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, Tate Brothers Arrest, Gender Pay Gap, Batshit Crazy Women, President Trump, Entitlements, Hormone Blocker Ban, RFK Jr., United Airlines Mechanical Issues, Axios Bias, Male Voter Party Shift, Voter ID, Media Racism, Ukraine War, Putin Nukes Threat, DEI Reparations, TikTok Ban, AOC, Rand Paul, Haiti Cannibals, Hur Hearing, Fani Willis, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because that's what it is.
If you'd like to take your experience, and it's an experience, let me tell you, up to a level that nobody can even imagine with their tiny human brains, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice of stein, a canteen jug, a flask, A vessel of any kind.
Filling with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Ah, I feel connected to all of you with a invisible connection.
I thought I was going to come up with a better word than connection.
And then once I got there, it really wasn't a better one.
So we'll just go with that.
Well, let's just jump into the stories.
We'll do the big ones and the small ones, and I'll do at least one thing that could get me cancelled.
Maybe more.
More cancelled than I already am.
Well, the Tate brothers are looking at, some say, life in prison in the UK.
And you're probably saying to yourself, my God, What are the charges that are so bad they could go to prison for life?
And the answer is, I don't know.
I looked, I clicked a bunch of things, I read a bunch of things, but I have no idea.
Is it some kind of sexual charge or something?
Does anybody know?
I've not seen any news of what the charges are.
Now, I think Andrew Tate said he's worried it could turn into an Assange situation.
That situation being somebody who's really a political prisoner, but the system is treating them like they're a normal prisoner, or a normal criminal, and could get them killed or kept in jail forever.
Somebody says it's a rape charge.
Both of them?
Both brothers, coincidentally?
Well, how many of you think that's real?
Does anybody think that the reason for the charges is that there's a real crime?
I doubt it.
I mean, we live in a world where you just can't take anything on face value, can you?
Now, I want to be clear, I'm no supporter of the Tate brothers.
We've, or at least Andrew Tate, I've had my differences with him, so I don't support him personally, but when I see a situation like this, it does not scream criminal.
It screams political, and I don't think I can ignore the fact that people who have opinions a lot like his all seem to be targeted.
Can you think of anybody who has an opinion anywhere in the general area of the Tay Brothers who has not been targeted by the government?
Or it looks like the government or intelligence services.
Something like that?
I can't think of one.
Can you?
It seems like every single person who has a certain set of opinions is targeted by the legal system.
For all the crimes!
Now, I don't know if the Tate Brothers did any crimes.
Like I said, it's not my job to defend their character or their history or anything else.
I'm just saying we live in a world where my first assumption is it's probably fake.
Isn't that terrible?
My first assumption, which I still keep, that's my current assumption, is it's probably fake.
I hate that I even live in a world in which I have to say that, but it's probably fake.
All right.
Can you believe that yet again, there was another story about the gender pay gap and quoting the 82 cents on the dollar thing.
Would you like me to tell you why that story still persists?
The 82 cents on a dollar?
Now, everybody who is a little bit educated is aware that that's just comparing apples to oranges.
And if you compared people with the same experience, you know, that disappears.
But why do people keep saying it?
Why does it just keep coming up over and over for decades when it's been disproven by every study and every single person who knows anything about it?
It's literally comparing an apple to an orange.
So, oh, more men are in, let's say, STEM jobs.
More women might be in, let's say, jobs that are more nurturing or taking care of people, you know, sociologists and stuff.
And they make different money.
But I thought every educated person knows that, but it turns out there's a lot who don't.
And do you know why this story persists?
Even though so obviously, take it out of context, not true.
It persists because nobody can tell batshit crazy women the truth.
It's just too dangerous.
The reason that this even exists is because there's so many people who don't know how to do any kind of analytical job, can't do the research, can't do the math.
This is a stupidity issue, not a difference of opinion.
There's no difference of opinion.
Everybody smart, male and female, knows this is fake news.
Everyone.
And the reason that there are people who are not, let's say, experts and don't follow the news as much, the reason they believe it That this persists is because men are too afraid to tell women the truth.
It's like, this is not, you're comparing a rock to a, you know, a bird.
Yeah.
The only reason that number exists is because you don't know how to analyze things.
So it's basically like a math problem.
All right.
So that's the truth.
The truth is it's a totally fake.
And here's one of my standards for detecting BS.
It's not 100%.
It doesn't work every single time, but it's really, really good.
It goes like this.
If the science or the data tells you one thing, and your entire lived experience tells you the other, it's probably not true.
It's probably not true.
And I always use the lung cancer example of smoking.
Science says that smoking gives you lung cancer, And sure enough, I know people who smoke cigarettes and died of lung cancer.
So that's not proof, you know, my personal experience, but at least it's consistent.
What I see matches what the scientists say.
Pretty good.
But in my entire life, I've never heard of one example, not even one, in which a woman was paid less than a man When they had the same experience, they had the same, you know, let's say qualifications, did the same amount of work, and negotiated just as aggressively.
I've never seen it.
Have any of you ever seen it?
Have you ever seen a verified situation where it really was the same?
Same years of experience, same qualifications, just 20% different pay.
I've never seen it.
All right, here's a little mental experiment for you.
This will blow your mind.
Take a hundred men, chosen at random, but they all have the same occupation.
A hundred men, just randomly chosen.
There are no women in the group, just a hundred men.
And let's say they're all, I don't know, they're all data analysts or something.
All have the same job.
Do they all have the same pay?
Do all the data analysts have the same pay?
A hundred chosen randomly?
No, of course not.
Their pay is going to be all over the place.
So should you say that the people in the bottom half of the pay, because it would be lots of different pay levels, would I say that they've been discriminated against for being men?
No, you would just say that any hundred people even in the same job would have You know, different incomes.
Do you think somebody studied and found the ones that got a little extra and they're trying to correct it?
No, we don't do that.
Do you think anybody looked at the men who are paid less than other men for the same job and said, we got to correct this?
No, nobody gives a shit because it's about men.
But suppose you took a hundred men and a hundred women randomly and some of the, um, and they're all in the same job.
Now, if you randomly studied 100 men and 100 women, would you find a whole bunch of situations in which there were, in fact, women who seemed to be suspiciously paid less than the men?
Yes, you would.
Because there'd be people paid all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons in all kinds of different places.
But you could also find in that same group men who are paid less than other men, and also men who are paid less than other women.
So the entire topic is people who don't know how to do analysis.
So to pretend there's some kind of difference of opinion or that it matches your experience is just absurd.
Now, let me ask you in the comments, again, just so you can see each other.
Has anybody ever even seen one example, I'm going to say in the last 10 years.
We'll limit it to the last 10 years.
In the last 10 years, has anybody ever seen one example Where you were really sure that people had the same qualifications but different pay.
And if you had, are you aware that you could find that same difference if you were only looking at men?
You would find men with different pay for the same jobs.
How do you explain that?
No, it's all just bad analysis.
There's nothing else to it.
All right.
