was talking about Trump not leaving office four years after he won the race that hasn't happened yet.
Now, I can assure you that as a trained hypnotist, I say too often, that he's not expecting to win.
He's definitely not expecting to be the president because you don't even talk hypothetically About your your candidate, you know your opponent in four years Yeah So anyway, I think the jig is up every you know, every signal is pointing that they're planning to replace him but Yeah, we already talked about the Supreme Court
If you're just joining us, the Supreme Court apparently voted nine to nothing, that Trump can stay on all the ballots.
Now, I need a fact check on this.
Does that guarantee that he's on the ballot, or is there still some extra legal risk that's unrelated to what they ruled on?
If he got convicted of a felony, he could still stay on, right?
Congress would have to pass an amendment.
It's a federal decision, not for the states.
Alright, so there might be a deeper issue.
I'm just looking at the comments.
We'll get back to that.
Alright.
There's a good deep fake made by AI that's getting some attention, because even though people know it's a fake, it's really effective.
So there's a picture of Trump being surrounded by very happy black voters.
All women, I think, in the picture.
So there's a bunch of black women who are just hugging him tightly.
They're all smiles and happy.
And it was done by a Trump supporter.
And I don't think he was really trying to pass it off as real.
I think he was just passing it off as part of his preferences or his narrative or something.
So it's not the issue that people don't know it's fake, although some probably do, don't know.
But here's the thing that I'd like to give you as my persuasion lesson of the day.
You have to see that picture to realize how effective it is, even as a fake.
And let me see if I can quickly find it for you.
Um, cause I, I posted it, but I realized that talking about it doesn't give you the signal that you need on this.
You have to actually see the picture and then it just jumps right out.
Um, and of course I can't find it.
Why would it be the only thing I can't find in my feed?
All right.
Well, the point is, That if you saw how happy the people looked, the happiness in the picture, that's not funny.
Yeah, don't be like that.
Unacceptable comment.
So here's the lesson.
That picture of them all smiling is way more powerful than any words, right?
So if somebody says, oh, I think the black voters are gonna like Trump more, words, words, words.
Oh, I think his policies are better for black Americans, or they did it better under him, whatever.
None of that is nearly, oh, there we go.
On the Locals platform, there's a picture of it.
None of them are nearly as effective as the fake picture, even if you know it's fake.
You can be told in advance it's fake, and it still does its work, because everybody is so happy in the picture.
Like, genuinely, they look happy, and they look like real people.
So, be advised that if you want to send in a fake, and it can do its work, Even as a fake, just label it.
Just label it as a fake.
Because it'll do everything you want it to do, and you won't get in trouble for trying to fool people.
Just say what it is.
All right, Michael Moore is... I'll just tell you the story.
It feels like commentary is unnecessary.
But his point is that we're mad at Hamas for attacking the Jews, but that the real fight is we should be worried about the white Christians.
Because the white Christians have been the real enemies of the Jews for 2,000 years or something.
And if Israel would just wise up, they would know that their real enemy is not the people who came running at them and shooting all their people and raping them.
They're not the real enemy.
The real enemy is the people who sold you protection and guns and is your closest ally.
Those are the real enemy, according to Michael Moore.
Now, like I said, I don't think I need to comment on that, do I?
Does that look like just plain old insanity?
I think somehow he's figured out how to offend everybody and be stupid at the same time.
That's quite a feat.
And it's kind of strange, actually, because Michael Moore is one of the few people who's been able to see things clearly, even when it wasn't his preference.
But what the hell's up with this?
I mean, it just looks crazy.
All right.
So, Miranda Devine, New York Post, is talking about a story in which the Chinese spy chief who gave Hunter Biden a million dollars for his legal services, his name is Patrick Ho, and I guess the Ho wants his money back.
So he's actually tried to get a refund because he didn't get his money's worth from Hunter.
Because Hunter didn't do anything for him and indeed he wasn't even a licensed attorney.
So apparently he paid him for legal services when he wasn't even licensed to provide them in that place.
So, and here's the funniest part.
Somehow I missed this little tidbit about Ho.
So there's a Chinese firm executive who is known to be the, yeah, I think he was called the Chinese spy chief, you know, because he was so connected to their intelligence.
