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, Sniffing Menthol, Killer Whales, Micro Lesson Get Out, AI Sarcasm Detection, 5G Solar Powered Cameras, Homeless Cities, Specialty Designed Cities, Stock Market Election Anticipation, MTG, Mass Deportations, Trump NY Trial, Penis Balloons Released, Trump Biden Debates, Swapping Out Biden, Slovakia Gas Pipelines, Mike Benz, Hunter Biden LLCs, SCIF-Based Government, ChatGPT J6 Opinion, Debating ChatGPT, DEI Barbara Furlow-Smiles, Secret Service DEI, U.S. Debt Crisis, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and there's never been a better time in your life.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that can only compete with possibly the birth of your second child.
It's, you know, maybe competitive with the first.
But, uh, if you'd like to take it up to that level, all you need is a cupper mugger, a glass of tanker gels, a sign of the canteen jugger, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Uh, the audio is perfect.
The lighting is good.
I think it's all coming together at the moment, don't you?
It really is.
Well, there's yet another study, I know it's unbelievable, saying that caffeine may reduce Parkinson's risk by 40%.
Wow.
Given the amount of coffee that I drink, I believe my Parkinson's will be reduced so far that I can stand next to people who might have gotten Parkinson's.
And they would feel better.
Yeah, that's how much coffee I drink.
There's sort of a coffee glow about me when I walk around.
I can heal people.
If you have a little Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or dementia starting to kick in, one slap on the back from me will set you right.
Shake hands, you're good.
There's another study that says there's an unexpected connection.
Between menthol and Alzheimer's.
Apparently, if you sniff menthol, and you're a mouse, this seems to be very important to the whole process.
So first, become a mouse.
I know, it's not easy to do.
But if you could become a mouse, and then you could sniff some menthol, your cognitive abilities would increase quite a bit.
That's right.
Now, I have a theory about that.
You ready?
My hypothesis is speculation.
Why would sniffing menthol make your brain work better?
I have one hypothesis.
It has to do with walking my dog.
I've told you in my reframe that my dog doesn't like to walk.
She loves to sniff and I can't get her to walk because she'll just be sniffing and peeing and sniffing and sniffing.
I learned that sniffing is what really lights up her brain.
So if you're a dog, Sniffing where the other dogs have been in your neighborhood is like reading War and Peace.
This is like really good brain exercise just to sniff.
Now, let's take that learning about dogs to humans.
Humans do not have the same highly developed sense of smell.
Would you agree?
We do not.
But, suppose there was a specific smell that was unlike other smells.
Let's say menthol.
Because when I walk around life, you know what I don't smell a lot of?
Menthol!
If you go into the office today, do you smell any menthol?
No!
So it's a strong smell, and it's also unusual in your environment.
My hypothesis is that we're not that different from the dogs, and that if you could do something that excites your sense of smell, That it just lights up your brain like the dog.
So it could be that the menthol has less to do with the chemistry because there's some thought that it's because of the chemistry.
Uh, it might be less to do with the chemistry and more to do with the uniqueness and strength of the smell itself.
So I don't know if any of that's true, but I'm going to get some Vicks vapor rub and shove it up my nose and see if anything good happens.
That's how I'm going to play it.
Anyway, I don't know exactly.
I guess mint.
Any kind of minty smell is good.
Well, scientists have also found, and this appeals to my greatest nerd-like senses, scientists found a buried branch of the Nile that may have carried the pyramid stones.
So it turns out that there's a dried up riverbed that not coincidentally goes where most of the pyramids are.
So, apparently one of the biggest mysteries of history may have just been solved, which is, of course, if there were a gigantic river near all the pyramids and it kind of snaked where all the pyramids are, yeah, almost certainly that's how they got those big blocks where they needed to be.
Now how they lifted them is maybe still a little question, but I think we were kind of sold on the fact that they floated them.
I feel like, you know, they just put enough wood around it until it floated.
All right, there's more attacks of killer whales attacking and sinking yachts in the Strait of Gibraltar.
So apparently the orcas have learned Or trained each other by observation to attack some types of ships.
And they attack very specifically at the, uh, the rudder.
Cause apparently if you break the rudder off, you can sink a boat or you can at least disable it.
So it's the weakest part of the boat and the killer whale attacks.