Trump said something that got him in a little bit of political hot water.
He said, in an interview, asking about entitlements, because as you know, our budget's out of control.
And he said, there's a lot that can be done on entitlements in terms of cutting.
So then Biden got on that and said, Trump's going to cut your entitlements.
Now, what Trump said was, there's a lot that can be done in terms of cutting.
But I feel like there's a whole level of creativity that could be applied that hasn't been.
For example, I'll just take myself.
If you gave me the option of taking half of what I would probably get in Social Security, but take it now, I'd probably do it.
And then I'd save the country a bunch of money on Social Security, and then they could use that for other people.
Because my situation isn't like other people.
And maybe I say to myself, you know what?
I don't know if Social Security will go away someday.
I'll just take half now, you know, because it's not going to be the deciding point of whether I have a good life.
So I'll save you some money, the country, by taking half.
Would you say yes to that?
Who loses?
Who's the loser in that deal?
If I willingly say, you know, I'll be fine with half, and you get to keep some of your money, your tax money that would have gone to me, Are you happy?
So, I wonder if there are other things like that.
For example, could you say to some young people, you know, young people, we've been doing this ordinary social security thing, but if you'd like, it's purely optional, You can have your social security put into, let's say, the stock market, into an ETF, a nice diversified American ETF, so that you'd be well diversified and you would do as well as the country.
And if you opted into it, and you don't have to, you might make way more money because you got stock, but we would only give you maybe less.
We would give you less, but you could have it in stock.
Would anybody go for that?
Probably.
Would it work out for the people who said, yes, I'll take stock?
Yeah, if they're 25 when they say it, probably.
Because stock tends to be a better idea than most things in the long, long, long run.
So I like Trump being honest enough to say there's a lot that can be done, meaning that you can't just let it run forever.
Something has to be done.
We all know that.
But I'd like to see him get I'd like to see him get creative.
I think it's time for that.
Like, really, really think about all the ways the free market and maybe some kind of a gambling network and some kind of an alternative situation.
I'll bet there is a lot that can be done.
Anyway, what I'd like to see is some new legislation to give all of our security money, Social Security money, to undocumented migrants.
So it'd be a bill that says, we'll just stop paying Social Security to all citizens, and we'll just give all that money to undocumented immigrants.
Now, the reason I want that is not because I want it to pass.
That'd be crazy.
That'd be crazy, people.
I don't want to give all my Social Security money away to undocumented migrants.
There'd just be more of them.
But what I do want to see is that legislation floated to see who votes for it.
I just want to see who votes for it.
Just to find out, like, how many people are not even trying.
Because doesn't it seem like we've got to a situation where it's not so much a difference of opinion?
Does it feel to you like there's a philosophical difference of opinion between the Democrats and the Republicans?
Not always.
Sometimes, yes.
Not always.
What it looks to me is that some people are not even trying, or they're trying to destroy the country, or they're batshit crazy.
So let's just create, much the way you've heard the stories about the people who ran pranks on the scientific reviews.
So I think it's been done more than once, where people would write totally fake scientific papers, just ridiculous stuff, to see if they could get it peer-reviewed and accepted and published.
And sure enough, they can get it peer-reviewed and accepted and published.
And then it tells the public, oh, this is what's going on.
Very useful, because once you learn that half of the scientific studies are just fake, you know, it gives you some perspective.
So I'd like to do the same thing.
Come up with some fake legislation to give all of our social security money, every single penny of it, to undocumented migrants, and then just watch who says yes.
You don't think half of the squad is going to say yes?
Because whatever's worse for the country, they seem fairly consistent about doing.
Why?
I don't know.
Well, over in England, the National Health Service there has decided to ban puberty blockers for kids.
So kids who want to transition, they're not going to be able to get their puberty blockers.
And the reason is that they just think it's too dangerous health-wise, isn't working out risk-reward-wise.
I'm kind of bored with the whole trans thing.
Every time I have to talk about it, I feel like I'm being manipulated.
Because there's nothing I care less about than the trans issues.
I love the trans community.
Yeah, big fan of the LGBTQ community.
Love them all.
Would love for them to live the best life that they can.
Put together for themselves and it's not up to me to tell anybody how to live for the adults.
But what's interesting to me about this is that it seems to me that every American kid from this day forward has a lawsuit.
And I'm no lawyer, but let me just try this out.
See if any of the real lawyers agree with this.
It would be one thing if your doctor gave you a treatment and he honestly or she honestly believed it was good for you.
That's fine.
And then if things go wrong, well, that's just the real world.
I wish I hadn't, but things went wrong.
But what happens when probably every doctor who's in this space in America is now aware that England looked at it and found it too dangerous.
Now, now give it to a kid.
You don't think you have a little extra legal liability now?
I thought the standard was that once it becomes common knowledge that something's too dangerous, that would be the point where you're being irresponsible.
Am I wrong?
Or can a doctor in this country say, yeah, I'm completely aware that in England they did the analysis and found it too dangerous.
But it's still legal here, so here's your pills.
I feel like there's a tipping point situation in which it wouldn't take many entities to say, this is dangerous, we're making it illegal, before everybody would have to make it illegal.
Because remember, the law and medicine in general are very risk averse.
They don't want to do something where you can obviously get sued.
You know, if it's just begging to get sued, they don't want to do it.
So, if everybody was just guessing, about what was the right thing to do, then I don't know that you could sue a doctor for giving somebody puberty blockers when they're young, if they legitimately didn't know that that was a risky situation. But now that they know, I don't know.
I've got a feeling that insurance and the courts will take care of this pretty quickly now.
That's my prediction, that the transitioning of the kids probably is going to collapse as a thing that society ever did.
I think someday it'll seem as bad as German experimentation on prisoners.
I think it'll seem that bad someday in the future.
Um, by today's perspective, I do think most of the people involved were just trying to help, which I hate.
I hate that most of the people had good intentions.
I mean, it's better than bad intentions, but I hate that.
Well, there, there are a lot of, a lot of people who are going to learn that they've basically been butchers and murderers and they thought they were doing something good.
So, and every day I see another story about the number of, People taking their own lives in the trans community, especially after transition, seems just insanely high.
But you have to be careful about that data.
I would be real careful about any kind of self-harm data about the trans community, because I think it's hard to untangle cause and effect in that case.
All right, RFK Jr.
has teased that two choices for his vice-presidential running mate might be NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers or Minnesota, ex-Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura.
Now, does that sound like he's serious about being president?
Because remember, RFK Jr.
did say that running for president was the way he could have free speech.
So there's part of me that thinks that RFK Jr.
is not expecting to win or playing to win, but rather he's playing to finally, after decades of trying to be heard about the food supply and the pharmaceutical companies, that he's just doing it to make his point.
And I believe that the reason he would identify these two individuals who you don't think would be at the top of the list at the moment, although obviously Jesse Ventura's had a serious government job at one point, I think they're both anti... I don't want to say anti-vax.
I'll say they're not pro-vax.
Would that be true?
Which is different from being anti.
