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, Adam Schiff Burglary, President Xi, CA White Tax Proposal, Georgia Election Data Visualization, Weight Loss Willpower, Karine Jean-Pierre, Corporate DEI Problem, Bidenomics, Stagflation, US Economic Survival, President Trump, NY Trump Campaign, German Nuclear Energy, Political Lying, California Storage Batteries, College Protest Organizers, Summer Riots, Fake Electors Propaganda, Mar-A-Lago Documents, Presidential Immunity, 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
Representative Adam Schiff went to San Francisco for a meeting and that didn't work out because his luggage was stolen from his car.
And so he had to wear a little hunting vest.
Who wears a hunting vest?
I've never understood the hunting vest.
Are there a lot of situations where your torso is cold but your arms are warm enough?
I've never been in a situation where, you know, I'm thinking my arms are just right, but this torso area, I just need to get that a little warmer, so I'll put on my little hunting vest.
Anyway, so Adam Schiff had to go to his meeting in a hunting vest when everybody else was wearing suits.
Kind of embarrassing, but seems a little perfect that the Democrat Got robbed going to San Francisco.
So good job, Adam Schiff.
You've done a great job with your state.
Now the emperor has no clothes.
Somebody actually said the emperor has no clothes.
I've never seen a situation where that phrase actually worked.
It's one of my most hated phrases because everybody says it about everything.
Oh, the emperor has no clothes.
The emperor has no clothes.
I'm just so sick of hearing that phrase.
And then finally, there's somebody who has his clothes actually stolen from him.
Like, okay!
Finally, the emperor has no clothes, it fits.
Well, there's other news from San Francisco.
President Xi of China is also in San Francisco, or he was, and he was speaking and he says he wants to be friends with the U.S.
and that he won't fight a war with anyone.
He will not fight a war with anyone.
You know, I think his comments would have been more credible, except for the fact that he was wearing Adam Schiff's suit when he said it.
So, that's... Thank you very much, people.
That's the end of the show.
No.
I feel like I should end it on that and just go out big.
Come on, that's a good joke.
He was wearing Adam Schiff's suit.
Yeah, that's called the callback.
Well, I actually believe China.
When China says they want to be friends with the U.S.
and they don't want a war, of course they do.
Of course they do.
But they want to be the kind of friends that eventually dominate you and take all your business.
So, and they want to spy on you and, you know, do that kind of stuff.
But I do believe he doesn't want a war.
Can you imagine any scenario in which China would be better off starting a war?
There's no scenario in which that makes sense for them.
It certainly makes sense for them to, you know, flex their muscles and try to get some control over their local islands and, you know, try to make noise about Taiwan.
Everything China does makes sense to me.
That's the one thing I always appreciate about China.
You never have to wonder what they're thinking.
Do you?
It's always right out there.
There's not much of a trick to it.
You know they're spying on you.
You know they're trying to take your markets.
But there's no surprise to it.
I kind of like that.
I like transparency, even if it's bad.
Well, let's talk more about racist California.
There's now a proposal that's getting some traction to raise your taxes if you're white.
Or basically non-black.
So everybody non-black would pay more taxes.
And black residents would get a break on their property taxes.
And if you were to apply for a work license of some sort, a kind of license that the state would give you, then if you're white, you go to the back of the line and the black residents would go to the front.
So the proposal is to be a racist state.
So the way California wants to deal with the legacy of slavery that happened in other states, just try to hold this in your mind.
California never had any slavery.
So they want to give reparations to the descendants for the thing that never happened in California.
And the way they want to make it right is by having an openly racist system.
Now, it hasn't been approved, But the ridiculousness of the fact that this even is a conversation is incredible.
Incredible.
All right, so here's a fun thing.
Do you know how hard it's been to try to figure out all the claims about election irregularity?
And every day you'll hear another claim.
It's like, oh, this county did something and I don't understand it.
And this county may have done something and I don't understand it.
Well, here's where data visualization comes in handy.
So I just posted, and I think you'll like it a lot, on the X platform, a data visualization done by an account, Mad Liberals.
So Mad Liberals has been doing tons of research, on his own apparently, using public sources, and put together a data visualization of which counties had what kind of problems, just in Georgia.
Now, you have to see it, To be impressed at the data visualization.
It was the best thing I've seen so far.
It was the best thing I've seen about the 2020 election.
In the sense that you could very quickly get a sense of where the problems were, and how much, and how widespread.
It's shocking.
Now, I can't vouch for the data.
But apparently it's public sources and it's shocking that the number of problems in specific places, it'll blow your mind.
Yeah, now I can't.
Again, I can't verify the data, but if it's accurate, it's pretty shocking.
Matt Walsh is creating a little controversy as he often does on X. So apparently the other day he said on X That the key to losing weight is to eat less and exercise more.