Um, they've been increasing and, um, now one of the parts of the story they don't tell you, and this is why you listen to me.
There is a rumor, and I think it's true, that the killer whales are funded by George Soros.
Now, how do I know that?
Well, I don't know that for sure, but a lot of the orcas were reportedly wearing face masks.
So, I'm just connecting the dots.
I can't guarantee that George Soros is funding the Orcas, but when I saw the face masks, I was like, hmm, 2 plus 2 equals 4.
That's all I'm saying.
All right, here's a little test.
I'd like to see how we did.
Yesterday, I told you about a reframe, the Get Out reframe, which I also posted, by the way.
You can see some videos of it in my X feed, and I put one on Locals for the subscribers.
But the idea is that if you're too much in your head, Uh, you realize you have two lives.
One is your imaginary life inside your head, but then there's a real one in the real world.
And if you just say, get out and just tell yourself, get out, get out, get out of your head and join the real world, you will instantly, instantly get rid of bothersome, um, thoughts that are recurring, bothersome thoughts.
So I asked, I asked all of you to try it.
Now I've already done this with the local subscribers.
So I'm going to look at your comments now for a moment from all the platforms that have comments.
And I want to see if any of you tried it.
Because I know that a whole bunch of people on the Locals platform says it works.
And it works for me.
So I just want to see on Rumble and YouTube.
Did anybody try it?
You can't see the comments that I can see, but the Locals people are all, yes, yes, yes, it works, yes, it works.
It's just a wall of yes.
All right, you can't see it.
It is a micro lesson, so I posted it as a micro lesson yesterday, but you can also see the full explanation from my live stream that is also posted, so it's in my account, maybe one day down.
All right, I'm not really seeing feedback, yes or no.
I tried it.
Oh, I guess yes.
It's a miracle.
I got a no.
I got a yes.
I got a it worked.
This is from Rumble, I'm saying.
Well, there you go.
Now, of course, if it's like everything else in the world, tried it and it works.
If it's like everything else in the world, it won't work for every person every time.
That's pretty much everything.
But if you look at the ratio of yeses to the people who said no, It's 10 to 1, 20 to 1, something like that.
If you saw something that would take two words to do, that's it.
That's your entire effort.
Just two words.
And you could just try it, and there's no downside.
Why wouldn't you try it?
So I think most of you will end up trying it at least once because, I mean, it's just so easy and the benefits are so big, if it works.
So it looks like it really works.
So if you're wondering about the power of a reframe, do you have any questions left?
Now, this reframe is not my book, which you see behind me, Reframe Your Brain.
It's out now.
So, those are over 200 reframes and all manner of life.
But you can see how powerful a reframe is.
The reframes are just super fast and powerful.
So, between Alcohol Is Poison and The Get Out, those are two reframes that could make a huge difference.
And not just addiction to alcohol, but your mental health.
Now imagine if there were reframes that could help you do things like get rid of survivor guilt and be more successful at work and have better relationships and exercise better.
There are!
You just have to find them.
A bunch of them are in my book.
All right, so I'm glad we tested that.
Looks like the test is a big success.
Do you know how exciting that is?
To me.
To even be part of watching all these people say, yeah, it helped.
It helped.
It helped.
It's amazing.
Now I always tell the people in the, uh, my Locals community at scottm.locals.com that we have formed a, uh, something like a meta brain where I'm the, I'm more like the conductor, but that it's like a collective intelligence.
Cause we, we work on the same topics at the same time.
And I wouldn't have done this one, except that when I brought it up, somebody asked me and then I took a stab at it.
And then the other people in the group said, yes, we tried it and it worked.
So it's like one big brain that's thinking of ideas and asking itself questions and then testing it itself and then coming with a conclusion.
It's kind of exciting.
Anyway, speaking of AI, researchers believe they have made an AI that can Detect sarcasm in humans, because that's pretty important.
You don't really know what humans are up to if you can't read sarcasm.
But I don't know if it can detect a husband apology yet.
So that would be the ultimate test.
All right.
You got the easy sarcasm.
I get it.
I get you get the easy stuff.
But could you catch an insincere husband apology?
Oh, honey, I'm really sorry about that.
I never should have been sitting here quietly.
I apologize for working all day and then resting on the couch for five minutes.