And here's something I didn't know was a proven thing.
That Ho had been convicted in 2019 For paying bribes to the presidents of Chad and Uganda?
He was sentenced to three years in jail before being deported to Hong Kong.
Did you know that the guy who gave Biden a million dollars, which we all knew, did you all know that he'd actually been in jail for bribing presidents of countries?
How did I not know that before?
How in the world did I get here?
Without knowing that he was literally an official briber.
He wasn't just a guy who went bribing.
He was a serial briber!
Do you need to wait for the court case to tell you what was going on there?
Well, the serial briber gave me a million dollars, but what I think he wanted was some legal advice.
Alright, you're all talking about the glitch.
Well, I think the simulation is telling us something when they made his name Ho, because if a Ho is asking for his money back from Hunter Biden, it doesn't get any funnier than that.
Oh, wait, it does.
The head of Hamas is named Sinwar.
Sin and war.
And Wall Street Journal is reporting that he's been missing for a week.
He's been missing.
What do you think that means?
Well, I'm going to take a stab at it.
You have vacation.
Yeah, he just needed some time off.
He's been working long hours.
I think he's in the RV with precaution.
He's riding his RV all around the West Bank.
Now, here's why I think he's not dead.
Because Israel would have told you.
Or they would have told you.
Here's why I think he's not a free man.
Because you don't go weak during the middle of a war without anybody seeing you.
You don't go weak.
Here's what I think is happening.
I think the Israelis have captured him.
I think he's being interrogated.
Interrogated?
To find out what he knows.
And if he doesn't know anything that they need, well, I think that they'll interrogate him twice as hard.
Yeah, I feel like he's getting interrogated, is what I think.
Now that's just a guess, but it certainly doesn't make sense that he'd be dead and nobody would tell us, and it doesn't make sense that he'd be alive and say nothing for a week during the height of the war.
So I'm gonna go with he's already been captured.
And if you hear from Israel that, uh, no, they talked to him in a friendly way, but they released him to drive around in his RV, you know he's being pregozioned.
Uh, there's a report from, uh, I saw Mario Nafal was reporting this on X. I don't know where the original report came from.
Uh, no, a new Defense Department report.
Why would the Defense Department report on this?
There's a Defense Department report that says that Trump's White House Medical Unit was giving out a lot of stimulants, you know, like speed type things, like Modena phenol and Xanax.
So there are, quote, a wash in speed, officials said.
Does that sound like a story that our U.S.
military should be producing in an election year?
Does that sound good to you?
That the Defense Department would put out that report about the past Commander-in-Chief and maybe the future Commander-in-Chief.
No.
Everybody involved in that should be fired immediately.
Shouldn't they?
Or at least whenever the new President comes in.
How in the world does the Defense Department get this involved in politics during a political year?
How about they just shut the fuck up about that?
Right?
If there was no problem that came from it, and there was no report there was a problem, how about you just shut up?
How about we've lost all respect for the military because you do shit like this?
Like, was this reported by, you know, a general in a dress?
I mean, this is completely inappropriate for the military to be involved in politics in an election year.
Just hold on to that report.
Yeah?
Maybe, you know, tell somebody who needs to know about it, but don't tell the public.
Crazy.
There's just something totally wrong with that.
They should all be fired.
All right.
But I'm not too concerned that they're using speed because that is a performance enhancer.
Might be terrible in lots of other ways.
But the fact is, it's a productivity enhancer.
This annex is another problem.
All right.
Here's my take on the 2020 election.
I think this is where I'm going to end up on.
I don't think we'll ever agree in this country.
We'll never agree whether the 2020 election was completely fair or not.
Would you agree?
That we'll never agree if 2020 was rigged or not rigged.
And there's no amount of evidence that will change the minds of at least a third of the country.
But here's something we can agree on because we know this.
There's just tons of reporting on it.
There's a lot of stuff that can't be audited.
For example, there are things behind locked doors we can't look at.
There are records that have been deleted, digital records.
There are physical things that have been destroyed or lost, and all of them are important.
They're like swing state, you know, could change the election kind of stuff.
They're all lost, deleted.
Now, if you just consider the stuff that's lost and deleted, That would be enough to conclude that you cannot tell or you can't audit the election.