And there was some metabolic health practitioner, he calls her, I guess she calls herself, finds the idea so absurd that she assumes it must be a joke and mocked him for thinking that losing weight is just about eating less and exercising more.
What do you think?
Who's right?
The, the so-called metabolic health practitioner, Or Matt Walsh, who says, if you want to lose weight, just eat less and exercise more.
I'm going to go with the metabolic health practitioner.
Yeah, because the idea of just eating less and exercise more is a willpower-based idea.
All willpower-based concepts fail, because willpower isn't even real.
So this is magical thinking.
Thinking that you could lose weight by Just try hard.
I'll concentrate harder to eat less and exercise more.
Use my willpower.
It's not really a thing.
That's magical thinking.
Here's what does work.
If you've seen my book, I'd have failed almost everything and still wouldn't make it.
I talk about you manage your cravings instead.
If you manage your cravings, then you don't have to worry about free will not existing because you won't want the thing that you're not supposed to do.
So if you go about it from a Working on your cravings perspective, you're going to get something that this metabolic health practitioner probably knows about fairly well, actually.
So, for example, I teach you that you should just identify a problem food.
For me, it was, let's say, French fries at one point.
And I would just say, I'll eat everything I want, except French fries.
So now there's no willpower involved, because it's not really hard to eat everything you want all the time, except French fries.
And then I just, once I lose the craving for the French fries, I'll just pick another thing.
And you just remove your most problematic things without any willpower at all.
So in the end, you do eat less, but it has more to do with your mix of foods than it does with quantity.
So in some very general way, Matt Walsh is right.
Eating less and exercising more is good for you, of course.
But you can't really get there with that philosophy.
It's a philosophy that locks you in a corner.
You can't get out.
So the one that works is to work on your cravings.
You can read that in my book.
Kamala Harris said recently, quote, I just don't think people should have to go to jail for smoking weed.
When she was a district attorney, she oversaw 1,900 convictions for marijuana-related offenses.
But isn't it great that she's not in favor of it now?
Not in favor of it now.
1,900 people whose lives were probably ruined by that.
But speaking of drugs, Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, They've approved a breakthrough status for LSD, which means it can be used for treatments.
So there have been clinical trials in which some bio company called MindMed found out that very small doses of LSD, not enough for you to be tripping or anything, will make you feel less depressive and less anxiety and Basically, less PTSD.
Basically, it's like a cure-all for a whole bunch of medical things.
Now, do you remember the discussion I had yesterday or so, in which I was just speculating that the reason our mental health is so bad lately is that we were designed to be tribal and family, but many of us lost our tribal, family, and even work connections, and we're just alone.
And even if there are people around, if you feel alone, I think it makes you crazy.
You know, I'll use the general word.
But the way it might express itself in an individual might be a variety of different things that have different names.
But my speculation is, this is just speculation, this is not backed by science, that the feeling of being alone is what actually stimulates these mental problems.
Now, this gets us to the question of how in the world would LSD or, you know, some of these drugs like ecstasy, MDMA and ketamine, how would they make you feel less mental health problems, fewer mental health problems?
And they're all different drugs, right?
Ecstasy, LSD, MDMA, ketamine.
So they all seem to have been indicated for helping a variety of problems.
So here's what's interesting.
The ones that work at all, work on a variety of mental problems.
Isn't that interesting?
It's a variety of different drugs that have different mechanisms, and when they work at all, they work on a variety of mental problems, not just one.
Now here's what that suggests to me, connecting it to my earlier thought.
My brief experience with Let's say chemistry suggests that some drugs make you feel not alone.
Marijuana does.
Marijuana makes you feel like you don't care that you're alone.
And it also cures all your mental problems for some people.
I don't recommend it.
I'm not a doctor.
So don't do anything I say in the medical sense.
That would be a bad idea.
But here's my, here's my speculative hypothetical take on this.
I think that the drugs that are working for these mental health problems, because it's a variety of different problems, I think they're all related to how alone you feel, or how connected you feel.
And these are drugs that make you feel connected, even if you're not sitting in the same room with people.
I think it's all about connection.
It's all about connection.
I think that's going to be the magic bullet.
Is that we're going to realize the reason these drugs work is because they make you feel connected.
That's what I think.
Well, Green Jean-Pierre, there's a story now circulating.
Who knows how true it is?
If this story were about the Trump White House, I would tell you I don't necessarily believe it.
Because, you know, if the sources are sketchy, it sounds a little rumor-like, but it's believable.
And the rumor is that The top aides to Biden were secretly trying to push Karine Jean-Pierre out of her job, because she's really terrible at it.
And that Karine Jean-Pierre doesn't want to go anywhere, so she's going to hang tight.