I'm not sure that's the ultimate test.
The ultimate test.
Well, there's a company called Flux Safety that makes surveillance cameras that work on solar.
So they're very efficient and they use 5G.
Which means you can put them anywhere, so you don't have to worry about electricity.
Do you know how many cameras are going to be in the world if you don't have to plug them in?
As soon as I saw this, I thought, oh, I've got a few places I'd like to put a solar-powered camera on my property.
A couple of very small blind spots.
I thought, oh, maybe I'll try this.
But yes, there will be cameras everywhere and there's no way around it.
That's never going to change.
But what happens when AI pretends that it came from a security camera?
I'm waiting for the fake security camera videos from AI.
You know, we all see these ring camera videos that are usually very entertaining.
There's going to be fake ones.
There's going to be fake ones.
Speaking of which, it was brought to my attention a video on Axe.
There was a video of a woman talking to the camera and saying she was going to vote for Trump.
And she was a black woman.
And that was part of her message is that, you know, black women like me are going to vote for Trump, even if he's a felon, because, you know, the alternative is so bad.
And I sat there and I watched it and I said to myself, I legitimately can't tell if that's AI.
And I still don't know.
But, you know, I'll take the benefit of a doubt and say it's real.
But I couldn't repost it because I couldn't tell.
There was just a little imperfection in the video that could have been natural.
Could have been a bad signal when she did it or something.
But just that little hitch made me think, I don't know if she's real.
Now imagine if we were just one year in the future where it would be the simplest thing for any person to grab an AI app and say, hey, make me an app.
Of somebody who looks like not a regular, not a routine Republican voter, you know, not a majority Republican voter, and make it seem like that person just turned Republican.
And then write a little monologue where they say, Oh, Donald Trump is the best.
I think that's, I think it can be done now, but you'd have to be pretty good with AI and be patient.
A year from now, you'll be able to just ask it to do it.
And you won't know the difference.
It'll look just like a real person had a real opinion.
So that'll be fun.
Well, uh, home costs continue to be unaffordable.
Unusual Wales is reporting on X so that, um, and I live in California.
So these numbers make me laugh, but it says homebuyers need to earn a hundred and a round off.
$114,000 a year to afford a typical house in the US.
There's nobody in my neighborhood that can live on that.
I think in California it's closer to $300,000 to buy an average house.
You'd have to have a combined household income of over $300,000.
And 35% more than what the typical household earns, which is $84,000.
So a typical household is 84,000, but a typical house is 114, according to Redfin.
So, I use this as further evidence that our only solution is to build new cities.
You may have seen Greg Goffeld mention it on The Five, and you know that Trump has mentioned building cities.
But here's what I would like to add to that, that Greg also said yesterday.
That, for example, one of the cities should be specifically for the homeless, who are specifically either have mental health or drug problems.
Now those could be two different cities.
One could be the mental health place where they get a little extra help, but they have some way to live cheaply that's not a tent.
But if they want a tent, that happens to be in a place where the weather's nice, and they'd just rather have a tent, okay.
But basically, you need cities or towns that are built for the people who are going to live there.
And you cannot mix the drug-addicted mental health people on the streets with the rest of the public.
It just doesn't work.
And it's not a judgment call.
I don't judge anybody for their situation.
I just don't.
It's just that you can't have them together.
It's not saying we want to ban you or you're evil.
It's nothing like that.
It's just they don't work together.
So I think that the future is guaranteed to be communities where people who have something in common can get the things they need because it makes sense because they're all in one place.
Let me give you the ultimate example of this that I designed in my head.
In a perfect world, let me agree with you.
Most of you are right-leaning, conservative-type people in my audience.
I will agree with you that the perfect situation for a family, well, an individual, is a family unit.
Do we all agree on that?
In the perfect world.
But, as Zuby has pointed out in a post today, he said, In all the talk of gender dynamics dating and marriage, nobody makes the obvious point that the percent of men who would make good husbands is lower than ever and the percent of women who would make good wives is lower than ever.
I don't think that's going to change because it's a symptom of us all having different choices and we can all be our own unique selves.
In the old days, everybody sort of acted the same.
You know, that everybody was a version of everybody else.
You know, like a husband in the 40s looked like every other husband in the 40s, basically.
