My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Smiling Robots, Ballot-Tossing Postal Worker, Post Office Election Security, Vigilantism Trend, Apple Robots, Cicadas 2024, UCLA Structural Racism Class, Judge Matt Walsh, Cal Kids Program, Trans Kids Study, DEI, Charlemane Tha God, Microsoft Mail Hacked, Election Security Systems, Emergency Oil Reserves, President Biden, Overthrowing American Allies, Fake Pro-Gaza Protests, RFK Jr., Seed Oils, Sage Steele Biden Interview, President Trump, GOP Abortion Policy, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Democrat Party of Women, Speaker Johnson, Israel Hamas War, 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
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker chalice to start, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. So good.
Bye.
So, so good.
All right.
I'm going to make sure I can see your comments here.
Looking good.
No, I'm wrong.
Technical problem, which I will fix right now.
What an adventure.
Oh my goodness.
This won't be easy one though.
Fixed.
Well, we got all kinds of news today.
It's amazing.
Did you know that Home Depot will sell you a whole house?
540 square feet prefab for $44,000.
thousand dollars. So now you can buy a whole house from Home Depot, a whole house from Amazon.
Um okay just checking for this.
Do we have a sound?
Can anybody hear me?
It's not entirely clear that I'm actually live.
Anybody?
Any sound at all?
Is there any kind of a show happening?
I can't tell.
Yeah, okay.
It looks like we have sound.
All right, well, let's just keep on going here, just like there's no problem at all.
There's a new AI that can take your script and turn it into a full movie just from the script.
How cool is that?
You can just take your movie script and it just becomes a movie.
Now, I have certainly a lot of questions whether that really does that.
I'm going to predict it's really demo-ware.
You know, something that looks like it could work and you wish it would work, but doesn't quite work like everything else in AI.
It almost does something.
Well, I think that's what's going to happen.
But what's different is that the pitch for funding at the Y Combinator Demo Day was done with using AI.
So the founder pitched it using an AI version of herself, or one of the founders, I think.
That's kind of cool.
Can robots read your mind?
Well, there's one called Emo now, and it'll smile back at you if you smile, and it might change, really, how you interact with machines.
Imagine a robot that knew the correct context to smile back.
I mean, just to hold that in your mind, that you smile at your robot and it smiles back.
That's a game changer.
That's the point where you lose the ability to know it's not real or that it's not conscious.
When your robot starts smiling at you, there's almost nothing you'll be able to do to think that it's not conscious.
I don't think it will be.
But boy is it going to seem conscious when it smiles at you.
But apparently this one, the one that smiles, can also read your face and try to get an idea what your attitude is.
So now they have AI that'll listen to your words for your emotional state, but this one will look at your face and your body language.
So yes, the robots are getting into our emotional space and that's going to be a problem.
You may have seen this story.
It's not too new, but there's a New Jersey postal worker who had been just throwing away the mail, which by the way, is not that uncommon.
Sometimes it's just easier to go home and throw the mail away than it is to deliver it all over town.
That's a lot of work.
So sometimes you'll hear the story about a mail person who just would take the mail home and dump it in his living room or something.
Well, But this one has an extra element to it.
There were 99 election ballots in this 2,000 pieces of mail.
Now, there's no indication that the mail person had any political motive or that throwing the mail away had anything to do with ballots.
But here's my question.
How did they detect that he threw the mail away?
Was it because somebody knew about their ballot missing?
Is that what happened?
Let's see.
Let me see if I can figure out how to go private on this.
Because I'm still getting people, getting trolls telling me there's no sound.
And I don't think that they're real people.
I think they're trolls.
They're trolls, right?
Sound is fine?
Yeah.
I'm not going to ask again.
All right.
So the question is, does our election system detect if a male person throws the mail away?
How in the world did they know that any mail was missing in the first place?
Now, I didn't see that in the story, but here's where I would sound the alarm.
Here's what I expected to see in the story.
There were 99 ballots that were thrown away, and 10 of those 99 people complained because they knew their ballot didn't reach its destination.
So when they tracked it down, they could easily figure out which postal person it was because of where the ballot drop box was.
Do you think that happened?
Do you think that the election process picked up that ballots were thrown away?
Because if it didn't pick it up, Then what we did is we outsourced our election security to the post office.
The post office.
Because I can't think of a more secure environment than the post office.
But looks like that's what we did.
Well, vigilantism is breaking out right on schedule.
There are three stories in the news just today.
People taking matters into their own hands.
Surprise!
Surprise!
People feel there's no law, and so men, men, are starting to take the law into their own hands.
One example is Walter Isaacson, who used to be the CEO of CNN, I guess.
And he was at some event and some protester, some non-binary protester, was disturbing it.
So, Walter Isaacson, who's 72 years old, decided to personally escort that person out, which allegedly turned into some shoving, but he was removed.
So, Walter Isaacson just dragged some bastard out of the room and shoved him out of the room.
Now, he's in trouble.
Obviously, the protester's going to file charges for assault, but it's like some scratches on his arm or something.
There's a New York City man who was in the news today for catching a porch pirate.
His stuff kept getting stolen, so he put a fake package out there and waited for the porch pirate and then went out with his baseball bat and called the authorities and got him arrested.
So, Walter Isaacson getting physical with a protester.
New York City man setting his own trap and using physical force, violence.
Then there's a story of an Arizona state attorney was grilling a woman because her husband had fired at what was supposed to be a warning shot because there were a bunch of migrants illegally crossing his land.
So he sends out the, he does a warning shot and apparently with the warning shot hit somebody.
So now there's some legal difficulty.
Now, I don't know if it was really a warning shot.
Makes you wonder if it was really a warning shot.
But there's three examples in the news just today of men deciding they had enough.
Do you think it's a trend?
Do you think you will see more stories of men deciding they've had enough?
Yes, you will.
Yes, you will.
There's no way this is going to stop.
There's going to be a whole bunch more men just figuring it out on their own, because what choice do you have?
What choice?
You don't have a choice.
It's either let it happen or fix it.
And you're going to go to jail if you try to fix it.
Well, Apple, you know, Apple was going to try to do a car, but then they gave up on the car.
And now there's talk in Bloomberg that they're going to make a robot, personal robot.
Doesn't that make more sense?
Don't you think Apple should make a personal robot and not so much a car?
I think getting into the car business would probably have been a mistake, so they probably made the right choice to get out of it.
But an Apple robot that's working with your other Apple devices?
Absolutely.
I want an Apple robot just to be my remote control.
I just want to tell my robot what to turn on and off.
It's like, hey, robot, can you turn on Netflix?
Find something for me?