And they're trouble nudging her.
They tried to nudge her out, but it failed.
And one of the reasons given for why they were unsuccessful in nudging her out of a job, which I think everybody who's Watching?
No, she's completely unqualified for it.
Would you agree?
I don't think there are any Democrats watching Corinne Jean-Pierre who's saying, yeah, yeah, she's nailing it for our team.
I doubt there's anybody who thinks she's qualified or capable to do the job.
But apparently the internal reports are that they've got a diversity problem.
So because she is black and female and lesbian, Anything you do to replace her gets you a little less diversity than you had before.
You know, chances are, unless you find another, uh, I guess you could top it with, if she were disabled.
But, uh, so they've trapped themselves with their own philosophy of putting identity over capability.
And then they got somebody who didn't have the capability, but had the identity and they couldn't, couldn't change personnel.
Now, I would like to use her as my example of all of corporate America.
Do you think only the White House has this problem?
That there's somebody not doing the job but they know they can't get rid of them because they would get sued or it would look bad?
It's everywhere.
Yeah.
It's massive.
It's a gigantic problem.
And again, let me be very careful about this, it has nothing to do with anybody's genes or race.
Nothing to do with that.
Has nothing to do with anybody's culture, nothing to do with that.
It's just that if you find yourself in a situation where you have an incompetent employee, which has nothing to do with their genes or their culture, it just could be not everybody's killing it all the time, you can't get rid of them.
Because you're sort of trapped in your own philosophy of, well, I wanted this diversity, it's going to look really bad if I get rid of it.
So watching the Democrats have the problem that they created is kind of fun.
Bidenomics is not working out so well.
The GDP just plunged from 2.4 to 1.6.
And if the GDP falls below the inflation rate, which apparently it has done now temporarily, at least, we have a thing called stagflation.
How many of you lived through stagflation?
Oh, I remember it well.
It was pretty bad.
And the stagflation is when the The economy is not growing, but the inflation is.
It's your worst situation because if the economy is growing at the same time as inflation, they can kind of balance each other.
But if your economy is shrinking and your inflation is growing, you got your stagflation and you're screwed.
Now it could take a, it could take a decade to climb out of that if you get in deep enough.
So we could be entering a decade of, you know, not ideal situation.
We'll see.
So I don't know if anybody saw, I was trying to jumpstart a conversation of what would it take for us to survive economically?
And survive is the right word because we're at a point where survival is actually a legitimate question.
Like actually dying.
Because we're so poorly managed in terms of our debt that it could kill us.
It could kill us all.
Like literally it could kill every one of us.
That's how bad it is.
And so I said, what would it take to fix it?
And so I just put out as a, you know, stick in the ground, something to talk about.
I said, suppose you cut all the expenses across the board by 15%, 1.5, 15%.
Suppose you could boost the GDP, let's say up to 4%, which would be really high.
But let's say you did it with AI and robots and Self-driving cars and you know, maybe another energy boom under Trump.
For example, I feel like you could You know if we're in a rare time when when we've got a technology switch over to AI and robots You could and everybody's gonna sell a new car to get self-driving cars.
They're gonna want that so It's actually possible that the United States is entering a super cycle of upgrading and replacement and it could be amazing But you need to really do everything right.
And you probably almost certainly would need a Republican president to just take the controls off long enough to boost the GDP.
So let's say you've got a 15% cut in expenses, which would be draconian.
I mean, it would be hugely painful.
And you've got a 4% GDP, which is hard, like really hard.
But this might be the only time you could do it, because of the new stuff coming online.
But then what else?
You'd have to manage your inflation to maybe 3% to keep it under the GDP, but still high enough that you're eating away the debt, because you want a little bit of inflation to eat away the debt while you're paying it down at the same time.
Now, when I said that, the pushback I got from a senior or two How am I supposed to live on my fixed income if you take 15% away?
It just doesn't work.
To which I say, you're right, it doesn't.
The only way you could do it would be a massive reorganization of how people live.
So, for example, how many seniors are living in a house by themselves with extra bedrooms?
And their biggest problem is that they're lonely.
A bunch.
Probably a lot.
You know, could you reach a situation where people would just do the things they wouldn't do ordinarily?
Like, you know, share some expenses.
You know, maybe they don't all need a car.
Maybe the only car at times you need a car is to drive to a doctor appointment once a week.
So maybe you share a car.
I can imagine the seniors drastically reorganizing their lives to save that 15%.
But also having better lives as a result, because more connection.
So if you're going to take 15% away from people's income, which is draconian, you're going to have to compensate by making something a lot better.
Lowering costs, maybe lowering pharmaceutical costs if you can.
Something.
But anyway, I don't know if it's even possible to get out of the problem we're in, debt-wise, but I wanted to put a stake in the ground and let people argue about it.