But now everybody's so different that the odds of finding somebody who doesn't have a habit you can't live with is, like, low.
So here's what I think there should be.
Maybe not necessarily its own city, but you can imagine its own neighborhood or territory or apartment complex.
Here's what I would do.
I would build a place that is inexpensive for single parents, male or female.
And I would build a place that is meant for people who are single parents.
And I would make sure that they were all coordinated with each other so that they could help out each other.
So there'd always be somebody around in case you needed a babysitter.
You would never need daycare.
And if you needed somebody to hang up a picture, And you weren't good at it.
You'd know 20 people who are good at hanging a picture.
So you, you basically would have a place that everybody's in one place and you all know that each other is single parents, same situation, and you just help each other out.
And then the women who don't have men in their lives would have men in their lives.
It just would be the neighbor.
Cause I think people would be fine as long as they've got, well, let me say it again.
Because I know you'll intentionally misunderstand me.
If it's possible, and the people are right for it, the normal family unit is still the best.
It just will not work for most people in the future.
More than half, it just will never work for.
So you need some other organized situation.
Yeah, some other organized situation.
And I think that Building new communities around interests that work well together makes sense.
I would love to see, for example, somebody who is into organic farming or indoor farms or something, co-locate with the people with mental health and drug problems and just say, you know what, the cost of living here is so low, that I could pay you minimum wage and you wander in if you want to and pick some tomatoes if you feel like it and I'll give you minimum wage and we're all
happy. So all right I got to call out the the dumbest comment I'm seeing in the comments.
So somebody's saying that I'm a communist, because I think that in a free market, it would make sense to create options, Where people could go to be happier.
Is it communist that you own your own apartment and you just chose to live with other people who have something in common and you have your own jobs and you're earning your own money and you're paying your own bills?
That's what you're calling communist?
Everything I say that's a different way of organizing, there's always somebody who calls me a communist.
All right, so that's my view of the future.
Well, I was not following this story too closely.
There's this football player called Harrison Booker, and he gave a speech at a Catholic college?
I think at a Catholic, where was it?
A private Catholic school.
And he said some conservative things about families and women's roles and men's roles and DEI is tyranny and Biden has dementia and stuff like that.
And if you put it all together, He's basically being canceled for being a white guy with a public opinion.
Is that fair?
Like, I don't, I don't think that the details are interesting in the least.
He was just a white guy with an opinion.
That's it.
There was no hate.
He wasn't hating on anybody except, you know, the president.
That's fair.
All right.
And now, now people want to, now they want to get rid of him.
Oh my.
But at the same time apparently sales of his jersey are through the roof because there are plenty of young men who are tired of this shit.
There are plenty of young men.
Mostly men.
Maybe there are women too.
But I'll bet you the people buying the jerseys were the young men.
Mostly.
I'll bet you.
Well, the stock market is up this year, and I see some of Biden's proxy supporters saying that that's good news for Biden, because the stock market's up.
So I had to put a clarification on X. If the stock market rises in the first few days of your term as a new president, that might be a sign of confidence in your administration.
Cause the stock market is thinking a year in advance, but if it happens to be the last few months of your presidency and the stock market seems to be doing well, it's not because of you.
It's probably because it's looking to the next president, especially when the polls are saying it's going to be Trump.
So in my opinion, when Biden brags about the stock market, If he had done it at the beginning of his term, I'd say, you know, all things being equal, if there wasn't some other big effect happening, I could see that.
It's not the whole story, but within the political world, it's close enough.
But at the end of his term, when the competitor is polling well ahead, that's kind of an optimism that the next person will be better.
I don't know how else to see it.
Now, other people, when I made this comment on X, people said, Scott, Scott, it's really just inflation.
And they're not wrong.
The inflation is definitely the thing that's driving the stock market.
But at the same time, people wouldn't buy it if they didn't think there was also going to be profits, right?
You wouldn't buy it just because of inflation.
You would buy it because, well, there's inflation.
These companies are looking like maybe they'll be better in a year than they are now.
If the only thing that changed was energy prices went down a year from now, that goes right to the bottom line of almost every big company.
So, Kamala Harris said that her administration has pardoned tens of thousands of people with federal convictions for simple marijuana possession.
It's time to change that.