In other words, there wouldn't be any way to know if it were fraudulent because we have such a poor ability to audit from beginning to end.
So here's where I think we should find middle ground.
We do not have a system that, by its design, allows you to know who won.
Our system, by design, Meaning that the people are fully aware of what they're doing, designed it to prevent the public from knowing who won.
So that when they tell you who won, you'll just have to take their word for it.
Now under that situation, how could you possibly think the election is not rigged?
That pretty much guarantees it.
Pretty much guarantees it.
Now, you could argue all day about what the court did or did not find.
Not relevant.
You could tell me that we haven't proved it in the court of law.
Right.
Irrelevant.
You could say that there's no scientific study with a double-blind experiment to show that the vote was rigged.
True.
You got me there.
But proof doesn't mean the same thing as science, as it means in the court of law, or as it means to your general common sense.
My general common sense says that if we have a system that is super valuable to if you could rig it I mean the ability to rig it would be worth what a billion dollars to somebody who could go If you could if you were a hacker and you literally could rig it and it was just you you could charge a billion dollars Yeah, and you know Bitcoin or something
And so yes, if you have a system that can't be audited, it's rigged.
I would say that's proof.
If you had a system that was designed to not be rigged, then I wouldn't have that opinion.
But it's designed to not tell you who won.
Nate Silver, who's no Republican, but he's intellectually flexible, which means he follows the data where it goes.
And he says what it says, which I really appreciate about him.
Which is not to say he and I would agree on all the topics.
I don't know if we would.
But I just appreciate his intellectual honesty.
Very rare.
Very rare.
I will add him to the Internet Dad list, despite not being, you know, right-leaning.
But here's what he said.
He said 10% of Biden's 2020 voters now say they're going to vote for Trump, but only less than 1% of Trump voters say that now they're going to vote for Biden.
And Nate wants to clarify, because somebody was asking about this.
He said they're switching their votes.
They're not undecided.
Now, these are people who said, I'm totally gonna vote for Trump.
Now, I'm gonna say it again, just because I think it's so provocative.
I wouldn't put a high likelihood on this.
But we're now actually in the environment where Trump could win the black male vote, not the female vote.
He doesn't have a chance for that.
But he could win the black male vote.
That is actually within grasp.
Unbelievable.
It would be the most insane thing that ever happened in politics.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but has a Republican ever won the Hispanic vote?
I'm a little confused about the polling on that, because it's showing he's going to win the Hispanic vote.
Oh, George Bush?
No, I think George W. just did well.
He didn't win it.
Yeah.
Yeah, he was less than half.
Can you imagine?
Imagine in the context of being the build the wall guy.
Trump wins the Hispanic vote.
And he's on track to do it, I think.
And then imagine They actually won the black male vote.
I think that's totally legit.
And I feel like it's a fear response.
So I think the difference between black women and black men would be partly that the black women may be responding to the sexist stuff, and the black men are like, eh.
So it might be a little bit of a gender difference there.
But I think it's more a fear.
I think that if you're female, I'm just speculating by the way, I don't know if this is true, but I would guess if you're female, it's scarier to walk down the street at night.
Anywhere.
Right?
Because you're just not as capable of fighting somebody off.
So, and I think men are just maybe just a little bit more attracted to risk or danger.
And that the black men are looking at this and when they hear stuff like, oh, he might try to stay in office and be a dictator, I feel like they just maybe laugh at that.
Like, nah, it's bullshit.
Right?
And I do think that black men can spot bullshit.
I think they can.
I think they might be less hypnotized than a lot of people in our society today.
And, you know, I won't delve into that, it's just speculation.
But yeah, there could be a big change and it could happen fast.
I'm not going to predict it, because the odds are still against it.
But I'm going to give it a solid 20-30% chance that he wins Blackman.
And that would just be insane.
Now if Biden drops out and somebody else comes in, then it's a new ballgame.
So 60 Minutes had a report, and this is more evidence that the entire media is lined up against Biden.
Listen to this story.
You tell me if you think 60 Minutes would have reported this if they weren't trying to get rid of Biden.
So they had Raul Ortiz, who had been the chief of U.S.
Border Patrol under Biden until he retired.
That's the chief retired, not Biden.
I know it looks like Biden retired, but he didn't.