So I think he's just being consistent with his primary concern, which is the health of the American public.
I think RFK Jr.' 's consistent focus on the health of Americans, honestly, is one of the best things I've ever seen in America.
It's one of the best things I've ever seen in American history.
You know, it's funny, we're surrounded with such just horrible, horrible actors in politics and sometimes your fellow citizens, but I don't see anything wrong with what Kennedy is doing.
It doesn't look like a bid for power.
It doesn't look like a bid for money.
It doesn't look like, um, It doesn't look like there's any direct payoff for him other than completing his work of making the country safer.
I have to, I got to say that my respect for what he apparently is doing is very high, very high, very much appreciated.
Well, United Airlines has had a fifth incident in what the news calls fifth incident in over a week.
May I take a moment to say, if you're writing a headline, and you ever write this headline, it's the fifth incident in over a week.
Here's a better way.
It might be the fifth incident in, let's say, 10 days, but you know what is over a week?
Everything else.
You don't say the fifth time in over a week, Because over a week could be 10 years.
That's over a week.
Yeah.
You know what?
I've eaten a potato 700 times in over a week.
I have.
I'm not even exaggerating.
I've eaten a potato 700 times in over a week.
Yeah, and I'm not going to stop.
Anyway, United Airlines, so they continue to have these mechanical problems.
The mechanical problems all seem to have the same character, that there's some component of the airplane that falls off.
Am I right?
Like tire falls off, part falls off a wing, door falls off.
And I would like to suggest that if they have maybe one more incident in over a week, That they have to change the names from United Airlines to Mostly United, but some things fall off.
It's longer, but I think more accurate.
Fly United!
No, not completely united.
Mostly United, but some things fall off.
You gotta expect that.
All right, well Axios is talking about the huge increase in Black and Latino voters who are Moving to the Republican side, and they show some, apparently it looks to be, according to polling, the most massive swing for black and Hispanic voters since a long time ago.
60s.
Now, what is the explanation for that?
What's the explanation?
Migration?
Economy?
Natural?
Why now?
Why now?
Well, here's what they say.
So Axios should not be considered a genuine news source.
They appear to present themselves as more of a biased political actor, as most of the news does.
But here's what they say.
The intrigue, this is part of their story, the intrigue, the drop-off, meaning the drop-off of support for Democrats by that community, comes even after Trump made several racist and bigoted comments about immigrants and people of color.
Now do you think if I click on them I will find them to be racist and bigoted comments?
Do you think that's news, or was that just some person's opinion?
Well, you know, if you could click on them yourself, you'll find that somebody has decided to interpret normal language as bigoted, you know, like they usually do.
So that's not really news.
That's just bias, basically.
And then they say the biggest loss might be, at least somebody said, is, somebody else said, actually, is people under 30.
So now Biden is losing young people, black people, and Hispanics.
Did Axios tell the story right?
Did they frame this story right?
So they're losing young people, blacks, and Hispanics.
What's missing in this story?
See anything missing?
Let me tell you the trick that's being played here.
There is a big trick being played.
This is misdirection.
When they tell you that black and Hispanic and young people are moving toward Republicans, the real story is what they're not telling you.
The real story is the Democrat Party has become the party of women.
Do you know why they don't want to tell you that?
And by the way, it is the black men, at least the black men I know are tending to be a little bit more pro-Trump, the black women less so, but also a little bit.
I think that the left-leaning media can't tell you that men are going to the Republican side.
Do you know why?
Because that would be too influential.
It would be too influential.
If you hear that blacks and Hispanics and young people are moving to the other side, you might say to yourself, well, you know, I'm not one of those people, but it's an interesting story.
But if you heard that men were going to one side, You'd have some real questions, because the men know how to protect the country.
And, you know, I hate to sound too much like Tucker Carlson, but There's a lot of justification.
I would claim, same as Tucker says, that the justification for racial discrimination is gone, basically.
I mean, there's no reason to do it, because the difference between any one individual of the same race is so different.
You know, there's no such thing as an average black guy.
Like, that's not a thing.
Every black person is so infinitely different from every other, just like every white person is infinitely different from every other.
But gender is really a big difference, right?
So gender is the one that's a really big difference.
And one of the big differences, which I will claim to my death, is that men are smarter About security and survival and protection.
Women are better at, you know, nurturing and a whole bunch of other stuff, you know, better, better verbal skills, you know, a whole bunch of stuff they're better at, doing better at college at the moment, etc.
So I'm not, it's not a competition.
It's just that we're not all the same and there's some average differences and you're seeing it here.
And I think that if the Democrats started saying that men are leaving the Democrat party, That the women who are remaining would say, wait, what?
So I think a third of the Democrats would say, yeah, that's good because the men were the problem anyway.
But I think two thirds of the Democrat women would say, wait a minute, what did you just say?
You're saying all the men who are Democrats are leaving.
I think that would be the end of the Democrat Party.
So I think the framing that it's racial is missing the far bigger framing that abortion in particular is primarily women, right?
The fear of Trump as the big ol' whatever, mostly women.
And the men who don't want to disagree with women, basically.
So as long as we see the differences between the parties as racial, There is some big movement, but if it ever became more honest and showed that it was basically Democrats for the party of women, and the Republicans are more party of men and women who agree with them, basically.
All right, let's look at this voter ID issue.
You know, I've never met a single real person, and I will, I'm going to say, as I said on X, there's no real person who thinks that it's okay to not have voter ID for voting.
I've never met one.
Have you?
Have you ever met a real person who says, yeah, that makes sense, because I don't think black people can get IDs.
Now, sometimes you'll meet somebody who says that.
It's because they heard it on the news.
But here's how you fix it.
There's no black people who can't get IDs.
They get IDs because they need it for every other part of civilization.
And if there is a black person, or a white person, or any other kind of person who can't get an ID, are you seriously telling me you want them to vote?
If they can't get an ID?
An ID is pretty basic stuff.
And you think that that person is going to add to the decision-making quality of the republic?
No.
There is no real person who thinks it's a good idea not to have voter ID when we have ID for every other little trivial thing and everybody thinks that's a good idea.
So this is purely a press You know, bad people who want these things to happen.
So there were two lawyers who testified today or recently against requiring proof of citizenship to vote, or ID, I guess.
And they're both former employees of George Soros' Open Society.
Do you think that those two people, in their private world, personally believe that it's a good idea to not have ID for voting?
No, of course not.
No, they're either paid or they're lying, but they definitely don't believe that.
And I want to stop acting like this is some kind of political discussion.
This is not a difference of political opinion.
The citizens are all on the same page on this.
We're just being gaslighted and screwed in some way by some group or groups of people.
But to pretend that anybody's on the other side of this is absurd.
It's just absurd.
Now, When I posted that no real person is actually in favor of this, Elon Musk weighed in and said 100%.
And then a number of people said this, but Elon Musk said it as well this morning.
He said the exact same people who said everyone had to have a vaccine ID also say no ID is needed for voting.
I mean, you don't need a lot of reasons to know that this isn't a real issue.