So it's being rescheduled.
And there was a little community note where she claimed that they had pardoned tens of thousands of people for marijuana.
The actual number is not tens of thousands.
It's 24.
No, not 24,000.
No, not 24,000, not 24,000, 24.
Not 24,000.
24.
So she was very close.
She estimated tens of thousands, but it was really tens of ones.
It was tens of ones.
Two tens of ones.
Twenty-something.
All right, how many of you saw the video of the dust-up between Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC and one other member of Congress whose name I didn't get?
Did you see that?
You know, there's a certain set of stories.
That I know the right way to handle it is I'm supposed to take sides and then say the other team is so outrageous and ridiculous and, you know, don't they know how to act and stuff like that.
But I'm going to take the entertainer's view on this.
I was just kind of entertained.
So if you missed it, Marjorie Taylor Greene got into a little shouting match with, do you know who is the politician?
Crockett?
Am I seeing that?
So there was a female black politician.
Is Crockett the name?
I'm seeing the name Crockett go by, but I don't know if that's the name.
And then AOC got into it, but MTG, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene sort of started it.
Jasmine Crockett, I'm being told.
So apparently Marjorie Taylor Greene made a catty comment about maybe she didn't understand because her eyelashes were too big or something.
And then Jasmine Crockett apparently called that racist because common sense.
I mean, everybody knows that only black women have fake eyelashes.
I don't know much about makeup, but I learned it from Congress.
So if somebody in Congress tells me that only black people have fake eyelashes, I'll believe it.
What do I know?
But other people say, Scott, Scott, Scott, fake eyelashes are actually common in other people and not, not, uh, not exclusive, not exclusive.
So they got into it and poor Comer.
So Comer was the guy trying to keep it together.
And he said he had two hearing aids.
I didn't know that, but he has a hearing issue.
And he said, my two hearing aids can't basically sort this out.
You're going to have to figure out how to be quiet.
Now, let me tell you my opinion of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I don't know if I'll always agree with her.
I don't know if I have agreed with her and everything in the past, but her entertainment value and just the fact that she's willing to cause trouble, I enjoy it every time.
I can't hate it.
It doesn't even matter what the topic is.
There's something about her lack of respect for the institution That hits me just right.
Do you know what I mean?
Every time she shows a lack of respect for Congress or even the other people in Congress, I go, well, that feels right.
Say more of that.
Do more of that.
That feels right.
So I'm not going to take sides on this one.
I think it's silly that everything's racist.
We're very close to the point where maybe we've already crossed it, where if everything is racist, then you can just ignore the whole fucking thing.
And I think that's where we're at to this point.
Yeah.
When people call me a racist, which happens every day on social media, it used to bother me.
And now it just seems funny because it's a nothing.
Like somehow I didn't change.
But the accusation of racism went from the most serious thing you could accuse somebody of, except for pedo stuff, down to it really doesn't mean anything.
It just means you're a whiner and you don't have anything better to say, usually.
Because in truth, almost nothing racist is ever happening these days.
You know, you don't get the real stuff anymore.
You get the, oh, I get a dog whistle and I think I could read your mind.
And none of it's, none of it's useful.
Anyway, that was fun.
Apparently there's a report that some of the Trump insiders are already trying to figure out how to do a mass deportation.
But it's not going to be easy.
So the first thing is there'll be a bunch of legal hurdles.
I guess Biden did a good job of Tying things up legally.
So there'll be some people who are not citizens who can't be deported for legal reasons.
I don't know the details of that.
There's the issue of where would they go?
Where would you deport them to?
They'd have to figure out somebody to take them.
How do you do it with executive orders only?
Because you can't count on Congress backing you up.
So maybe that's not even the way to go.
And then who would be in charge of it?
Because whoever's in charge of the mass roundup is going to get a lot of heat.
So don't assume that Trump will succeed in a mass deportation.
I do think he'll try.
I do think he'll try.
And I think he'll try like he tried with the wall.
I think he'll try like hell.
Doesn't mean it'll work.
Now, I don't think we're dead if, if by, let's say when Trump takes office, if the, if the migration continues, you know, in a bad way, it's not going to kill us.
Like I, I feel like we're at a survivable point as long as Trump gets an office or somebody who's not Biden, right?
It just has to be not Biden.