Like, not officially.
In fact, if you look at his work schedule today, there's proof he, you know, Biden didn't retire.
Has anybody looked at it today?
Have you seen his schedule for the day?
For Monday?
There's a lot going on.
Oh, oh.
Yeah, his schedule is open today.
He has nothing scheduled.
The President of the United States has nothing scheduled.
Which probably means they're talking to him, if you know what I mean.
Do you think they're talking to him?
They?
Do you think they are talking to him?
Yeah, I think so.
I think he's eating ice cream and hearing things he doesn't want to hear right now.
Or he could be practicing for the State of the Union.
Do you think he would step down during the State of the Union?
You know, what's interesting is they must be having a conversation of whether he should step down before the State of the Union.
But if he did that, then there would be nobody to give... Well, he could still give the State of the Union, because he's still president.
I think they're afraid of what he would do during the State of the Union, because that's a long speech.
Do you think Biden can do a one-hour speech?
Even from a teleprompter?
I think they're worried about how to handle it.
Here's how I would handle it.
I would say he's stepping down, and then I'd just put Kamala in there.
Take your chances.
Yeah, just say he's not gonna run.
He changed his mind.
And we'll make some decisions about, you know, who does what.
But in the meantime, Kamala's gonna do the State of the Union.
You know, I wouldn't predict it, but I'll bet they're talking about it.
So... I'll bet they're talking about it.
Oh, it's supposed to be delivered in written form.
Oh, that's a good update.
Yeah, so I guess he would have the option of just doing it in writing.
But that would certainly be a tip off.
All right.
So if the, getting back to the story, the chief of the U.S.
Border Patrol said he never once met Biden, the chief of the Border Patrol never met Biden.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
All right.
In Haiti, apparently the criminal gangs have seemed to be coordinating now, and they're maybe under the control or leadership of an ex-elite police officer from Haiti.
Uh-oh.
They have actual professional military leader.
And apparently they attacked the prisons and released the prisoners, and then attacked some other things.
And it looks like they're trying to prevent the current leader from returning to the country.
They're trying to take over before the current leader gets back.
Now here's the thing.
I don't know, is that good or bad?
Honestly, I can't tell.
Haiti is such, you know, they got such troubles.
Is it bad if they get rid of the current leader?
The criminals take over?
Is it really going to be worse?
I don't know.
All right, Nikki Haley won the Washington, D.C.
primary.
And the only thing I got out of this is that she apparently has no advisors helping her on her tweeting.
Because after she won the D.C.
primary, and by the way, she won it handily, 700,000 people in the city, and Trump only got less than 700 votes.
So he didn't put any effort into it, because Washington, D.C.
is just all Democrats, no point in it.
But the Democrats, or the few people who voted anyway, gave Nikki a commanding victory, even though it's the tiniest little state and of no consequence whatsoever.
And here's how the news reported it.
Axios reported it as first women to win a Republican primary.
Oh, Axios.
You're so funny.
Axios.
Axios is starting to sound like a punchline now, isn't it?
I'll bet you every time I say Axios from now forward, it's going to follow it with a stupid story.
You want to bet?
Anyway, Mark Elias.
Do you remember his name?
Mark Elias.
So he's the lawyer who is famous for not only pushing the Russia occlusion hoax, but he's the one who was on the ground changing all the rules in 2020 so that the Democrats got a big win.
So most people would call him an election rigger, but the legal kind.
Nobody's suggesting he necessarily broke any laws.
He just worked within the legal system to get the laws changed more favorably for the Democrats.
And it worked.
So, you know, he's mocking Trump for only getting a few votes there.
And here's how we know Nikki Hilly has nobody helping her with her posts on X.
She quote, "We're going to fight for every inch." In my capacity as a professional humorist, I have standards.
I do have standards.
And one of my standards is I can't pounce if it's too easy.
If it's too easy, the professionals have to step back.
Now, if I may, may I step back from the microphone and allow you in the comments to do your own jokes?
Because honestly, this is not for professionals.
When she makes it this easy, this is for all of you.
So take your time.
I'd just like to back up from the microphone.
Go wild.
She's going to fight for every inch.
Go.
How you doing over there?
You about done?
There you go.
There you go.