However, I caution you that this report is in Bloomberg, and Bloomberg is not a credible source of news.
How do I know that?
Well, I know that because Bloomberg once did a story about me.
So I can say authoritatively that it's not a real source of news.
Now the rest of you have to guess, but I've been there.
Yeah, I know they make shit up.
At least they did about me.
So I wouldn't trust anything else they say, but it might be true.
Well, we've got the Cicada Geddon coming.
It's like Armageddon with cicadas.
What's the other name for a cicada?
Is it like a locust?
Is a cicada like locust?
Or is that like a completely different bug?
Does anybody know?
Cicada?
I don't know.
I just don't like them.
But apparently, every 17 years, they emerge.
And I guess there's two types.
And by coincidence, their very long gestation period, or hibernation, or whatever the hell they do, they lined up.
So we're going to have two cicada invasions at the same time.
How many cicadas are we talking about?
Trillions.
Trillions.
I remember when nothing was trillions.
Do you remember that?
When nothing was trillions.
Yeah.
There was no trillionaires.
We didn't have a trillion dollar budget deficit.
Now everything's a trillion.
Like even the bugs are a trillion now.
Come on.
How many people died in Gaza?
A trillion.
Everything's a trillion.
Not really a trillion.
I made that part up in case you didn't know.
Didn't come from Bloomberg News.
Well, Just The News, that's a news entity called Just The News, reports there's a structural racism class that's mandatory for the UCLA Medical School.
Well, you definitely don't want your doctor not to have a mandatory racism class, but what sorts of things do they learn?
Let's see.
During the lecture, the mandatory UCLA medical school class on structural racism, the guest speaker led the students in some kind of non-secular prayer to Mama Earth, and then got them to chant free, free Palestine, denigrated medicine as white science.
Oh, my God.
And apparently some of them were, you know, refusing to go along.
So there were some, there were some resistance to it.
But, you know, I almost want to go back to the corporate world, just so I can experience this, you know, as the Dilbert cartoonist, not as a regular person, just so I could mock it.
That'd be fun.
Well, The Daily Wire launches a new courtroom reality show starring one of their on-air hosts, Matt Walsh, who, to the best of my understanding, is not a judge.
But I saw the clips for it, and I gotta say, it looks like a winner.
It looks just like a dead winner.
Because all it is is Matt Walsh mocking idiots, But in a courtroom setting where they have to listen to him and he's got a, he's got a little, a little hammer to bang.
Now, whoever came up with this idea, the very idea of it is so absurd because he's not a judge, but he's very judgy.
Like his whole job, his whole job basically is writing and talking in a judgmental way about things.
So to have him wearing his little robe and banging his gavel and mocking idiots on camera, I'm down for it.
I'm down for it.
I haven't seen the show, but I feel like I can recommend it, you know, at least give it a chance.
All right.
California's Governor Newsom introduced this new plan.
I guess this is going to happen in California, that every baby born in California is going to get a college savings account at birth worth up to $1,500.
What do you think of that idea?
Giving kids $1,500 at birth and you just let it sit there as an investment, I guess, and build up steam.
I don't know.
Almost every other topic, almost every other topic I can say, oh, you know, that's good or that's bad.
This one's a little unclear because I'd have to see the math.
I would have to see the math.
There's something very appealing about it, and they didn't invent this idea, and the idea goes like this.
If you give a kid $1,500 today, it might grow in value, and by the time they're ready to go to college, you don't need to give them a loan they can't pay back.
That would actually be a good investment.
Might even encourage people to get more education than they would have otherwise.
So there's a whole bunch that got some weird tickle on my nose.
It might be a good idea.
I can't decide.
You know, if you look in the short run, it's just giving people money.
But in the long run, could it be so good that we're all happy it happened?
I don't know.
But, well, if it's invested, it will grow faster than inflation if you do it right.
I don't know.
I'm open-minded on that one.
That might not be a gigantic mistake, which would be quite a difference from everything else California does.
By the way, is anybody experiencing a blizzard today?
Any blizzards?
Nice day here in California.
I'll be taking a nice walk with my tee, just in my t-shirt.
Might be short sweater, I'm not sure.
But that's why I live in California.
If you say, why do you live in California with all these many, many management problems?
This is why.
This is why.
I wanted to live somewhere where I wouldn't die just because I went outdoors.
That's not good enough reason.
How'd you die?
Well, I made the mistake of going outdoors.
Nope.
Won't kill me right away here.
The Daily Mail has a report that says there's a new study, a landmark 15-year study about trans kids.
Are you surprised to learn that almost all the trans kids grow out of being trans by the time they're adults?
It's just a phase.
So, it said most.
I don't know if that's 51% or 91%, but most go through a phase.
So if you knew that most, whatever most means, at least 50%, it's a phase, how in the world is it legal to transition kids?
How in any sane world is that legal?
When it's a 50-50 bet.
Yeah, at best.
It's probably less than 50-50.
It's just amazing.
And how many of you are surprised?
Is anybody surprised that it's a phase that many kids go through and grow out of?
Of course not!
Because you can convince kids of absolutely anything.
Kids will believe whatever.
And if their body chemistry is not caught up to their, you know, sex, You could totally see why they would think they're the other thing.
How hard is it to imagine, let's say, a tomboyish girl who's just going through a phase and thinking it's not a phase?
That would be pretty normal.
Same with some little boy who wants to wear a dress because he thinks it's funny and then likes it a little bit.
Probably just a phase.
Yeah, so maybe we should stop mutilating children Because it might be good for one of them.
Well, Charlemagne the God, who's hosting on The Daily Show, he said, among other things, the truth about DEI is that although it's well-intentioned, it's mostly garbage.
And then he played a montage of conservatives mocking DEI by changing the letters, you know, to mean something besides diversity, equity and inclusion.
One of the clips he played was, uh, uh, Greg Guffield saying, uh, uh, DI is, uh, didn't earn it.
Now I didn't make that one up.
I stole it from somebody on the internet whose name I didn't manage to write down at the time, but, uh, that one's just a killer.
Yeah.
When you see didn't earn it, that really should straighten out your thinking.
Because the issue is that people will think that.
Not that it's going to be true for every person.
It's just that that's what people will think.
It's just automatic.
Of course you're going to think that.
But, although Charlemagne did say that DEI allowed racists to be openly racist, the examples he gave were things like people saying, oh, must have been a DEI hire that caused that barge to hit the bridge.
Is it racist to speculate that the barge might have been a DEI situation?
Is that racist?
I'll give you the ruling.
Racist or not racist?
What do you say?