Because if it's the biggest problem in our country, have you noticed nobody's talking about it?
When we do talk about it, we say things like, oh, too much debt.
Well, that's not really talking about it.
Talking about it is what would you do about it that could actually work in the real world.
Nobody's having that conversation.
Am I right?
By the way, I hate it when people say, this is the conversation we should have.
But it's conspicuously missing That nobody in leadership and nobody in the press has said, you know, this is our biggest problem, you know, the debt bomb.
And here's the only way we could get out of it.
It would look something like this.
Does it scare you at all that nobody's willing to even suggest a way to get out?
Because if nobody's suggesting it, it might be because nobody thinks it could work.
Isn't the most obvious story that you would ever see, well, we got this big problem, but here's how we get out?
Isn't that the way you handle every other story?
It's a big problem, here's what we're doing about it.
There's literally nothing happening.
Nothing.
There's not a single thing happening that would reduce the biggest problem we have.
Nothing.
And there's not even news about it.
So I was trying to kickstart that, and I think it just sort of died.
And nobody wanted to talk about it.
I think it's literally that nobody wants to talk about bad news.
That's it.
Vivek has a plan.
I see people say Vivek has a plan.
He has a plan about the debt, because I haven't seen it.
I'll look for that.
If there's a Vivek plan, and by the way, he's exactly the one who should be doing it, because you're going to need somebody who's got Not only the, let's say, the cojones, but the intellectual heft to put it together.
So yeah, I mean, Vivek probably is the only one who could save us there.
Rasmussen did a poll of who people think will win.
So this is not their preferences, and it's not who they will vote for.
It's who they think other people will vote for.
And 56% of likely voters say former President Trump is likely to be elected.
Does that sound right?
That sounds right to me.
This is one of those polls where the actual number is like, yeah, that sounds, that's about where I would have guessed that would have come out.
So that seems believable.
Trump, believe it or not, has decided he's going to try to win New York State.
I love that so much.
So he's trapped in New York for his lawfare trials, and I think he's going to try to book Madison Square Garden, and just, he's going to try to win.
Now, how crazy that is, is that he lost, and Republicans typically don't have a chance in New York, but he pulled within 10 points.
Now you say to yourself, 10 points, that's not very good.
If you're 10 points away, that's a lot.
But he used to be 23.
He's cut it by more than half.
And here's the thing that people don't give Trump enough credit for.
It might be his single best feature.
That man can read a room.
Am I right?
He can feel the zeitgeist.
Like nobody ever has.
Like, he is so tapped into just, you know, the vibe, the, you know, the feel, the direction, the attitude.
Somehow he's just always just right on that.
And I think he is correctly seeing that not only putting up a fight in the law fair in New York is making him look good, but if he took it to the state, And just went on offense in New York, and he said, well, if your judiciary is trying to take it from me, I'm going to take your fucking state.
That's what he just did.
Just hold that in your mind.
The reason there's so much lawfare is that it's a Democrat state.
Right?
I mean, if it were a Republican state, he wouldn't even be in court.
So instead of saying, I'm going to fight this court case and do my best in the court case and go on, he just said, I'm going to take your fucking state.
And he's got a shot.
It's the most ballsy, smartest reading the room I've ever seen.
I mean, it's just impressive.
Now, I don't think anybody else would have come up with that idea.
Do you?
I mean, it's so only Trump.
That it's like right on brand.
It's an impossible fight.
On paper, it's impossible.
He's gonna make it close.
I don't know that he'll win.
But the fact that he's taking offense in New York?
How much does his base love to see him taking offense?
Do you know what he's gonna do?
He's gonna fill the Madison Square Garden.
Do you know what that's gonna look like?
He's going to walk out of his little bullshit fake rigged lawsuit, he's going to go across the street, you know, so to speak, and he's just going to rock the biggest arena, or at least the most famous one, I guess.
Everything about that is A+, from a political perspective.
He's just so good at reading the room and finding the opening.
I love this.
Anyway, here's something else that's just brilliant.
I love the fact that the TikTok ban or something like it looks like it's going to happen, and that Trump and Vivek were both smart enough to go pro TikTok just before it happened.
It's the perfect play, because Vivek and Trump I can say to young people, well, you know, we've been telling you we didn't want a band.
But then they also get a band, because it's not up to Trump.
It's not up to Vivek.
You know, they don't get to vote on this one.
So they can play it both ways.
They can get a band, because TikTok's bad for Republicans, but they can also act like they were always in favor of keeping it.
So it turns out that the political people are saying, wait a minute.
If TikTok gets banned, all those young people who supported Biden are going to blame him because he has to sign it.
Biden's going to put his name on goodbye TikTok.
How in the world is he going to keep young people if he signs off on killing TikTok?