This is an issue specifically to make it easier to cheat.
It's to make it easier to cheat.
Now, if you tell me there's any other reason, There isn't.
There isn't.
Don't tell me there's some other reason.
Nobody thinks that.
That's just something that people are saying on TV.
No actual, honest, living person believes any of this.
It's just to make it easier to cheat.
So, clearly.
So here's what would be a good strategy for Republicans to win everything.
Stop talking about everything except this.
And every time you have a conversation with the press, and every time you have a conversation that any Democrat can hear and say, let me ask you just one question.
What do you think is the reason they don't want to have voter ID?
There's only one reason.
The other reasons are stupid.
And if you believe what you were told, that black people can't get IDs, well you're a fucking racist, and whoever told you is too, because there's no evidence of that whatsoever.
That's purely racist.
So you're not only a racist, but you would be favoring the people who clearly are trying to do something illegitimate, and you know it.
And just go from there.
Say, Republicans want people who are citizens to vote.
That tells you everything you need to know.
Republicans want citizens to vote and that we know that they really are here and they're really voting for, you know, they're eligible to vote.
There is no second reason for wanting no ID.
It's only to cheat.
It's only to cheat.
There's no other reason.
And if you say that enough, I think people will figure it out pretty quickly.
Because here's the thing, people People are fairly primed to expect they're getting screwed, you know, by companies, by the government.
We all expect we're getting screwed.
And when you say there's literally no other reason for this voter ID thing, I think people's, we're always getting screwed thing just clicks in.
They go, oh yeah, that does sound mighty suspicious now that you bring it up.
It's a real easy sale.
It's a hard sale to say that the Biden family did something bad with Ukraine.
Let me explain the total sophistication of the American voter when they're faced with the Ukraine situation.
What?
Yeah, you see, there was this whole network where Hunter set up and his business partners said this, and there was a diamond that got lost, and you know, it was not when he was in office, but there were some things in office, and then there was a phone call, and then the average voter says, What?
You can't make a sale with any of that.
Basically, all the complicated stuff are just things that people like you and I talk about.
You know, the 1% who do this for a hobby or professionally?
Like, we care about that stuff.
We'll dig in a little bit and find out who's right and who's not.
But the average person doesn't know anything about what's going on.
Ask the average person about the The nuance of whether TikTok should be banned.
Just the average person who knows a little bit about the news, but not a lot.
You'll hear the most ridiculous opinions because they don't understand the nuance.
But here's something they totally understand.
There's only one reason that they're not requiring voter ID.
It's so that they can rig the election.
How many normal citizens can immediately understand that argument?
All of them.
Immediately.
100% right away.
And how many of them are already primed to think that is the real reason?
All of them.
They're all primed.
Right.
Now, a few of them are going to say, oh, I was told by CNN that black people can't get IDs.
But you could change their mind in about a minute.
Find me one black person who can't get an ID.
Find an interview with one.
Find a survey.
Anything.
Find me a link.
Show me a guy who's on video saying, yeah, you know, I've been black all my life and I'll tell you, every time I go to get an ID, I can't figure it out.
I can't afford it.
I don't know what to do.
Seems like all these white people got these nice IDs, but I can't figure out how to get one.
No, that doesn't exist.
Do you know why?
Because every black person, like every other person, can get an ID and it was never real.
So you could mock people for believing something that even their own team has no evidence for.
That's different.
Usually, if you're debating climate change, for example, you know, both sides will show their own preferred data.
Ooh, my data says yes.
Ooh, my data says no.
But not in this case.
Not in this case.
There's no other argument.
There's no data.
There's no link.
There's no story.
There's no witness.
There's not even a single person.
Not one!
Anyway, everybody can figure that out.
And Wokeness, one of my favorite follows on X, did an experiment where it asked the Amazon site for a list of black-owned businesses, presumably so you could give them your support, and it gave you a list of black-owned businesses.
Very good.
If you'd like to support the black-owned businesses, you've got a real easy way to find them.
So then NWOKE just said, huh, let's see if Amazon will give me a list of white-owned businesses.
Noah said that would be too racist and inappropriate, and absolutely not.
Are you kidding me?
So that's totally okay.
Now, if you're not watching Elon Musk's comments, he's going at each of these little stories and just labeling them racist.
And I think it's very powerful when he does that, because he does concentrate attention.
They are all racist.
These are just racist things.
Racist because treating the races differently, in a public way, is as racist as you can get.
There's no argument about that.
Well, let's see what else happened.
The Rabbit Hole, another good account on X, is tweeting or posting about newspapers mentioning the murderer's race.
So there have been some surveys to find out when, not just newspapers, but the media, how often do they mention the race of the murderer If it's white versus black versus something else.
Well, here's the numbers.
White offenders were mentioned roughly one out of four articles.
So, for example, one out of four times, if it was a white person, they'd say, a white man, you know, killed somebody, for example.
But if it was a black offender, only one time in 17 did the article mention the race.
And if it's a Hispanic offender, only one in 33 would mention it was Hispanic.
I'm not sure I understand that difference, but... And that, of course, is super racist, as Elon Musk weighed in and said, yes, that's super racist, because it is.
Russia's Putin says that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
But he would be ready to use them if Russia's existence is threatened.
Now isn't that a nice vague statement that makes you feel good?
So if I understand this, the only thing that will prevent Putin from nuking me Is his own opinion, and nobody else's, just his own opinion of whether Russia's existence is threatened.
Huh.
I wonder if anybody in a political role has ever used hyperbole or exaggerated a threat to take control or gain some power over something.
Hmm.
Well, that's scary.
Now, I don't believe that Putin would use a nuke.
Because using a nuke would be the riskiest thing that he could do for his own life and for Russia.
By far the riskiest.
And he's not crazy.
He doesn't show signs of any Biden dementia that I can see.
I don't know about his overall health, but his mind seems sharp.
And no, I don't think there's any chance he's going to use nukes.
It looks like he just has to wait it out and Grind up the bodies until something happens.
I saw David Sachs, who often is talking and posting about why we should wind up the war in Ukraine because we can't win.
And he posted today that people ask him, you know, why does he keep going out there and, you know, talking about this?
And he said he was trying to wear people down with the truth.
And then and then the war will be over.
Now, I love his attitude.
He's going to wear people down with the truth.
And then once we understand the real situation, we will all lock hands and make a good decision.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know if I live in that country.
Do I?
Do I live in a country where a logical, rational argument that shows the real facts will change people's minds?
The answer is it depends who's doing it.
It really depends who's doing it.
I do think Sachs has changed people's minds, because he's credible and he's good at what he does and, you know, his arguments are always strong.
So, if anybody could do it, you know, if it's doable, there's a very small group of people who could make a difference.
But he might be one of them.
He might actually be one of the most persuasive people in the public domain at the moment.
And so I certainly welcome his His viewpoint on this, it seems intended for nothing except making the country better.
There's no way, you know, it's just a financial thing, it's not just a political thing.