Um, it sounds a little uh a little sus to me so that's why I didn't do it. Um, Since there was no evidence that there was any DEI or even any racial element to the accident whatsoever, I think it's a mistake to try to sell your DEI philosophy based on an accident.
Right?
I think it's a persuasion mistake to over-apply the DEI thinking, to say, oh, I think I'll win an extra point by saying this accident might have been DEI.
It's just not a good look.
It's not good for the world.
It's not good for your argument.
It's a little racist.
Do you agree or no?
I mean, you know me, so I'm primed to not see things as racist.
But that looks... that's too far.
A little too far.
So that's my take.
I would agree with Charlemagne on both points.
The DEI is well-intentioned, but mostly garbage.
Exactly.
But the garbage is, you know, all the BS corporate part.
You know, good idea ruined.
I'm getting a lot of comments on that.
Well, it is funny.
Okay, I'll give you that blaming the barge on DEI.
It's a little funny.
The thing that makes something funny is an oversimplification.
That's just automatically funny.
So if you say, oh, the barrage is a DEI higher, that is a humorous exaggeration oversimplification with no evidence to support it, which is why it's funny.
It's funny because it kind of doesn't fit.
That's what makes it funny.
If it was just what happened, Well, then it wouldn't be a joke.
It would be a description of what happened.
So yeah, it's because it's a little bit too far.
Well, it's just too far.
Let's not say a little bit.
However, my take on this is that the dam is broken on DEI.
If Charlemagne the god, being a prominent voice, can say in public, you know, with lots of thinking about it in advance, That DEI is mostly garbage, and that it's probably having a backfire effect.
I think the dam just broke.
That means that other people can say it too.
He's making it safe.
So he's taking the arrow in the back on this, and I think he's doing a public service.
So, good for you.
I'd say good work.
Not only that, but I thought he, Charlemagne is growing into the job.
The first clip I saw of him doing the Daily Show, my first impression, honestly, was, you know, glad he got a chance, but he can't really deliver the joke.
I felt he was falling short on the delivery.
But I don't know how many shows he's done now, but I watched this clip, and I would say, yeah, he grew into it.
He actually grew into it.
Yeah, he actually solved.
He went into a new situation, which, by the way, is my highest compliment.
My highest compliment is he went into a new situation which could have been super embarrassing.
Did it stop him?
No.
No, he just did it anyway.
Was his first day out a huge win?
Nope.
Nope.
It was a little bit embarrassing, honestly.
But did he feel the embarrassment?
I don't know.
All I know is he kept at it, and then he got good at it.
So that's A+.
There's nothing you can say about that, but A+.
Good job.
I like to see good work.
I like to call it out when people do good jobs.
That's a good job.
Well, China apparently hacked into Microsoft's mail and got into the accounts of some top US officials.
And people are saying that Microsoft, the critics are saying that Microsoft has a culture of not taking security as seriously as they should.
But you know, that's something critics say.
Who knows how seriously anybody's thinking.
But here's something, there's a quote from that story.
While no organization is immune to cyber attack, From well-resourced adversaries.
No organization.
There's no organization that's immune from cyber attack.
No organization.
Wow.
Well, that's not entirely true, is it?
That no organization is safe from hackers?
Well, let me give you an example of an organization that's completely safe.
All 50 states' election systems.
All of them.
Pristine.
Boy, do they take security seriously there.
Not at a place like Microsoft.
No, the Microsoft smartest people in the entire fucking world on security and technology, They, what, you know, those clowns, they're not even taking this seriously.
But luckily, luckily people, and this is what protects the Republic, every single person involved in our elections, and especially the election security, unlike Microsoft, you know, bunch of clowns, just walking around, the Microsoft people, yeah, have I ever done an impression of Microsoft people?
Look, just walking around, they're like this.
Really, just idiots.
Complete idiots.
I know, I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say, Scott, they recruit the smartest people in the world and the best people in their field.
That's true.
But then you find out they're all lax about this internet security.
And what can I conclude?
Because it's not like you can't do it.
It's not like it's not easy.
How do I know internet security is easy?
50 elections, people.
Listen to me.
All 50 election systems, pristine, unhackable, completely secured.
And yet, and yet, Microsoft can't figure it out.
Come on, Microsoft.
Thank goodness our elections are something we can trust.
Well, Biden administration has canceled their plans to refill the emergency oil reserves.
Turns out the prices are too high.
So because the prices are too high, we'll just not be ready for a war.
Hmm.
I wonder if there are any risks of hiring the wrong president.
What did the other president do?
Oh, he filled the reserves when oil prices were really low, and oil prices were low because he was such a pro-energy president.
You know, in a way, that all worked out, didn't it?
Being pro-energy drives down the prices, you say, hey, prices are low, let's fill that reserve, make sure nobody attacks us because we look all prepared.
But Biden went the other way.
Destroy the energy industry, make the prices high, use up all the cheap gas so that we'll be vulnerable if we're attacked.
Okay.
But at least that's the only bad thing Biden's doing.
Can we agree on that at least?
No other mistakes.
Flawless.
Pristine, I say again, pristine.
Well, here's another story about Biden.
He's trying to overthrow the government of an ally, Israel.
Okay, that's not ideal.
But the reporting is that the United States is encouraging these fake protests, so it looks like the people are against Netanyahu.
They're going to extort ministers in the Israeli government, the rich ones, telling them they'll clamp down on their businesses internationally if they don't get rid of Netanyahu.
And America is building a port in Gaza, allegedly to deliver aid, but probably to take military control of Gaza away from Israel, some say.
Now, is this reporting true?
I don't know.
Sounds true.
Because the way our intelligence people work is they always have to have a fake protest when they want to overthrow a government.
Do you remember Black Lives Matter and Antifa?
That was our intelligence people creating fake protests.
Now we know they're fake because they stopped as soon as Biden was president, duh.
And it's the same technique they used in, you know, 80 other countries they overthrow.
So as soon as you see there's a bunch of fake protests, that means America's tried to overthrow your country.
That's basically a really good sign that they're trying to overthrow your country.
So some of the reporting here I can't confirm, and some of it is an interpretation and a little bit of mind reading, but does it look to you like Biden wants to get rid of Netanyahu?
I say yes.
If I had to bet on it, it looks like it's exactly what it looks like.
Yeah, that they're trying to get rid of Netanyahu.
So not only is Biden trying to get rid of his competition, both Trump and RFK Jr., in different ways, using lawfare, not giving security to RFK Jr., keeping him off the ballot.
He's the most undemocratic president, certainly in American history.
I don't think you, nobody's come close.
RFK Jr.
just says straight out that Biden's the biggest threat to freedom.