So once again, Vivek and Trump have played this perfectly.
They read the room.
They said, you know, I don't want to be in that room.
I can't be the ones who are banning TikTok.
So they get their big investor to fund them, Jeff Yass, who owns the big piece of ByteDance.
So there's a big Republican donor they can make happy by not wanting to ban it.
They still get his money.
They still get the ban.
And they get the credit for not wanting to ban it.
It couldn't be better.
And it's going to actually hammer Biden because young people like their TikTok.
All right.
So here's another one.
This story is funny, too.
So you know how Germany phased down its nuclear power?
And it seems like it did it kind of quickly.
And then they ran out of power.
So they've got an energy shortage, and they closed down all their nuclear power.
And did you say to yourself, why are they doing that?
Like, it just looks crazy.
Well, we found out why.
It turns out, there's a report, this news is just coming out in Germany, that the Parliament's decision about that, closing down their nukes, according to Sabine Hassenfelder, who's a German physicist,
A member of the German Ministry, she says, for nuclear safety, seems to just have rewritten relevant passages of an information document to imply that it would not be possible to delay the phase-out due to safety concerns.
So in other words, the decision by Germany was based on somebody rewrote something to make it not true.
To make them think if they didn't close down the nuclear power plants right away, it would be too dangerous to wait.
And it was just made up.
He just rewrote something.
So Germany, remember I told you there's no penalty for lying in politics?
Well, here it is.
Apparently, allegedly, this German minister just lied and destroyed the nuclear energy industry in this country.
With one lie.
Do you think there'll be a penalty for that?
Nah.
No.
No, there's no penalty for lying in politics.
You lie all you want.
In fact, you get paid for it.
Here's a strange positive.
California just opened up some 10,000 megawatt battery storage facility.
Not too far from me, up in Sacramento.
And apparently I didn't know this at all, but apparently California is actually doing great on putting in major battery storage.
I did not know this either, but apparently we had such good solar power in California that we're creating more energy than we could store.
So we were creating all this solar energy with all our solar rooftops, and we had to ship it to another state where they could store it in their batteries.
Can you believe that?
We were creating more than we needed, shipping it to someone else so they could store it in their batteries, and then we would run out of electricity.
But apparently, they're looking for a 100% clean grid by 2045, and Newsom said the storage saved us last year, because we'd had enough batteries to get us by.
And I recall, I recall last year being the first year in a while That I hadn't been asked to maybe turn down my electricity.
Do I have that right?
I don't know if there's another California here, but I feel like in every prior year, there was always that summer where they say, you know, it wouldn't be bad if you turn down your AC, you know, maybe, or maybe turn it up to 85 just for now.
Cause we don't have enough electricity, but I feel like we didn't do that last year, which could suggest that California turned the corner.
And is going to have maybe a green and reliable network.
It's actually possible.
Maybe.
Maybe.
I mean, we'll find a way to do it wrong, but... All right.
And battery storage is looking like it's going to fall another 40% by 2030.
It's already way down.
You know, all of this would suggest that Elon Musk was right for years, saying that solar plus batteries was going to be the way to go, because that gives you the stability.
Now, I'm still big on nuclear energy, and I don't think that Elon Musk is against nuclear energy, but he was right, because the economics of solar were always about the cost of the batteries.
Right?
At least in recent years, the only problem was you couldn't store it.
And apparently they're solving that.
The cost of the batteries is dropping like crazy.
So that's good news.
I saw a scientist say that AI was going to create all kinds of scientific breakthroughs because AI would be able to do an instant meta-analysis of all the things happening in science.
Now, a meta-analysis is where the studies maybe are different kinds of studies for the same topic, but the studies individually were not that reliable, or maybe they had conflicting results.
But a meta-analysis will look at all the studies and try to figure out overall if this one's a little bad, but the other ones compensate for it.
Maybe the big picture, you can tease out something useful.
So they say the AI will be able to do this better than people, because it will just sort of automatically look for these correlations and stuff.
To which I say, OK, this is the dumbest thing a scientist ever said, because meta-analysis is about as credible as horoscopes.
I'll tell you why in a second.
But they're all excited because they'll be able to do it faster.
To me, this sounds like, hey, you know, we were doing horoscopes before, but once we have AI, We're going to do horoscopes so fast and so good.
But here's the problem.
Nobody needed to do any horoscopes because they're not real.
Same with meta-analysis.
It doesn't matter how well you do it.
It's not a thing.
Now here's what I mean.
It's a thing in the sense that people do it and serious people do them.
And serious people will tell you this meta-analysis told you something serious.
Have I mentioned that lying in politics, there's no penalty?
Well, a meta-analysis is one of the ways that people lie in politics.
And here's why a meta-analysis is just complete BS.