Nicely done.
Nicely done.
X-rated, just like I like it.
All right.
I think you did a very good job for amateurs.
And I won't embarrass you with my professional contributions.
But very good.
Very good.
All right.
Finally, I'd like to give an IQ test.
Do you want to answer before I ask the question?
There it is.
Damn it, you're so smart.
Now, if you're on the other platforms, if you're not on Locals, you're not seeing the dazzling display of intelligence.
I haven't even asked the question yet.
And there's just a wall of correct answers for the question I haven't even asked.
Watch this.
I'll now ask the question.
Based on the Rasmussen poll, and you have to get this within two basis points.
How many, how many people said they think Biden is the stronger supporter of Israel than Trump?
Uh, 27% is the answer.
27.
You all said 25 before I asked the question, but as soon as I said it's within two, you quickly modified to 27.
And I think it's funny that nobody said 23.
That's even funnier.
You knew it was going to be more, not less.
Yes, if you're new to this, the reason we can all guess this before the question is asked is that for some reason, 25% of poll respondents will always say the stupidest answer.
And it doesn't matter what the topic is.
And I'm not saying that they're all, you know, people I disagree with.
It's even on topics, you know, where I agree with the majority or don't.
It's just everywhere.
25% get every poll question wrong, even if it's an easy one.
And furthermore, according to Rasmussen, the support for Israel looks like it's dropping.
45% of American voters sympathize more with Israel, given the Gaza situation, and that's down from 48% a month ago.
And it's down quite a bit from 59% last November.
So before there was direct war in Gaza, 59% were pro-Israeli versus the Palestinian situation.
And that's dropped quite a bit.
Now, as is obvious, I guess.
The more people who die in Gaza, the less support Israel is going to get.
And as I said, in the war, all the data is false.
So we have no idea.
Yeah, we talked about the 9-0.
So we don't know what's going to happen.
I'm sorry, you took me right off of my train of thought.
I was on three different topics while I was trying to talk.
I had three things going in my head at the same time.
But my point is that even though the death toll in Gaza is not any kind of a credible number, people are going to start repeating the number that comes from Hamas, because it's the only one.
So if Israel doesn't have their own number, The only one that's out there is the one that's going to get reported.
And even if they report it as a not perfectly credible number, it still becomes the number, right?
If it's the one in your head, it becomes the one in your head.
Now, let me give you an example of why this is a problem.
In my corporate days, I was usually the finance and budget guy.
And so my boss would call me in and say, have you done the analysis on this or that?
And I'd say, no, you haven't done that yet.
And then she would say, but I gotta put the budget together, so can you give me a number?
What's your best guess?
I'm just doing the first draft of the budget.
And I would say, first draft, you say?
She goes, yeah, it's just the first draft.
Just give me the best estimate you can.
I know that it'll get refined later, but this is just to get the general idea of the budget.
Do you think I would give her a number?
Absolutely not.
No way!
No way!
That is a rookie mistake.
You die before you give that number.
Do you know why?
Because whatever number you get becomes the number forever.
So if the real number is, it's gonna cost us $1,000, but you didn't know, you're like, I don't know.
I feel like it could be like $50,000.
And then later you could come back the very next day and say, oh, now that I've analyzed it, it's really only $1,000.
That $50 is going to live forever.
Everybody who heard it is going to remember the $50, and you will not be able to talk them out of it with all of your data and your graphs and your numbers.
So, Israel may be making a persuasion mistake by not giving their own numbers, but probably they think their own numbers would be high.
And that would be bad as well.
So the risk is the one number that we keep hearing is from the Hamas-Palestinian side.
And as low as the credibility is, yeah, as low as the credibility is, it's going to be the one everybody remembers.
So that's really going to hurt Israel.
All right.
European Union find Apple $2 billion.
For being anti-competitive, according to their European laws, meaning that Apple was favoring its own music streaming service over the rivals.
Now, not only do they favor it, it literally operates like a virus on your phone and on your computer.
How many times have you had to remove that Apple Music advertisement that popped up on your screen?
Oh my God, I hate that thing!
I hate it that I have to go manually delete it every time.
Wow.
So yes, Apple was in fact favoring their own music service, and I guess that's illegal in the European Union.