Because he actually, he's done massive First Amendment violations, meaning the government worked with private entities to censor.
And the things they censored were the truth.
It's bad enough that you censor, but they censored really vital, important truths.
Like, really, really important to your health.
COVID, for example.
So, yes, Biden's overthrowing other countries, our allies.
So he's quite the anti-democracy guy.
Here's a question that I had in my mind, and I said to myself, well, I can get an answer to this question by using Google and searching.
And watch how easy this is to get the right answer.
I'm going to ask you for the answer first, and then I'll check Google and make sure that your answer is correct, okay?
Here's the question.
Are seed oils good for your health, bad for your health, or no difference?
Seed oils.
Good for your health, bad for your health, or no difference?
In the comments... Well, if you're on the internet, You'll see all the smart people say seed oils are maybe the worst thing you could have in your body.
Right?
So olive oil is still good.
Avocado oil is still good.
Because they're not based on the seeds.
They're based on the fruit, I guess.
So a lot of you are saying bad.
Now, I didn't know one way or the other.
But I've seen a lot of smart people say it's bad.
Based on science.
So I went to Google.
And I said, our seed oil's bad.
What do you think he told me?
No, they're fine.
They're fine.
So what's true?
Do you think that Big Food has any control over Google?
Because I looked at the sources and the Harvard T.H.
Chan School of Public Health says that the whole seed oil thing is BS and there's no real risk from it at all.
It's fine.
It's Harvard.
Harvard School of Public Health.
Says no real risk.
Is Harvard a credible source?
No.
Are you kidding me?
No, Harvard's not a credible source for anything.
I don't know if they ever were, but we certainly don't think they are now.
It's basically the Bloomberg of colleges.
So I don't know.
So as of this morning, I don't even have a best guess.
I do not have a best guess.
I mean, it's easy to keep away from them.
Well, actually, it's not easy, because it's in dressings.
So I try to avoid any kind of dressing from a restaurant or a DoorDash.
So I don't use their dressings usually.
And I guess there was a reason for that.
So I don't know if the seed oils are bad.
I just know the sources can't be trusted.
I saw Mike Cernovich talking about the government keeps talking about solar flares disrupting things.
And he thinks they might be priming you so that election day Might be, hey, solar flare, you know, we got all the mail-in ballots because they were mailed in before, but the same day voting with our machines, ah, can't do it.
I guess there'll be long delays in all those Republican precincts because, ah, the solar flare got us.
We can't explain it.
Didn't that happen in Maricopa?
Maricopa, their machines, all like mysteriously stopped working on election day.
And now we got solar flares.
Well, I will not go as far as Cernod is in saying that it's part of a plan, but I do like his pattern recognition.
So his pattern recognition picked up this pattern.
He could be right.
Yeah, I don't have an intuition about this in particular.
But yeah, I would be amazed if they don't have massive technical problems on Election Day.
Because the technical problems on Election Day will always work against the Republicans.
So of course they're going to have technical problems.
Why wouldn't they?
A technical problem is the easiest thing to fake.
What could be easier to fake than a technical problem?
By far the easiest.
Yeah, by far the easiest.
So yeah, I would expect some technical problem, whether they blame it on solar flares or not.
All right.
Sage Steele is a journalist, and she's telling us that when she did an ESPN interview for Biden, that she was given the questions word for word and told she couldn't ask follow-up questions.
So on ABC, ESPN, I think they own ESPN, right?
They're journalists.
Now keep in mind, this is a professional journalist.
The journalist was given by management the questions to ask and told that she can't ask follow-up questions.
So in other words, if she asks a question and Biden just lies to her face, she has to say, next question.
And just let it lay.
And that was her specific direction from her bosses.
In case you're wondering if things are as rigged as you think, oh yeah, they're totally rigged.
All right, Trump is still thinking about how to clarify his abortion situation.
I'm going to make a suggestion for the very best thing he could do.
Are you ready?
The single hardest persuasion challenge of all time.
I'm going to tell you what Trump, and maybe Trump alone, maybe nobody else could get away with this, but there is an out.
He does have a way to say what he believes.
At the same time, it softens the problem for Republicans.
All right?
Listen to this carefully.
And this is one that you've never heard anybody use before.
I may have mentioned it, but you've never heard a politician say this.
This is what I'd say if I were president.
The president of the United States should only favor life in every situation.
No exceptions.
American life.
American life.
The American president should always favor life and should never make decisions in those gray areas when it comes to Americans living or dying.
But there are going to be cases where tough choices have to be made.
You don't want the president to make those choices.
You want your president to be commander-in-chief if somebody attacks you.
Right?
If somebody attacks us, I say, President, whoever you are, doesn't matter who it is, you have all the power you need.
Do what you have to do.
Now in that case, I want the President to make all the decisions.
You know, the immediate ones.
You know, obviously with consulting with experts and generals.
But that's the case where you really want your President to take all the power.
Because it's just the way you're going to stay alive.
But if it's domestic, and it's about America, the president should never be on the side of anything that even in the most ambiguous case could reduce life in the United States.
But somebody has to make those decisions.
Who should it be?
Well, because it's life and death, you want that decision to be driven as close as possible to the people directly involved.
Ideally, you know, the doctor and the patient.
But if you can't get it all the way down to the doctor and the patient, the state is a lot closer.
And so the one thing I can get right, as your president, is I can take it out of my hands.
If you want to know my personal opinion, then you add your personal opinion.
My personal opinion is, you know, I think this or that.
But I do not want, in any way, To be part of the decision of life and death in your personal, very private moments.
If the state wants to do it, that's between the state and its citizens.
But absolutely, the President of the United States should never, ever be against life, even if it's an ambiguous case.
Now, could he get away with that?
Yeah, he could.
Everybody would hate it.
But it would be hated equally.
Just right.
The Republicans who are, you know, ban abortion are going to say, ah, we hoped you would do a national abortion bill, you know, banning it.
And Trump would say, you don't want me in that business.
And then the, the Democrats would say, but you should be in favor of abortion.
And then he would say, you don't want me in that business.
You want everybody else.
There should be only one exception of the person who should say, I'll take a pass.
Just the President.
He's the only one who should take a pass.
Could Trump sell that?
Yes.
Better than every other option.
Now, I don't think he'll do this, by the way.
I think what he'll do, Is some version of, you know, the states need to decide, but if it's up to me, I would have several exceptions and I would treat it as sort of a negotiated middle ground.
So that's probably what he's going to do.
Is that good enough?
I don't think it's going to gain him any votes.
The best he can do is reduce how many votes he loses.
And that would reduce, probably give him a little boost, you know, because it wouldn't be a hard commitment.