You have to use your human judgment to decide which studies are good enough to be in the mix.
Is the AI going to do that?
Let me give you an example.
Let's say there's a bunch of studies on a topic and the AI goes out and says, There's a bunch of studies.
I'm going to collect them all together, and then I'm going to do a meta-analysis on them.
And it comes out, wow, this is a good idea, whatever it is.
This drug works, or something.
And then you get asked this question, who funded the biggest study in the mix?
Because the biggest study is the one that's going to drive the overall result.
Often there's one study that's 80% of all the volume of all the other studies, And if you balance it, you know, if you put all the people into the same mix, that one study is going to basically tell you how the whole thing's going to go.
But what if the one study, the one with the most people in it, was funded by somebody in the industry who got the answer they wanted?
Is the AI going to be smart enough to say, oh, this was funded by people who wanted this outcome.
So therefore, we'll take it out of the meta-study?
Nope!
We'll probably just throw it in there.
And if you were to say, but, hey, take out all the studies where they were funded by somebody in the industry.
Does that work?
Nope!
Because that was a study.
As soon as you add the human judgment, or even try to program the machine to have human judgment, you end up making your meta-analysis just your assumptions.
And that's the opposite of useful.
So if your assumption is that this study or this study is in or out, that's what's going to drive the answer.
It's not the studies.
It was your assumption about which one is good enough.
So it's not science.
It's a way to launder opinions.
So great.
AI can do that really fast.
Something you didn't need to do.
All right.
Here's a mind bender for you.
I saw yet another story about people complaining about trans athletes in women's sports and winning all their medals.
I guess there have been over 900 cases of trans athletes, you know, people biologically born male who won something in a women's competition.
So people are saying it's getting worse and worse.
And so I asked myself, What is the ratio of women versus men who think it's a good idea for trans athletes to compete on women's teams?
And so I looked it up.
What do you think?
What do you think was the answer when I looked up to find the polling on whether there's a difference between men and women about whether they want this situation with trans athletes?
What do you think I found?
Nothing.
I did find a number of polls where people were asked, you know, are you in favor of the trans athletes, etc.
But that's not what I was asking.
I wanted to know what women think, specifically.
Because here's my assumption by the fact that I couldn't find it.
The fact that I couldn't find what women think versus what men think strongly suggests to me that this is a woman-driven issue.
Meaning that I've never met a man who thinks that trans athletes should compete on women's teams.
I've never met one.
Not once.
Now, I don't run into a lot of Democrats, so maybe there are lots of Democrats men who do believe it, but wouldn't you like to know that?
Wouldn't you like to know if the people driving it are entirely Democrat women?
Because I don't think so.
Now here's why I think so.
If you're a woman, and you don't play sports, does it seem like such a big deal that somebody who is a trans athlete plays on a team?
If you're not an athlete yourself, and you've never played that sport, maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal.
Take soccer, for example.
If you didn't play soccer, and you said, all right, trans athlete, you know, women athletes, I see them running around, it looks about the same to me.
Yeah, I can see one has a little muscle definition.
But basically, you're running around kicking a ball.
Right?
How much of a gender difference does that make?
Let me give you the answer.
The men will just destroy... I mean, anybody who's, let's say, grew up as a man with testosterone.
It's really dangerous.
Ladies, you don't have any idea how dangerous we are.
You have no idea how dangerous men are.
I've watched a man break another man's leg playing soccer just because he could.
Literally.
I watched somebody break somebody's leg because he was mad at them.
He just kicked his leg and broke it.
I watched it live.
He was just real mad at that guy, so he broke his leg.
Now, I think this is part of the problem.
I think that women who are maybe not athletes themselves don't have any idea how dangerous this is.
I mean, they might know that boxing is dangerous, But even tennis is dangerous.
You know, well, less dangerous than most things, I guess.
But anything where there's even a possibility of physical contact, like basketball, football, well, there's not much women's football.
But almost every sport where there's something kinetic going on and you're near each other, it's pretty dangerous.
Yeah.
So I think it's a women-screwing-other-women problem, and it's interesting that the news doesn't want us to frame it that way, because you'd feel differently about it.
Well, you know about the protests at Columbia University?
Did you know that the president of Columbia is apparently being accused of being a giant plagiarist who has only one well-cited publication, and it was largely stolen from somebody else?
So that's the president of Colombia.
Those are the allegations.
I can't prove it myself.
That's just today's allegations.
So there's that.
A Yale professor busted her.
She was born in Egypt, I think.
Anyway, then there's more questions about who is funding and organizing these protesters at the college campuses.
This is the pro-Palestinian protests.
And of course, There's allegations that George Soros is paying student radicals to organize.
And then people are saying, hey, I think there's some foreign involvement too.