But as long as it's not Biden and we can stop it in, let's say January, Early January, whenever there's a new president.
We're not going to be dead, right?
It's not an existential threat.
It would be if it kept going, right?
There is some level where it's, it's just the end of the country.
We're not there, but it's pretty bad.
And I would say that mass deportations would be entirely appropriate, but there is a wild card here.
Are you ready for this?
Wild card coming.
Here's something you didn't think about, and I don't think that the Democrats thought about it either.
Now you believe, I believe all of you are under the impression, that the real play is not empathy or being good to migrants, that the real play is to bring in a bunch of Biden or Democrat voters.
Would you agree?
That the real play is to get a bunch of voters.
Now, have I ever mentioned that Democrats always get the same thing wrong?
They don't understand human motivation.
Would you agree with that statement?
They're not real good at knowing, how are people going to act if we do this?
For some reason, they're blind to it.
I don't know, maybe it's a narcissism dark triad thing, that they can't really see what anybody else would feel.
But I'm going to say I put myself in the position of a new migrant.
I'm a new migrant.
And I know that there's going to be some effort to round people up and send them back.
And I want to make sure I'm in whatever category I can get into, that would be the lowest chance I'd be deported.
So number one, I would try to get a job.
Would you agree?
If it came to we had to choose who to send back and who not to.
And I wanted to make sure I was going to stay.
I would stay out of legal trouble.
Would you agree?
Stay out of legal trouble.
And I would make sure I had work so that when the deportations happen and there's prioritization, they go, hmm, well, I mean, maybe we can't deport everybody.
Just too hard, too big of a job.
But we could get rid of people who are a drag on the system.
We could get rid of criminals, right?
That might be easier.
So I would make sure that whatever I did as an immigrant, if I were not yet a citizen, I would make sure they laid low and just followed the rules.
But there's a third thing I would do.
Because I'm suspicious by nature, and let's say I'm a migrant who came from a country that was with a very suspicious government, and that's why they came.
Do you think they're going to trust our government much more than they trusted the government they left?
Probably not.
Probably not.
If you saw your own government being corrupt, you might assume that that's just the natural way of things.
Now, let's say that the Democrats said, hey, I've got an idea for you.
Why don't you vote?
You know, because there are places where you can either do it legally or you can not get caught doing it.
Now, suppose I'm trying to avoid deportation and I want to have the lowest profile I can have.
If you knew that Trump was going to be president next, would you vote for Biden?
Or would you think, and I don't think this is the case, or would you believe, you know, if they're going to prioritize who to remove, are they going to know who I voted for?
Are they going to remove me first because I voted for Biden?
Now the reality is, no, they're not going to remove you first because you voted for Biden.
Nobody's going to know who you voted for.
But I would think so.
I would believe that they knew who I voted for, or at least who I registered.
At the very least, they'd know you registered as a Democrat, right?
So if you register as a Democrat, they're going to assume you voted Democrat.
So would you register as Democrat if you thought that a Republican president was coming into office almost for sure?
And the first thing he was going to do is deport people, and he would have to prioritize who he deported first.
You don't think he'd like to get the registered non-citizen Democrats?
Or the people who are likely to vote for him, most likely?
I mean, if he could.
I'm not saying that anybody would make that decision, but if I were in their situation, I would assume it's going to happen.
And I would not be voting for the person who would get me deported most likely.
So, here's the wild card.
I'm not so sure the Democrats know how this group is going to act, because I don't think they understand incentives.
And all you have to do is put yourself in their position and say, what would you do?
And do you know what you can't do if you're a narcissist?
You can't put yourself in somebody else's situation.
They can't do it.
Do you know what you are if you're a sociopath?
You can't really put yourself in the position of the other people, because then you'd care about them.
What if you're a psychopath?
Same thing.
Can't put yourself in their position.
So, if you believe that there's some kind of dark triad personality thing that's taken over the Democrats, which I do, a huge number of mentally ill young people who are in charge, it seems to me that they might have missed this little wrinkle that if you put yourself in the position of the migrants, voting doesn't look like a safe play.
It really doesn't.
So I think they might be surprised in that.
All right, the Michael Cohen testimony is still fun.
Even CNN, a whole bunch of different people on CNN are saying, yeah, he got killed, got destroyed.