But yeah, there's no right answer.
Let's do a Trump law affair update.
We've got a judge who's doing some mind reading.
Let's see, the judge has rejected Trump's bid to delay the hush money, the Stormy Daniels hush money criminal trial.
Until the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity.
So, in other words, there's the possibility that the President would have all kinds of immunity, and if that were the case, then this and other things would be irrelevant.
They would just go away.
Or would they be delayed until after he's President?
No, they would go away, because he did it under the cover of Presidency.
But, the Judge Merchin, Decided that he would not wait to find out if the whole case would just go away because he was president and he had he had that immunity And the reason he says that he's not going to wait for that decision is he goes the timing of the defense filing Quote raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion What?
Why does the sincerity of the request change the law?
Is that a thing?
I'm sure it is a thing, but it doesn't sound right to me.
Shouldn't the law just be the law?
Now I get that, you know, if you kill somebody to self-defense, your intentions are different than if you just murdered them.
So yeah, what you're thinking matters.
But if you're lawyers, and you're doing everything you can for your client, and the law allows you to do this, Where does sincerity come into it?
How much more sincere do you have to be to think maybe this whole thing should go away and we should at least find out if he has immunity?
That's the most sincere thing I could even imagine.
I'm Trump's lawyer, and I know that there could be this future thing that's going to happen anyway, and it's going to decide whether this case makes any difference at all.
How am I not sincere when I ask you to wait for that decision?
How in the world is that not sincere?
It's strategically correct, it's legally correct, it's logical, it's exactly what they should be doing for their client, and they didn't make up any of it.
It's real stuff.
Like, there really is an immunity decision, and it's not very far away.
How does a judge look into their minds and see that they're insincere when every indication is that they are?
There's not a single indication that there's anything but good lawyering with a strong argument.
I don't see anything.
I don't see anything else except a strong argument.
Oh no, I'm looking into their brain.
I'm seeing a lack of sincerity.
How in the world is this allowed?
Anyway.
But part of it is they missed some deadlines to do it earlier.
But again, I say, it's either legal to do it now or it's not legal.
The fact that they missed an earlier deadline, how is that relevant?
How is that relevant?
It should be just as legal or it's not legal.
And if it's legal, they're just doing good lawyering.
Maybe they didn't in the past, but that would be not a reason to penalize them now.
Well, how about this box gate trial that Mar-a-Lago secret box has?
I guess Jack Smith is going after the judge and threatening the judge with, you know, professional repercussions.
As well as, you know, the Biden people are going after any lawyer who ever worked for Trump.
So this seems to be more, more of the non-democratic process using lawfare.
Yeah.
So, when you see it all as a group of actions, there never has been a president more against the Constitution than Biden.
Can we say that for sure?
There's no president who's ever been more anti-Constitution.
Because he's completely taken out the First Amendment by a workaround, you know, using these NGOs and Soros funded things and fake fact checkers and, you know, the social media pressure and everything.
So the First Amendment is gone.
He's chipping away at the Second Amendment, doing the best he can.
And now they're using lawfare, weaponizing the justice system, trying to keep people off the ballot.
We've never seen anything like this.
This is not even in the domain of anything we've ever seen before, unless there's some, you know, old presidential story I don't know about.
I've never seen anything like this.
This is so right in your face.
We're just going to get rid of this whole Constitution thing.
And of course, DEI is all just racist bullshit.
So that's happening.
Politico, Um, that's a, uh, an article from somebody named Rory Daniels, who is a Democrat donor, we're told, by people who don't like his story.
And he says that, uh, he's some kind of China expert.
I say laughingly because he, he says that, um, China prefers Trump.
All right, so a Democrat, who actually funds Democrats, writes in Politico that, in his opinion, China really wants Trump.
Do you think that's real?
That China wants Trump?
That seems ridiculous.
That seems ridiculous.
Anyway, but people will believe anything.
Did you know that there's a new development Apparently we can now predict prime numbers.
Which is the thing that the experts thought could never be done.
When I say predict them, I mean predict the next one that we'll discover, which could be 20 digits long, or some gigantic number.
But allegedly it was supposed to be impossible to predict, but now there's some mathematicians who think they can, and have.
So they've actually trotted it out, made a prediction, and I think it worked.
So, it's some researchers in Hong Kong and North Carolina.
I don't know what good that is, but I'll put that in the category of everything you thought was true is not true.
If you just pick anything that you thought was true and wait 20 years, it's probably not.
You could almost throw a dart at any guaranteed true thing.
How about the Big Bang?
Shoot!
Throw a dart at that.
Do you think the Big Bang is proven out?
No, it's kind of largely been debunked.
The most basic thing I ever learned in science.
How about evolution?
Now that's pretty guaranteed, right?
There's just so much proof for evolution.
Well, unless we're a simulation.
Unless you believe physics and you believe the double slit experiment, do you believe Schrodinger's cat?
Do you believe that there's such thing as, you know, the cat is both living and dead in the box?
Let me say it a different way.
The cat is not both alive and dead in the box.
Do you all know the Schrodinger's cat example?
You put the cat in a box that nobody can see anything that's happening inside, but there's a randomized poison.
So you don't know if the poison has been randomly activated or not.
So for you, on the outside of the box, you don't know if the cat is alive or dead.
Physics suggests that both states exist until observed.
That when you open the box, the cat will be either alive or dead.
But here's the fun part.
That means you're creating history in the present.
That means your observation creates the past.
Because if the cat was not guaranteed alive or not guaranteed dead, until you open the box, the moment you see the dead cat, the history of the cat dying appears at the same time.
The history didn't exist until the cat was seen dead.
Do you get that?
We have proof that we create history on the fly.
And we've had it for a long time.
We just don't interpret it that way.
Instead we interpreted that the cat was both alive and dead.
No, that's absurd.
That's an absurdity.
But if we're a simulation, and all indications in my opinion are that we are, then it would act like a video game.
That you don't see the forest until your character goes into the forest, and then it creates it because it needs a forest.
So you create the past, you don't just observe it, it was there anyway.
So, what was that all about?
I don't even know why I was going down that path, but I'm sure I connected to something important in today's news.
Well, moving on.
Rasmussen Poll says, in a three-way match between Biden, Trump, and RFK Jr., That 44% would go for Trump and 38% for Biden and 10% for Kennedy.
So every poll seems to suggest that Trump has an insurmountable lead, especially in the swing states, most of them.
All but one, or some say all of them, he's ahead.
And it's a pretty big lead.
Well, as you know, Biden raised $26 million in his big celebrity bash recently.
And it was a record, everybody said.
It's historic.
Nobody could ever beat that number.