Well, who would it be?
Because I guess the tents look like they were already purchased and organized.
And, you know, even before the protests, it looked like there was a good deal of groundwork that went into the organization.
I feel like it would have to be Iran, wouldn't it?
Don't you think Iran would be the one with the greatest incentive to get this going?
I don't know.
So probably Soros money is making its way there, directly or indirectly.
And then I guess Ohio State is going to be next.
But here's my take on this.
This is so pro-Republican it's crazy.
Now anything that goes wrong Gets blamed on the incumbents, even if it's not their fault.
So the fact that Biden's the president and we're watching the colleges being taken down by Palestinian protesters, this is all bad.
All bad for Democrats.
Because, I mean, certainly the Jewish population of the United States is going to look at this and say, you know what?
This is the sort of thing that would be there would be less of if the Republicans were in charge.
So I'd be amazed if this doesn't cause a move toward Republicans, at least in the Jewish American voters.
But, you know, we keep waiting for these summer riots.
If these are the summer riots, this is all good for Republicans.
And I guess DeSantis is doing his DeSantis thing, you know, making tough laws in Florida about doing this sort of thing.
So I think there's going to be a real contrast.
Between the Democrat, lefty kind of colleges being taken down by their own system, basically.
And Republican entities that did better.
So that's all good for Republicans.
Bad for the Jewish Americans.
But from a political perspective, I don't want to, let me be careful in my wording here.
I'm not in favor of it because it has some political advantage.
It's a terrible thing.
So I like it to stop, but if it doesn't, it does have a political element to it.
If you were, do you know what the protesters are demanding?
So you've all seen the news.
Now tell me what they're demanding.
Do you know?
And why are they on colleges?
What do the colleges have to do with anything?
They're not the government.
Why aren't the protesters going after the government?
Do any of you know what they're asking for?
I do.
I'm going to tell you in a moment.
So they're asking for the colleges to divest From any companies that are helping Israel.
Now you know that's impossible, right?
Because that's basically, you know, half of the Fortune 500 companies are probably helping Israel, or have business in Israel, or they have some employees there, or something.
So you can't really do it.
It's not really something you can do.
So it makes me think that the demands are not even real.
Because they must know it's not practical.
It's not going to happen.
But I think it makes a good show.
To most Americans, I think most people just watching it on the news are going to interpret it as being an anti-Semitic movement.
Nobody's going to say, oh, it's about divesting.
It's sort of an economic pressure on Israel.
Nobody's going to say that.
They're going to say, you hate Jews, so you organized to scare them and abuse them and hurt them.
It's only going to look like Nazis.
There's nothing else it could look like.
So, good luck with that.
USC is going to cancel their entire commencement ceremony.
There would have been 65,000 people there because of the potential danger.
Colleges are just falling apart.
There's a clip going around of Van Jones, you know him from CNN, he's a contributor, and it's from several years ago when he was outlining the possibility of having alternate electors in case of a contested election.
Benny Johnson is talking about this on X.
When he did it, nobody said, well, that's illegal.
You need to be, if anybody did that, they need to go to jail or get impeached.
And, um, so it's just so hilarious that there's an entire trial about Trump where Van Jones made a case to do exactly the same thing, which is have some alternate electors.
And Van Jones's point, I believe, is that it was all legal.
I don't believe Van Jones was saying, hey, here's an illegal thing we can do.
Let's get these alternate electors in there.
But have you noticed that the news and the Democrats like to call them fake electors?
So they're not alternates.
They're fake.
If you allow the word fake to be used, then you leave the Van Jones model, which is, it's allowed.
You know, until you sort things out, you can have alternate electors.
And then after you sort it out, you know who the real ones are, and then you go forward.
It wasn't actually a big deal.
So we were being gaslighted pretty badly on that.
The Gateway Pundit has some reporting on the Mar-a-Lago boxes and the Jack Smith thing.
And I don't know how credible this is, but this is what's being reported.
That maybe what they really wanted, meaning the Biden administration, what they really wanted was to get some of these documents.
And that the documents they wanted had something to do with Obama and something to do with North Korea.
And there is some message in some of the documentation in which the agents looking for the documents talked about specifically that material and said we're in good shape.
Meaning that the indication was, and I think it needs more context, but the surface indication is that it looks like they were looking for something in particular and it wasn't a general problem with the boxes.
But they thought there was something in there in particular that they couldn't live with.
And not because it was necessarily a state secret.
It could have been just bad for Obama.
Or it could have been something about Trump getting along with Kim Jong-un.
Because it could be that just Trump wanted to keep his personal letters from Kim Jong-un.
I mean, it could have been just that.
Who knows?
But we'll keep an eye on that.
I gotta tell you that the first thing I thought when they found the boxes is, I wonder if there's any North Korea stuff in there.