I, just for full disclosure, I used to have Apple stock for quite a few years, a number of years, did great.
But I sold it recently because the AI risk feels too big.
Now, in all likelihood, if you were going to bet a small amount of number, if you were to make a $10 bet, I would bet that they would do fine and that they'll come up with a really good AI of their own.
They'll build it into the operating system.
They'll have another few super cycles probably do fine So if I'm gonna bet a hundred dollars or ten dollars I'd bet on Apple But if you're gonna bet a million dollars You want to start thinking about some diversification because you can lose ten or a hundred but you don't want to lose a million dollars so I Got rid of my investment because it was no longer A monopoly.
So the reason I owned Apple is that they operated like a monopoly.
Not just a monopoly, but a diversified monopoly.
It was, like, perfect.
And it was very predictable.
It was just the biggest cash cow of all time.
But AI could change that overnight.
If they don't have a killer AI phone in the works, it could be a problem.
But they probably do.
Like I said, at least, I don't know, Two chances out of three that they'll nail it.
But I think the phone is going to get rid of apps.
Or something like it.
I think the phone might turn into, you talk to your phone, and then your phone goes off the network, and then the apps might live in the network, in some sense.
But you don't need them on your phone.
And so, I don't know.
Apple's got some big things to fix.
NBC News says maybe the polar bears have adapted and they won't go extinct from all the climate change.
How do you interpret that?
The first hint is NBC News.
What's that tell you?
Tells you it's the official CIA and or Democrat narrative.
So if their narrative, which used to be the polar bears are going to die from climate change, has changed to during an election year, election year, has changed to looks like those polar bears are going to do fine.
It seems they've adapted.
Does it look to you like they need to come up with an explanation of why climate change didn't kill the polar bears?
It looks like that to me.
It looks like a little bit of the cats on the roof for the climate change alarm, doesn't it?
Well, we don't want to say that all the predictions have been bullshit forever, but it looks like maybe those polar bears will survive after all.
Yeah.
Got lucky.
Do you know who is just proven right by polar bears surviving, if that's in fact what's happening?
Bjorn Lomborg, and everybody who said, and Vivek, and basically everybody who said that the alarm is overdone, and that we're really good at adjusting.
But not only are humans really good at adjusting, and even if the natural disasters are extreme, we figure out how to lower our death count to the point where it's almost minuscule compared to what it was historically.
And it turns out that you could even be a dumb old polar bear and you could figure out how to not die from climate change if you have enough time to work on it.
Even the polar bears had enough time.
Like, uh, I feel like it's one degree warmer this year than it was 10 years ago.
What do you think?
And the other polar bear is like, yeah, you know what?
I'm feeling it.
Maybe we should go look for some, uh, you know, salmon or something on the, on the dry land, get off these icebergs.
So I think that's how it worked out.
I think the polar bears much smarter than you think.
Oh, Ooh.
OK.
And meanwhile, New York Sea levels are predicting... There's a new prediction that the New York Sea levels, because all the melting ice, could surge up to 13 inches, the water line.
But it could be 114 inches, based on a new study.
How'd the old studies do?
Like, I'm a little confused by this, because I thought Al Gore said we're already underwater.
What's going on?
All right, let me ask you this.
Do you think it would be appropriate, if you're going to print an article about the sea levels rising because of climate change, is it at all appropriate to mention all the other times that's been predicted?
And Benton completely wrong.
Is that not useful context at all?
No?
No?
Who's owned by Israel?
I want to see what...
Looks like you got your own little side conversation going on there.
Anyway, I'm not too worried about sea levels unless they rose.
I think we'd figure it out.
Probably figured out.
And Nikki Haley will get 13 inches of sea level rise.
She'll fight for every inch.
Yeah.
They finally figured out how Egyptians built the pyramids.
All right, I got to read this.
Somebody on local says, oh, there's a statue from 1900 B.C.
depicting 172 men moving a statue with ropes attached to a sled, and they put water on the sand that makes it slipperier.
There's an Optimus stiffness.
All right, so they think they wet the sand and dragged it over the sand.
Maybe.
Maybe.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you this fine Monday.
Let's go count your bitcoins and have a good day.
Thanks for joining over on the platforms of X and Rumble and the highly racist YouTube.