He is the best fundraiser of all.
Oh, OK.
Well, it looks like Trump's going to raise $43 million at a Palm Beach fundraiser this weekend, they project.
So $43 million would be the new record.
Buy a lot.
Let's see, what other records has Trump set?
Let's see.
He made more money as president than any president ever because he got canceled and created True Social and it went public.
He's got quite a few records there.
Never started a war.
Never started a war.
That's a pretty good record.
All right.
Wall Street Journal is reporting that men are leaving the Democrat Party in droves, especially black and Latino young voters.
Apparently every group is having a little bit of second thought about Biden, but men in particular are especially leaving.
So the Wall Street Journal poll found that Biden was drawing only 37% of men in the seven swing states.
Now that was on the ballot with only him and Trump, so without RFK Jr.
And that found about the same nationwide.
And that is way weaker than Biden had 46% of men in 2020.
So he's gone from 46% to 37% of men, and it's mostly minority men.
Because the white guys had already left.
The ones with testosterone had already left.
So, do any of you remember when I first started saying that Democrats were the party of women?
Has anybody been with me long enough that you remember the first time I said that?
I think it was during Hillary's run against Trump, if I recall.
And you could see then that Hillary was turning it into the party of women.
But now it's a thing.
The men are abandoning it.
They see it's a party of women.
I'm going to take some credit for being the first person to notice that, that it was going that way.
I'm sure other people noticed it, but nobody made as much noise about it as I did.
Well, here's the thing.
If the Democrats are the party of women, liberal women, and we know their rate of mental illness, I would put it at 70%.
I think 70% of liberal women have mental illness.
Around 50% have diagnosed or have sought treatment.
So if 50% have sought treatment, at least 70% are suffering.
Now, how many of them are only suffering from TDS and didn't seek treatment?
It might be 90% have bonafide, observable mental problems.
So, if the men are leaving at this rate, it completely turns over the Democrat Party to people who are not figuratively crazy, not using hyperbole, It literally is a filtering process that left all the crazy people in one place.
Now, is that predictable?
That if you get enough crazy people, there'll be a point where everything breaks and the people who don't want to be around crazy people just get the hell out of there.
That's what's happening.
The men are realizing that they're with crazy people.
Actually crazy.
And the men are saying, what the hell is going on?
Get me out of here.
I want to go where, like, my work makes a difference, and if I succeed, I get to keep my money.
You know?
Not crazy things?
Yeah.
Get the F away.
So why is it that so many liberal women are crazy?
Well, part of it's the news making them crazy and TDS and, you know, maybe it's the phones and all this, but I've got another, I have another hypothesis.
As you know, I like to do some work at Starbucks quite often because it's a great environment to bring your laptop and get a little extra work done while you have some delicious coffee.
But I also am sitting there while I'm watching everybody else's orders.
If a man comes in, there's a pretty good chance that man's getting a cup of coffee.
If a woman comes in, what is she ordering?
Sugar.
She's ordering sugar.
Yeah.
I wonder if sugar can make you crazy.
Oh, here's a study.
High levels of glucose triglycerides linked to psychiatric disorders.
New study says.
So, Starbucks, which in my opinion is a liquid candy store.
Let me say that again.
Starbucks, for men, is a place to get coffee.
For women, it's a liquid candy store.
They're going for the sugar.
If you stand there and watch who walks in, what they pick up, and what they walk out with, it's sugar.
Now, I'm on a low-sugar diet.
Cause my blood, you know, even at my weight and you know, eating a pretty clean diet, even I am a little bit high in sugar.
So there's literally one item in all of Starbucks I'm willing to eat that doesn't have wheat in it.
Cause I want to stay away from that.
There's only one item, just the egg bites basically.
So, so we have a Starbucks on every corner.
We have the liberal women walking in there and picking up their sugar.
Going crazy, listening to the news and playing with their phones, not being able to get a date because the whole dating situation and their meaning of life has been destroyed, and then they go into politics and they vote.
This is not a sustainable situation.
Not sustainable.
So, we just have to be a little bit more honest about what's going on.
Democrats are a party of women.
Women are eating too much sugar.
And they're going fucking crazy.
Not just because of the sugar.
I mean, it's also the phones, the situation, the old family dating situation, complexity of life, etc.
Now, I have a second theory that I'm going to break out.
If something were driving all of civilization crazy, whatever it is, you know, you can pick your favorite thing, it's the news, it's their phones, it's something, whatever it is, where would you see it first?
Where would a, like if there was a ray gun that made people crazy, where would you see it first?
I think you'd see it in children.
Because they have the weakest minds.
And you'd see them going trans and non-binary like crazy.
Do we see that?
Yes.
Yes.
You see children having major psychological problems, changing their genders, trying anything.
Literally trying anything to try to, you know, solve what's happening.
So you'd see it in children, and definitely children are going nuts.
Secondly, you would see it in women before men.
Why?
Well, do I even need to explain that?
Can we finally get past the point where I have to treat men and women like they're the same?
Is there anybody listening who needs me to do, oh, there's some reason that they're exactly the same?
No, you don't need that, right?
Haven't we outgrown that?
Yeah.
I'm pretty sure that women are, let's say, closer to their emotional... Let's say their emotional life is richer than men.
Is that the best way to say it?
That women have a richer emotional life than men.
Because that takes the judgment out of it, right?
Because I think you'd all agree with that.
That women have a richer emotional life.
If you have a richer emotional life, And I find out about it, and I'm a hypnotist?
Do you know how easy it is to manipulate somebody with a rich emotional life?
Super easy!
Easier than somebody who's analytical, that's for sure.
You can also fool very smart analytical people, but that's a whole different kind of process.
Yeah, so if we're being subjected to some kind of outside force or forces that are driving people crazy, every observation is supporting that.
Because the humans are falling in the exact order that they would be susceptible to outside manipulation of their psychological well-being.
It's all there, it's right in front of you.
Let's see, is there any other evidence of that?
Well, Joe Rogan was talking to Coleman Hughes, and Coleman Hughes had been on The View recently and had a good little interaction with him.
And it caused Joe Rogan to characterize The View as, the people on The View as, quote, rabies-infested henhouse.
Rabies-infested henhouse.
Well, what would be another word for that?
Batshit crazy liberal woman.
So, people are willing to say it out loud now.
They're going to use their own language.
But people are saying it out loud.
When you watch The View, you really don't get the feeling you're seeing a difference of opinion.
You think you're seeing mental illness.
Only.
That's all I see.
I know what a difference of opinion looks like.
You know who has a difference of opinion?
Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart.
Now he's got, you know, maybe a little TDS like everybody, but he's not insane.