It looks like just a patriot trying to end a war and knowing that the government can't do it and he has to jump in.
That's what it feels like to me.
It feels like people who think, oh damn it, I've got the Spider-Man problem.
That's what it is.
It's the Spider-Man problem.
I think Elon's got the Spider-Man problem, I think David Sacks has the Spider-Man problem, and I know I have the Spider-Man problem.
You know the Spider-Man problem?
With great power comes great responsibility.
So, some people are promoting things and advocating things because they want to make some money, or make a name for themselves, or be right, or, you know, a whole bunch of reasons for why people do things.
But, I can tell you, I feel this deeply.
I feel that having taken care of myself and the people close to me, that I have just an embedded, built-in, almost genetic responsibility to take care of the wider tribe, you know, the country.
So I think that's what drives a number of the people that I call the Internet Dads.
Um, you know, they're not doing it for money.
That's for sure, because it's not good for their incomes to be divisive.
Even if they're trying to help, it ends up being divisive.
Well, here's an interesting stat.
I don't know if it's true, but have you heard that 30 to 50% of the population doesn't have an inner monologue?
How many of you would say that to yourself?
You don't have an inner monologue.
Like there's just a voice that's talking all the time.
I want to see if it looks like 30 to 50% of you have that.
Because I don't believe that.
I think it's a smaller percentage.
I think it's real, but I think it's smaller than that.
Yeah, my head is like the Star Wars bar scene.
It's like, every damn thing happening in there.
You know, it's what Elon Musk says, you wouldn't want to live in his head.
I believe that.
I think there's a lot going on in there and not everybody could survive that.
Anyway, so suppose it's true, let's say there's some percentage, let's take the low number, 30% of the population doesn't have an inner mind lung.
That's about the same number, just observationally, you know, just my own opinion.
That seems like about the same number as people who can't tell a personal story.
I've noted this before.
There's some people who can't tell a personal story.
You'd say, ah, tell us about the time you succeeded at something, or tell us a story about the most embarrassing moment you had, or something like that.
And there are people who go, hmm, yeah, yeah, nothing.
Really, I have nothing.
And I think that's weird.
And then I've also noted a number of times that, you know, I've given a lot of Funny speeches in public, probably hundreds of them by this time.
And you notice that no matter what you say or how funny you are, 30% of the audience will just look at you.
And in my experience, 30% of the public literally doesn't have a sense of humor.
Like, actually, literally don't have one.
And they're faking it.
They're literally faking it.
The way they fake it is, first of all, they avoid entertainment that is for humor.
So you invite your friend over and say, hey, I've got this funny movie.
You want to watch it in my house?
The person who doesn't have a sense of humor is just going to say they're busy.
Because what they can't say is, I don't even know what this humor thing is.
I would just sit there and stare at it.
I'm not going to be laughing because, I don't know, it just doesn't work for me.
So do you think it's all the same people?
So I'm just going to throw this hypothesis out there.
Maybe it's not three different groups.
Maybe the group that doesn't have an inner monologue doesn't have a sense of humor and can't tell a story.
Because I feel they're all related.
I feel like they're all related.
So now some would say that that would be the number of NPCs, the people who are like effectively biological AI.
They're just wandering around.
They don't have an actual life, because they don't have an inner dialogue.
And they don't even laugh at things, like AI.
AI wouldn't laugh at anything, but it might identify that something fits the form of a joke.
But it wouldn't laugh.
So it makes me suspect that we are already one-third cyborgs, Battlestar Galactica style.
You know, the Cylons.
The Cylons, and that's a Battlestar Galactica's famous sci-fi.
And part of the story was that some number of humans were actually really, really well done androids.
So good you can't even tell with a medical exam.
Feels like that.
I'm not saying that's true.
It just feels like it.
All right.
Apparently the Biden budget Isn't that just reparations?
for the country, would spend hundreds of millions to train school teachers in DEI.
Isn't that just reparations? I think we should stop saying that reparations is a different conversation from DEI. Now the first thing you're going to say is, Scott, DEI is not just about the black public.
You know, DEI is about any groups that are not getting a fair shake in society.
No, that's not true.
I'm sorry if somebody told you that.
If you took the black population out of the DEI conversation, the whole thing would fall apart.
Do you think that you could get the women and the gays and the Hispanics, that'd be powerful enough to have DEI organizations?
I don't think so.
I think that the black population is the heart and soul of the DEI, and then the rest are sort of freeloaders.
And I don't mean that as an insult.
I mean, I should say free rider.
A free rider, not a freeloader.
Freeloader is insulting.
I didn't mean it insulting.
I mean that they just get the benefit of being put into the disadvantaged group.
But if there were no black people ever in this country, there would be no DEI.
Do you agree?
Am I going too far or would you agree that it just wouldn't be happening?
Except that the black public is apparently Powerful enough.
There's enough people enough people support the idea.
Yeah, so to me DEI is reparations So I'm not in favor of spending it in either case, but if we're gonna spend it and it gets approved I'm gonna say that is reparations because that's the same effect and The effect of DEI, and the theoretical effect, is that you just hire better but equally qualified people from disadvantaged groups.
That's the theory.
The reality is that never happens, because it can't.
If it could happen, it would happen.
But it can't.
It's like logically impossible just because the numbers involved.
No, not because of any genetic differences.
No, not because of any racial differences.
No, not because of any gender differences.
But just there's not enough people who have already gone through the pipeline of training to have enough of them for all the companies that are scrambling to improve their diversity.
So, given that, it does seem to me that the net effect is that white people will be kept out of jobs, black people will be promoted even when they have lesser qualifications.
That's reparations.
And I would say that we've had 30 years of it so far.
At least.
40, I think.
So, probably 40 years of DEI-like activity.
You know, in the old days it was called reverse discrimination.
I think it's already paid.
I think the bill is paid.
I declare the bill paid and the reparations question put to bed.
Whether you like it or not.
So I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, you know, necessarily.
I'm just saying it's already paid.
We don't have to talk about it anymore.
All right, let's talk about TikTok.
Joe Rogan looked at the Terms of Service.
It's the scariest thing you've ever seen.
So apparently, when you sign up for TikTok, you agree that they can basically have all your information, but including your keystrokes.
Including information on devices that you don't use for TikTok.
Just hold that in your head for a second.
If they can track your keystrokes, they know everything you're doing.
All your passwords.
Let me say it again.
If they're tracking your keystrokes, they have your password into every one of your accounts.
And you're signing that away.
You're basically signing to give your passwords away.
Because it would be illegal.
It wouldn't be illegal to get into your account, but it's legal they have them.
If you sign that.
So let's see, what else are they doing?
The way they get into your other devices is, I think if you use one of those logons where you say, I'll use my Google logon to get into it.
I think that's what it's saying.
Then they could go to any device that used a Google logon, your completely other devices, and find out all your activity and your other devices.
Now, it's written so broadly that it couldn't possibly be something you'd want to associate with.
So yesterday, I started the process to get a dedicated machine just for TikTok.
So I don't plan to look at content.