That was actually my first thought, which is weird.
All right, the Supreme Court is yakking about presidential immunity, and if you listen to any of it, you probably have the same feeling I did, which is, on one hand, the justices all seem pretty brilliant, and they all seem to be able to ask A question really well.
Like they can phrase a question just right without too much fluff.
And listening to a Supreme Court case as it's being argued in public is just one of the most, I think it's one of the few things that makes me feel patriotic still.
Because you listen to it and you hear really smart people trying really hard to get it right.
That's why I always advise you to serve on a jury.
If you ever get called for jury duty, you should serve.
Maybe not every time, but you have to experience it because it's the cleanest, purest, good thing about America.
That when you get in that room, all 12 people want to get it right.
Period.
All 12.
Want to get it right.
And you don't see that.
That's not something you see everywhere.
And they want to follow the rules, and they just want to get it right, and they want justice.
That was my experience.
It was very purifying for the soul that when it gets right down to the individual level, sure, the government is all corrupt, or government is garbage.
But when you get down to a person level, And people are within the system, so they're not just, you know, doing their crazy arguing.
And they really know that what they do in that room will determine somebody's life.
I mean, really big stakes.
And with those stakes, they take it completely seriously.
That was my experience.
So, Supreme Court had the same feeling.
The questions were about if the president decided to assassinate a rival, should he have immunity for that?
And I found that this situation boils down to something pretty easy.
And here's how it should shake out.
There's an obvious way to go.
I don't know if the Supreme Court will find it, but there's an obvious way to settle it all, which is Complete immunity for things which are arguably, and I'll use the word arguably, in the line of business.
There'll be some things that have a dual purpose, or it seems.
It's like, well, you could say that was in the, you were just doing your president job, that would give you immunity, but it seems suspiciously good for you politically and personally.
Under those cases, you should absolutely have immunity.
Because if you don't have immunity in those cases, then your opposition can eat you alive and threaten you, etc.
But, you still need some kind of safeguard, that if somebody goes too far, and it's a little too personal, and not enough on the job, or it's just illegal or something, well, that's what impeachment's for.
First you impeach, that removes the immunity, And then if the legal system still has something to say about it, it can.
So it seems to me there's an obvious way to go, which is total immunity if there's any sense that there's a business purpose to it, or a government, you know, president purpose.
And if it's also good for the individual, I think you have to let it go.
But if it's so bad, that is criminal, which is different, then you impeach.
There's a process already for that.
And then you let the system take care of it.
So I don't think there's anything difficult about where this should end up.
If there is a benefit of a doubt, it should go to the president every time.
And And if the benefit of a doubt does go to the president, and that causes something you don't like, well, you get to vote again in a few years.
So I do think there is an easy, obvious path for all of this.
I don't know how it will affect Trump's case.
But I would say that, well, it should affect it.
It should help it a lot.
If they say the only way you can prosecute is after impeachment, as long as there's some government purpose to what you did, I think that's good for Trump, right?
I don't know.
I haven't thought it all the way through, but I think that works for him.
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, Is what I have to say about that.
So, normally I go talk to the locals people privately at the end here, but we had a little glitch, so I can't do that.
Let me look at your comments here.
Nobody is above the law.
Well, right.
That's why impeachment can remove your Your immunity.
So right.
Nobody is arguing with the fact that nobody's above the law.
However, however, I do believe that we should treat our presidents differently than other people.
I think there's great wisdom in giving your president lots of leeway, even if they abuse it.
Because again, they could get impeached if it's too bad.
I think we're better off giving them the freedom to do things quickly and boldly, as the founders like to say.
10 out of 10, I think you're right.
When are you going to post comics?
I posted them already.
The Daily Comic is posted already.
But you have to be a subscriber.
It's on the X platform and also on Locals.
Term limits?
Term limits is not a conversation I usually get into.
Because the people who would have to approve it are the people who don't want it.
The only people who don't want it are the people in charge of it.
So no, it can't.
It can never happen.
Impeachment has been cheapened.
No, it hasn't.
Impeachment hasn't been cheapened because you're thinking of the Senate, or you're thinking of the House.
It's easy to get impeached, but you need the trial in the Senate, and that's a whole different deal.
I don't think the entire impeachment is cheapened.
They did go after Trump, but... All right, that's all I got for now.
I'm going to go do some other stuff.
Happy Friday.
And for those of you on Locals, I will see you tonight.
There's something about the fact that I use the Rumble Studio at the same time as Locals.
I think that was a problem.
Because when I used Locals, it had video this morning before I did the regular show.
So I think that seems like an easy fix.
There's just a little temporary incompatibility.
All right, so that's all for now, and I will talk to you all in the Man Cave or tomorrow morning.