He's not mentally incompetent.
He doesn't have rabies.
He just has different information, different priorities, you know, little team play, but he's not crazy.
Right?
Bill Maher.
You can disagree with him all day long, but he doesn't seem crazy.
You know, he has a little TDS, but otherwise fairly normal psychologically, as far as we can tell.
But there's definitely a difference when you look at the view.
They actually seem mentally unwell.
And if we can't call out mental health, and we have to keep treating it like it's a difference of opinion, that's not going to work very well.
Yeah, we need to treat mental health as a mental problem.
You know, if you want to respect the people involved, you treat them like it's a medical problem.
Well, the bird flu may be coming at us.
I don't know.
Somebody had sex with a cow and a bird at the same time, ate a hamburger.
I don't know the details.
I may have made that up.
But somehow the CDC is worrying that this bird flu can spread among our dairy cattle.
But Thomas Massey picking up the pattern quickly.
Says the bureaucrats and corporations will probably use this to advance an agenda against raw milk independent farmers and backyard chickens.
Let me give you some advice.
Never get a backyard chicken.
Never.
Never get a backyard chicken.
Because you know what happens if you have a backyard chicken?
Sooner or later, one way or another, You're going to end up with a backyard rooster.
Do you know what happens when you have a backyard rooster?
Well, you don't sleep too well, and your neighbors are going to call the authorities.
And then what do you do with your rooster?
Do you kill it?
Well, that's not legal.
No, because it's a pet.
You can't kill your pet.
And they're protected.
You cannot kill a male, you know, a rooster.
So, well, at least you can give it away, right?
You can find, like, somebody wants to take it.
Nope.
There are zero places that will take a rooster.
Can't give it away.
Can't sell it.
Can't lose it.
Can't kill it.
But you might have to move.
So if you get a rooster, you're gonna have to sell your house.
Your neighbors will make you move.
Don't get a chicken.
It's gonna lead to a rooster.
You're gonna have to move.
And none of that's a joke, by the way.
And it's guaranteed.
That chain of events, that's guaranteed.
Chicken, rooster, gotta leave your house.
Don't do it.
Best advice I'll ever give you.
Because I've seen it.
I'm speaking from direct, close experience.
All right.
Tucker is talking to Marjorie Taylor Greene, and she's not too keen on Speaker Johnson and him trying to get money to Ukraine.
And there was, you know, the speculation that Speaker Johnson is being blackmailed by somebody.
Does he act like somebody who's being blackmailed?
If you're just observing and you see that the top Republican is just Gung Ho about Ukraine support, and you notice that he replaced Mitch McConnell, who's going to remain as a senator, and Mitch McConnell said his number one goal, as he remains a senator, is funding Ukraine.
So, the ex-Speaker of the House was in favor of it, the new Speaker of the House is in favor of it, but Republicans by majority are not in favor of it.
Now, is that true?
The Republicans by majority are not in favor in the House.
Is that true right now?
I think that's true.
Be doing something that their base does not favor by a majority.
I'll need a fact check on that.
I think it's not a majority.
And the only reason I can think of is that our intelligence people threaten them.
So I think they're coerced.
I think McConnell either has some financial gain or he's being blackmailed.
And I think that Speaker Johnson is probably just being blackmailed.
I think he's being blackmailed.
I think we have a blackmail accuracy, that our entire government is some, basically, collection of blackmailed people that the intelligence people can control.
They prefer blackmailable people, because that's how they control them.
So that's what it looks like.
I don't have any proof of that, but I would say, observationally, they look like captives.
They act like prisoners, basically.
If you act like a prisoner long enough, I'm going to think you're a prisoner.
And these guys are acting like prisoners.
They don't act like these are their opinions at all.
And I think Mitch McConnell calls it an isolationist movement to give up on Ukraine.
Is it?
Is it an isolationist movement?
Or is it just a bad idea?
An isolationist.
And of course, CNN and MSNBC have been telling us forever that Ukraine is winning, which is apparently absurd.
And so why would the leaders of the Republican Party, of all things, want to support all this money for war when they know it's not going to make a difference?
What's going on?
The only thing I can assume is this is exactly what it looks like.
The industrial military complex can make a lot of money, and it has $60 billion, and they want their cut.
And they have blackmail or bribery or something on the leaders.
Now, if you've got a Republican like MTG questioning whether the leader of her own group is being blackmailed, he has to step down.
It doesn't matter if you can prove it.
If you're acting in a way that your own base can't tell if you've been blackmailed or you're under duress, and you can't explain why you're acting the way you're acting, you know, without obvious bullshit, I feel like that loss of confidence should be enough to get you out of the job.
You know, the appearance of being blackmailed seems like that should be enough.
You know, to take somebody out of that kind of a job.
Anyway, the French are making noise about maybe sending troops on the ground to Ukraine.
So, Russia called the French Defense Minister to say, it will create problems for France itself.
I don't want to say what kind of problems, but France, you might have some problems.
That's ominous.
So, what do you think?
Are the French going to break the seal, and then it'll be easier for America to add some troops?
Because at that point, well, it's just a NATO action, and we're part of NATO, and we've got to protect our French allies, so of course we're sending some advisors.
Just a few advisors.
No, we're just going to train them to use the weapons.
Well, while they're there, they shot a few Well, as long as we're over there and everybody knows we're over there and shooting, we might as well send some more people over there.
Pretty soon the military-industrial complex is making even more money than before.
More people are speaking out about Israel's treatment of Gaza.
I will remind you that my opinion of what Israel is doing there is irrelevant, as is yours, because they're going to do what they're going to do.
No, there are a lot of cases where your opinion actually could make a difference.
I think in American politics, if you press hard enough and complain hard enough and enough people pick up the same complaint, it probably makes a difference.
But this is a really special case.
It's a once-ever situation.
You hope it's once ever.
And Israel's just going to do what they're going to do.
And I think they're going to burn their international reputation.
But they've decided it's worth the cost.
And I don't know that they're wrong.
From a purely, let's say, you know, national interest point of view, are they wrong to burn their Holocaust goodwill, ironically, if you can call it that?
But they're torching it.
The whole Holocaust thing is gone.
I think it's gone already.
Imagine this conversation.
Israeli says, blah, blah, blah, Holocaust.
Now, where does the conversation go after that?
Every time, for the rest of eternity.
Gaza, right?
Gaza now erases the Holocaust as an asset, their greatest asset.
It's gone.
But is it a good investment?
I'm going to say again that in 200 years, if Israel essentially controls Gaza and pacified it and maybe made it economically successful, it's going to look like they made the right decisions.