Because that would be crazy, because I don't want to get hypnotized.
But I am going to post on it, because it's not going away.
And I'm going to post on it with a dedicated separate machine that's not in any way connected to anything else, and I'm definitely not going to use a password that's used on any other device.
I wouldn't even do that.
So US Intel, the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, Says that China uses TikTok to impact U.S.
elections.
He says, quote, we cannot rule out that the CCP would use it.
It is extraordinary the degree to which China are developing frameworks for collecting foreign data and their capacity to turn around and use it to target audiences.
I guess TikTok accounts run by a Chinese government propaganda arm.
Somehow we can tell who they are.
Targeted candidates from both political parties during the midterms in 2022.
So that's our own intelligence people say that China did use bots, I guess, on TikTok.
Now what they don't say is that they know that TikTok is, you know, push the heat button.
But if they had bots and we know they were bots, it means that TikTok knew they were bots and didn't get rid of them.
Or didn't get rid of them fast enough.
All right, so let's talk about this bill, this TikTok bill to ban it.
So the first thing you need to know is that TikTok is not going to be banned.
And part of the reason is the bill was written.
It looks like it was written intentionally not to be passed because it would give It would give the ability for the government... Well, here's the setup.
Tucker Carlson gives us a little setup.
He posted today, in a classified briefing this afternoon, it must have been yesterday, attended by officials from the Biden Justice Department, AOC claimed that Elon committed, quote, election interference in 2022, by, quote, changing the algorithms on X to alter the results of the midterms.
Now, all he really did was get rid of the bias.
So she's saying that getting rid of the bias altered the midterms, and that's election interference.
Now, suppose you took that to be true.
Suppose you said, well, that's a reasonable opinion, AOC.
Totally reasonable.
That if somebody changed something on their platform and it affected the race, well, that must be election interference.
Did you know that the TikTok ban, if passed, would allow the government to force the sale of any social media platform that interferes in elections?
So all they would have to do to take TikTok away from Twitter, from Musk, is to make the claim, the claim, that he's interfering with elections.
I don't even think they have to prove it in a court of law.
It looks like it's just an opinion.
Who in the world is going to sign that the fucking thing?
Do you think you can find enough people to sign this?
They would basically say that the government can take your social media platform away if the government says you're interfering with the election.
Now, don't you think there was a way to make this only about TikTok or only about companies owned by adversaries?
I'm pretty sure they could have walled that off.
Don't you think?
You don't think they could have walled that off and said, let's make this only apply to something controlled by a foreign adversary.
Pretty easy to do.
I do not believe that our constitution bars us from blocking adversaries from doing business in the United States.
I don't think any freedoms apply to the Chinese government.
So how did they get 50 bipartisan people to sign it?
Do you know how you get 50 people to support a bill, and this is bipartisan, both sides, 100% of the people in the committee.
Do you know how you get that to happen?
You write some legislation that nobody's ever going to approve.
Pretty easy to say yes to something that nobody's going to sign, isn't it?
This is so not signable, there's no chance it's gonna happen.
And there are 35 billion other reasons it's not gonna happen, which is a specific, gigantic donor to the Republican Party, who's got $35 billion, some say, of value in TikTok ownership, and that's enough money to make the government do anything it wants.
You know that, right?
That's enough money to make the government do anything you want.
So he just has to want it.
And of course he does.
Nobody wants to lose $35 billion.
So yeah, there's no chance that the government is stronger than $35 billion all focused in one place.
Well, or let's say a billion dollars, because he could burn a billion dollars just to get what he wants.
The government cannot survive or cannot stand up against a billion dollars focused on any one topic.
The government has no power over that.
He has all the power.
So if he wants, he doesn't want to ban, well, it's kind of the end of the story.
He has the power to make it not happen.
So you should expect a number of people who are beholden to such a person who contributes that much to the Republicans.
You should expect them to have some weird explanations of why they are opposed to the ban.
Speaking of weird explanations for why you'd be opposed to the ban, here's Rand Paul.
He says, reactionaries who want to ban TikTok.
Oh, interesting.
If you want to ban TikTok, you're a reactionary.
Huh.
Let us examine the history of Rand Paul and say, does Rand Paul start an argument with a emotional insult label?
Is that his normal mode?
Does that look like what you're used to?
Because that's not the Rand Paul I'm used to.
The one I'm used to usually leads with a logical, rational argument, and then challenges the government to tell him what's wrong with it, and then they can't.
And that's what makes him Rand Paul.
What makes him Rand Paul is not doing this.
He just called people in his own party, and the other party as well, reactionaries.
Fuck you, Rand Paul.
Fuck you very much.
Yeah.
You don't need to insult me.
Am I a reactionary because I have that opinion?
I've changed my opinion.
Since TikTok can't be banned, I don't think there's any room for an opinion.
It doesn't matter if I want it to.
It doesn't matter if I think it's a good idea.
It's like Israel.
You can have an opinion, but why?
Netanyahu and Israel's just going to do whatever they can do, that they need to do.
Anyway, so starting with reactionaries is a big red flag that you're not going to take this argument seriously.
And I would expect that what you say next is not going to be as logical as what we normally expect from Rand Paul.
Let's see.
He says the reactionaries who want to ban TikTok claim the data can't be secured because the quote algorithm is China, is in China.
This is called a, um, what do you call this?
A straw man.
The straw man is where you characterize the other people's argument in a stupid way.
Have you ever heard anybody say that?
I haven't.
Because it would be stupid.
Nobody's going to say that TikTok can't be secured because the algorithm is in China.
Who would even say that?
That doesn't even make sense from any technological standpoint.
No, that's a straw man.
So he started with an insult, And then a straw man.
Is that Rand Paul that you know?
Does Rand Paul give you a straw man for a fucking argument?
Since when?
I've never seen him do it.
I always see him say things that make complete sense.
Always.
But that's a bad way to start an opinion.
Let's see what else he says.
So he says it's not true that the The claim that the data can't be secured because the algorithms are in China.
Here's the truth, he says.
The truth is the algorithm runs in the U.S.
in Oracle Cloud with their review of the code, not China.
So in other words, Oracle is the only one that sees the algorithm that runs in the United States.
Do you care what server the algorithm runs on?
How was that ever part of the argument?
I don't care where it runs.
I care what it does.
Do you think that, uh, do you think that there's an entity in Oracle that understands the algorithm?
So are you telling me that if somebody at, uh, ByteDance or TikTok pushes the heat button, literally it's called the heat button to boost the signal of something.
Do you think that, uh, somebody over in Oracle is going to be there?
They'll be doing their work.
It's like ding, ding, ding, ding.
Hold on.
Somebody over in China pushed the heat button, and that signal came over to our servers over in Oracle, and the alert is telling me that something happened.
No.
Because the code would be working the way it was written.
It'd be working fine.
It wouldn't be anything that they would see.
Do you think that the people in Oracle can see persuasion?
As it's embedded in, let's say, the outcome of the product?
No!
Because you can't find it in persuasion.
If it's done right, you can't find it.
So this is an absurd argument.
And then he says, maybe we should examine the facts.
And then he says they want to ban TikTok because it's owned by China.
And Rand Paul says TikTok is not owned by China.
Here's what Rand Paul says.
He says 60% of the company is owned by U.S.
and international investors.
20% is owned by the company founders.
20% is owned by company employees, including 7,000 Americans.
And the CEO of TikTok is from Singapore, not China.
So then Rand Paul says, so ask yourself why they keep repeating this lie to scare you.
So the lie is that technically China doesn't own it.
That's where Rand Paul is arguing that technically they don't own it.
The only thing that they have is the ability to tell the people who do own it exactly what to do or their business will go away.
Do you think Rand Paul is unaware that the government of China can tell TikTok what to do and TikTok's damn well going to do it because the penalty would be far too big?
Do you think he doesn't know that?
Of course he knows that.
Everybody knows it.
So he's going to argue like a lawyer instead of an ophthalmologist.
He's going to turn into a lawyer and argue the technical details of who the ownership is when the Chinese government can tell it what it wants it to do and has to do it.
Do you really think that this argument is what he actually believes?
I can't read minds.
Well, let's just say it's a little bit inconsistent with the hyper rational person that we've known for years.
So whatever's going on here has nothing to do with these arguments because these are fucking stupid and he knows it.
It's the, he knows it part that bugs me, right?
If I thought he didn't know what he was doing, it wouldn't bother me at all, but he knows, he knows.
So, There's also reports that Rumble was talking about either buying TikTok, maybe with other people, I don't know how they'd afford it, or offering the new Rumble network.
They got a cloud network that will compete with the other big clouds.
And so that they'd be willing to step up and be part of that.
I don't think that's going to happen.
And I don't think the ban is real.
Would you like to hear a good conspiracy theory?
All right, this is not based on any knowledge.
It's just, if you have a suspicious mind, it looks like this.
Here are things we know.
There was a planned public offering of TikTok that the Chinese government said no to.
So TikTok wanted to do an IPO and China said no.
Well, how is that possible?
How is that possible when China doesn't even own them?
How is that possible?
I'm all confused, Rand Paul.
Rand Paul, can you explain to me how China told them they can't have an IPO when they don't even own them?
Don't they know that 60% is owned by other countries?
Are they unaware that the president is from Singapore?
God, the things that we're being asked to believe.
You can't even hold it in your mind, it's so crazy.
So, we know that TikTok tried to have a liquidity event, meaning that would be the beginning of a process in which the biggest investors could get their money out if they wanted to, after it went public.
But now that's not going to happen.
Suppose, and I don't know this to be true, but suppose it looks like there's no time in the future you'll be able to get your money out.
What's the point of investing if you can never get your money out?
How does that work?
Like getting your money out is really important to the whole investment process, right?
If you never can get your money, it's not really an investment.
So we've got an American investor who's got some say $35 billion worth of ownership of the TikTok company, ByteDance.
Now, is it possible That a, again, this is just fun conspiracy stuff.
I have no evidence for this whatsoever.
I just live in the real world and I've seen lots of clever things happen that were not obvious on the surface.
If I were a billionaire and I could not get my money out of TikTok because the Chinese government said, no, you're not going to do a IPO and I don't know when we'll ever let you.
What I would do is I would get my friends in Congress, both the Democrats and the Republicans, I would make them sit down and say, make me a fake bill that looks like it could get passed, but make sure it doesn't.
Give me a fake bill that the media will say is like a real ban, but I don't want to ban it.
The only thing I want is for the Chinese government to say, oh crap, We better let them sell the American business, because otherwise TikTok's in trouble.
So we could get some money out of it by letting them sell, but if the American market goes away, that's really going to be a problem.
Could it be that an investor or investors are using the ban only as leverage to get China to agree to let ByteDance divest the American market?
Could it be that the biggest investor, I think his name is Yass, Y-A-S-S, could it be that the real play is for him to own his own American social media company that is the piece of ByteDance's market that had been theirs, take it with him in return for, let's say, China keeping his $35 billion.
So could he, for let's say $35 billion, own the entire part of ByteDance that ran in America?
Would that make him and Elon Musk kind of a billionaire?
So he would not only have other business, but like Jeff Bezos and like other rich people, Carlos Sims, Rupert Murdoch, it's always good to own a big media company, if you can.
So, if you start with the assumption that if you're smart enough to own $35 billion worth of ByteDance, you're also smart enough to figure out all the different ways you can capitalize on that.
And if the possibility of monetizing it was completely impossible, because he would never be able to get in a liquidity event, well, he might have found a workaround.
So the perfect situation would be that we pretend that there's going to be a ban And you get 50 people to act like it's a sure thing, and then it gets carved off, and then there's a billionaire who leans Republican, who leans Republican, because he's known to be funding Republicans in a big way.
You would have in this country, instead of a left-leaning social media company, you would have a, not necessarily right-leaning, but certainly closer to the middle.
And it would completely neuter the political impact of TikTok and give one person one of the most valuable properties in the world.
Now, could he do that with the help of, let's say, the Rumble Network?
Well, if you've got Oracle that can already handle some hosting stuff, you've got the Rumble Network that would give you the capacity.
All you need then is approval.
All you need is approval.
Because I think you can handle the money.
It doesn't look like money is going to be a problem.
All you need is the approval.
So I'm not going to say that that's likely, or that anybody had that planned, but every single bit of evidence suggests it.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that all evidence suggests that the ban is not real, and that it must be part of a bigger plan?
That's what it looks like.
Anyway, so looks like Haiti is going to have some mass migration coming our way.
And here's my question.
You know that we've heard reports that there are cannibals in Haiti, which, by the way, I'm not sure is real.
And if it is real, I'm not sure it's more than one or two people.
So I don't think Haiti is a big old cannibal country, but I'm going to use this story just as a mental experiment.
Suppose you knew that 3% of the migrants were going to be cannibals.
You don't know what 3%.
But you're pretty sure that, you know, there's enough cannibals over there that 3% might be.
Would you say that mass migration would be a good idea?
If you didn't know which ones, but 3% of them, probably cannibals.
And if 3% is okay, you say to yourself, well, honestly, 3% is a low number.
You know, 3% of any population is going to be bad people in one way or another.
So why would you discriminate against the Haitians who really need a hand?
They're in a bad way.
When their ratio of cannibals is no worse than anybody's ratio of murderers and whatever.
And I would say, okay, that's reasonable.
You're trying not to be racist.
And I like your argument.
It's good of you to not be racist.
But suppose I up that percentage.
Now I tell you it's 10% cannibals.
It's not 10% cannibals.
We're just doing a mental experiment.
What if it's 10% cannibals?
Now do you say, well, you know what?
10% of people who are in America are not so good either.
So, it'd be kind of racist to say this one group or worse because they're 10% kills people and we got a bunch of people who do bad things too, rapists and killers.
So, you know, then people start disagreeing at that, but what if it's 20%?