In the war at the moment, it never looks like a good decision, does it?
Like, nothing looks smart when the bullets are flying.
Everybody looks dumb in that situation.
You're like, really?
You couldn't find any way to prevent somebody from shooting at you for a year.
There was nothing you could do?
To make that not happen.
You know, so we just automatically think if the bullets are flying, probably both sides are being a little fucked up.
Right?
A little bit.
Like every situation is different, but you just automatically have that bias.
So anyway, Paul Graham had an interesting comment about a situation that I don't know if it's true at all, because, you know, everything out of the war zone is fake.
But he says that there's some evidence from some military person who says it's true, that the Israelis preferred to wait for the Hamas high-level person to come home, than they would take out the whole home with the family and the wife.
And that they preferred doing it that way, I guess because they knew where he was then.
You know, they didn't have to wonder if they were getting him.
Now, that might have been one person, and it's the fog of war.
I'd be surprised if that's the official policy.
I wouldn't be surprised if somebody's commander told them to do it.
I'd be a little surprised if it was coming from the top.
But it's war.
Do I think that it is moral or ethical to kill the entire family when you're just going after the Hamas leader who's married to them?
Well, it's war.
And I don't believe in making moral and ethical judgments during a war, because it's all bad.
Like making some little, you know, ranking of, oh, this is a little bit worse than this other thing.
No, it's just all bad.
Like everything is just bad.
Both sides, just all the time, all bad.
But certainly self-defense is the motivating factor here for Israel.
So I'm going to ask the question a different way.
And this is just to make you expand your thinking about it.
Alright?
So analogies are never the same as the situation.
So I'm going to give you an analogy just to expand your thinking.
But analogies are not arguments.
So I don't win the argument with this.
I might expand your thinking.
Imagine there's a situation where somebody kidnapped a child.
Um, did surgery on him and put a bomb inside their torso, sewed him up.
And then said, all right, kid, your, your parents are here.
And maybe the real goal is to, you know, blow up wherever the parents work.
So yeah, get out of the car and run towards your parents.
Now let's say that our intelligence people had learned in advance that the kid had a bomb in it.
And as soon as he went through the doorway, the building would blow up and the kid would be dead.
Would it be ethical and moral to shoot the child before he reached the door?
Murder the innocent child to avoid the further death.
Ethical?
Moral?
Well, I'm going to take a page in of Dana Perino's book.
She split the baby on TV yesterday in a way that I thought was clever.
Totally immoral.
Which is separate from the question of whether you need to do it.
The question of morality, you can allow yourself a luxury belief.
So a luxury belief is one you don't have to operate on.
It's like somebody else's problem.
Oh yeah, killing people, totally immoral.
I'm totally against it.
Which I can say, because nobody slaughtered my people on October 7th.
Pretty easy for me to say.
War is immoral.
But if you slaughtered my people, I might feel a little differently about that.
So we want to be good people in public.
So if anybody asks you, what do you think about, you know, the situation, you should say, oh, it's terrible.
It's a terrible situation, and it's all immoral and unethical, and I'm not going to change my vote.
It's all immoral and unethical.
Well, that's just sort of a dodge.
But I do like that it's a nod toward You know, maybe an ideal that we should strive for, that we should try to be good people.
But in the real world, you've got to make decisions.
And if your terrorist is commuting, and commuting back to the house, do you call that a self-defense if you take out the whole house?
Well, I say it's not worth talking about.
Because I don't think this is unusual in war.
To me, this looks sort of ordinary.
Terrible, but kind of ordinary.
Meaning that probably every war has this same degree of things you wish didn't happen.
And in the special case where the children have been weaponized, it makes the self-defense argument stronger.
So, here's another one.
Same argument.
Let's say there's a home invader at your home.
And it's somebody bigger than you.
I'll just use me.
I'll use myself.
There's a home invader, and they're definitely bigger than me.
But I get lucky.
We get in a scuffle, and the home invader trips over the rug, and I jump on top of him, and I manage to be able to hold him down.
Now, let's say the home invader's knife came free, and I'm now sitting on the back of the home invader, and I've got my knife in my hand.
But they're subdued.
So I can't legally kill them, right?
You all agree?
I can't kill them because they're subdued.
And now the person who's subdued says, all right, you're in trouble now.
If you don't kill me and you let me get up, I'm going to kill you.
And you know, you only got lucky the first time because it's somebody bigger than you.
And you know, if you let them up and you don't have your phone with you, so you can't call out.
You can't call out to anybody.
If you let them up, they're going to kill you.
Is it self-defense if you finish them off?
I actually don't know the answer to that.
If you finish them off, because it's the only way you can stay alive, is that self-defense?
And I think the law would say it's not self-defense.
I think they would call it murder.
Do you know what I would call it?
Necessary.
I would call it necessary.
It might also be murder, but that doesn't change it being necessary.
So yes, I would stab them to death, and then I would call the police.
In that order.
Every time.
So, if you say to me there's a house full of people who are going to grow up to be terrorists if you kill their dad, do I have a legal ethical right to kill them too?
No, I don't.
I don't.
It's not moral and it's not ethical.
It might be necessary.
It might be necessary.
But it's not moral.
It's not ethical.
So, war is about what is necessary.
It's not about moral or ethical.
We just wish it were.
It isn't.
All right.
And then CNN had some analysts who said that the Israeli military has told them to basically just shoot every man of fighting age.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that the official rules of engagement are to shoot everybody of military age?
I don't know.
You know, it could be one commander.
Maybe.
Could be more than that.
Could be this person's lying.
No, no.
It's on CNN, so it could just be a lie.
But is it necessary to shoot every man of fighting age?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I know that if you didn't, a lot more of you would die.
That I know.
There would be more Israeli soldiers would die if they didn't.
So does that make it appropriate?
Because it's self-defense.
They're killing him just in case.
Is that self-defense?
I don't know.
I actually don't know.
But I'm not going to defend Israel.
I'm just going to say, in a war, this is exactly what happens.
There are no good guys in wars.
There are no good guys in wars.
There's just what's necessary.
And then there are people who are on your side.
And that's about it.
So if Israel is doing what is necessary, and they're still our allies, then that's my conclusion.
It's necessary they're our allies.
If you ask me, is it moral and ethical?
No.
Nope.
Is Hamas moral and ethical?
Nah.
Is the Biden administration?
Nah.
No.
Are the people who want it to stop moral and ethical?
They might be.
They might also be stupid.
So I can separate those things pretty easily.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you today in this amazing show that you spent too much time on.
I'm going to say goodbye to X and YouTube and Rumble and spend a little extra time just with the local subscribers, because they're special.