What if 20% of them were known cannibals?
Yeah, we keep talking about yes or no.
All these questions should be percentage.
It shouldn't be yes, no, keep the southern border open.
It's not a yes, no question.
How about we say, if we can't certify that the number of people coming in are as safe as the people already here, you don't do it.
I don't know if we could do that.
Is the crime rate to the people coming in better or worse than the ones who are already here?
If we can't certify that it keeps us at least as safe, it seems like that'd be a good reason not to do it.
All right.
Her testimony was fun and funny, and I watched it way too much yesterday.
The Republicans and the Democrats saw two different movies on one screen.
The Republicans saw this, that Biden was proven guilty in, for many decades, having all kinds of locations with classified documents.
He clearly knew it was wrong.
And he even said it on an audio recording.
So it's a slam-dunk case.
He's proven guilty.
And the only reason he wasn't prosecuted is because the prosecutor, special prosecutor, special counsel, whatever he is, her, determined that he couldn't necessarily convince a jury that Biden had intent because Biden's too senile.
Now, I'm using the word senile.
Her didn't use that.
But that's the Republican version.
That the crime is there, and the only reason he's not being prosecuted is that his brain doesn't work.
And I believe every Republican heard that.
Would you agree?
Do you think every Republican has that interpretation?
I think so.
But what did the Democrats hear?
They heard that Biden was exonerated by the report.
So they're on television saying that he's exonerated.
So what does somebody like CNN do when they know that Biden is just toast, but they can't agree with the Republicans?
They know they can't agree with the Republicans.
What they did was they would bring on people who are willing to lie and just didn't challenge it.
I was watching poor Anderson Cooper.
He brings on some Democrat who just said the most outrageously, obviously untrue stuff about it.
And he didn't challenge it.
He just let it stand.
So the funny part is that the hosts are completely aware of the whole story, right?
It's their job.
And they know that Biden broke the law, at least in terms of having the classified information.
He broke it way more than Trump did.
Trump's got the extra obstructing justice problem that Biden doesn't have.
But the actual testimony and the evidence that Hur did, and even the Democrats are saying Hur looked pretty credible.
So, by the way, let me give a compliment to this special counsel.
You know, I spend so much time just insulting people who are doing bad jobs that I feel like I should stop and say, he did a great job.
Am I, am I wrong?
That her really made, I think he made the country proud.
I don't think that was biased.
I think that both sides have people who are saying, yeah, this was a serious good job.
Good job.
You don't get to say that too often.
Good job.
All right.
So really appreciate it.
As a citizen of the country, I personally appreciate the good work that Hur did.
Now, he does, Hur did say very clearly, we did not exonerate anybody.
We don't use that word in the report.
But the difference of was he exonerated or was he proven guilty seems to hinge on the reason he was not charged.
And the Democrats are trying to tell you, gaslighting you basically, that the reason he wasn't charged is they didn't find any evidence of crimes.
And the real reason he wasn't charged is that not only is he guilty of the crimes, but he's also guilty of being fucking retarded.
So he's basically guilty of two things.
So her found him guilty of having a defective brain and doing a crime.
And the Democrats are telling their audience that that's exonerated.
No, that's two problems.
One is you did the crime and you knew it.
And you knew it.
Everybody agrees he knew it.
That's not the issue.
The problem is that the jury would see him as so feeble That they wouldn't get a conviction and there's no point in wasting everybody's time.
So that's the insufficient evidence that Herr refers to, is there's insufficient evidence that Biden knew what he was doing.
Not insufficient evidence that it happened and that it was illegal, only insufficient evidence that a jury would believe He understood what he was doing.
To me, that's guilty twice.
Am I counting wrong?
To me, that's guilty twice.
Once guilty of having a bad brain, just like we suspected, and once guilty of doing a whole bunch of crimes involving classified stuff.
Now there was one little point that was fascinating in how two sides see it.
So apparently there exists an audio recording of Biden talking to his biographer, And telling the biographer that he went and got some classified documents and he was showing them to him.
But apparently, if the only evidence you have is the audio, you can't really know if the document he showed him was classified.
It might have been sitting next to some classified documents, but it could have been in the box that had some classified and some not.
So when he said it was classified, did he know that they were classified?
Or did he just take them out of a box of classified documents, but the one he had may be not so classified.
Now, that's the sort of distinction that Herr is making when he anticipates what a defense would be if it went to court.
And the defense would be, well, technically you just heard an audio recording of people talking.
Well, I guess that's true.
Did anybody see this document?
Well, no.
Does it say classified on it?
We don't know.
He was just talking about it.
So I agree with her that even though it seems to us that, you know, it's just a confession on audio, how clear can it be?
I can see how a lawyer could lawyer that away.
So I actually agree with them that that was a weakness in their ability to get any kind of prosecution.
We do know Biden lied when he said, I did not share classified information.
I did not with my ghostwriter.
Well, I guess you could still, you could argue he didn't lie.
If you say it's not confirmed that it was really classified.
It's only confirmed that he said it.
It's only confirmed that he said it.
And since he says things that are not true all the time, it's a weird defense.
He says things that are not true all the time.
All right.
Um, So, did you notice that the fact-checkers all disappeared during her testimony and the coverage?
Can you imagine not having your fact-checker checking the facts of all the Democrats who just lied on live TV?
So, anyway.
So Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, he's going to resign early.
He's not even going to wait for the election, and that will make the razor-thin majority of the Republicans, so it's very risky for him to leave early.
And he said, we've taken impeachment, we've made it a social media issue as opposed to a constitutional one.
This place just keeps going down.
I don't really want to spend my time here.
Hmm.
So what would you call somebody Who becomes part of the system, but then he rejects it.
What would be a good name for somebody like that?
So his actual name is Ken Buck.
And he's somebody who can buck the system to leave early.
I wonder if he'll fly almost united when he goes home.
Yeah, he can buck, he can buck the system.
And there he is, he's bucking it, sure enough.
Well, Fonny Willis, we're gonna get a, the judge is gonna decide whether Fonny should be removed from the case because of her undisclosed romance, or not disclosed accurately, romance with the guy who she hired and gave too much money to be the prosecutor.
Now, the interesting thing is if she's taken off, then it would, I guess, leave It would leave her jurisdiction and they'd have to find another place to do the trial.
Which is not so easy, because most other places might be more rural and have far less resources to do a major thing like this.
But the other possibility that somehow I just hadn't thought about, but it's obvious once you read it, is that another prosecutor could decide not to take the case.
So the way that this could end is that Fani is taken off the case, it's presented to another prosecutor, And the other prosecutor says, you know, I don't think there's enough here.
What happens if it goes to a non Soros funded prosecutor?
I think it has to go to a Soros funded prosecutor or Trump walks.
What do you think?
So that's an actual possibility.
Just another prosecutor will say, yeah, nah.
Could happen.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the best live stream of the day.
I hope you found some value in that.
I'm going to say bye now, and I wonder if I can click off individual... Let's see if I can do this.
I want to see if I can close individual platforms.