Nobody's going to believe him.
But was it Lonnie Davis, I think, said that it wouldn't matter what Cohen said because the documents make the case?
So apparently there's some situation.
I'm not following the details, but I've not seen any Republican say this.
So remember you're, you're probably like me.
You're in a silo of news.
For some reason, I found this out today and it's pretty important that there's, according to, I think it was Lonnie Davis said there was a paper trail That shows Trump breaking up payments into smaller chunks, which you would only do if it's reimbursement, I guess.
So the idea is that the paperwork suggests it's a reimbursement, not a legal expense.
If they can prove it's a reimbursement, but not a legal expense, that would mean he's guilty of some technical violation of your misdemeanor, covered up another misdemeanor, which is a felony.
You know, just some weird legal theory that none of us understand.
So, and I also saw that Geraldo said, posted yesterday, that he thinks there's no chance that, unless something changes, Geraldo says he's going to be guilty.
Is that your impression?
Because the news I'm watching would suggest there's not a chance in hell he's going to get convicted.
There would at least be a hung jury.
But what's Geraldo watching?
And what's Lonnie Davis watching?
See, here's where I ask myself, Am I fooling myself?
Have I been in such a bubble that I just don't even think about this case?
Because it seems obvious to me there's no case.
And if the judge doesn't throw it out, there'll be at least somebody who will hang the jury.
So, you know, you don't really have to think he's going to actually be convicted.
But why would Geraldo think he is?
Geraldo's not dumb.
You know, you don't have to agree with him on issues.
I know you got some Geraldo issues, but He's got a legal background, right?
I think he's judging that the jury will be so biased that they just need any reason.
He might be right.
It might be that the jury just needs any reason, and whatever there is in the paperwork is all they need.
They don't care what Cohen said.
So, I think Judge Jeanine and others have said it would be reversed if it ever happened.
I think that's right.
Well, the best part of this story is that an artist named Scott Lobido, as part of an art project, he unleashed hundreds or maybe thousands of balloons shaped like penises with the faces of Alvin Bragg and the judge and Jack Smith's face on it.
So yes, outside the courtroom, thousands of penis balloons were let go.
Now, there wasn't much follow-up on the story, so I did my own follow-up.
It turns out that because of the prevailing winds, those balloons are all heading toward Big O Tires.
No?
They're all going toward Big O Tires?
No?
All right.
Anyway, that happened.
I'm a big fan of that art project, by the way.
Vivek Ramaswamy is saying that the reason that Biden suddenly turned around and said, I'll do a debate.
I'll do it in June.
Here's what Vivek says.
Here's why the Democrats suddenly let Biden debate Trump.
It's a setup.
It's their final Hail Mary for Biden.
If that fails, they still have enough time to swap Biden out for a new nominee.
That's why it's in June, the earliest ever.
Blah, blah, blah.
Now, that's what I think as well.
To me, it seems obvious that the reason to do it early is so you can make a change.
Now, Vivek is saying, you know, make a change if he fails.
But I think they may just assume he's going to fail.
And it's just the easy way to remove him.
I think they have to, They have to make Biden understand that he's done, and the only way he can do that is to get destroyed in the debate.
I think his staff is feeding him to Trump, so they can—they're literally just feeding him to Trump.
Do you think cutting off the microphone is going to stop Trump from winning that debate?
No, no.
He'll do fine when his microphone's on.
He'll do just fine.
There's no way in the world that Trump could lose this debate.
I don't think.
I mean, I suppose anything's possible.
So yes, I would agree, except that Vivek has more of a conditional on it, I think, that he says if he fails.
I don't think it's an if.
I think he's being sabotaged by his staff.
Because his staff knows he's the losing horse, and they've got to get rid of the horse, and they don't have enough evidence to give to the horse to make him resign, because the horse wants to run.
So they're going to let the horse break its own leg on national TV so they can shoot it, and everybody will say, well, I guess you've got to shoot that horse.
Obviously, you have to shoot that horse.
So I think the if might be the questionable part.
I think they're basically doing away with them.
Now, what do you make of the fact that they've agreed to a second debate with CBS News that would be in July or August?
July and August gets you right around the DNC convention, right?
So maybe the July one, if it's before the, I'm not sure the date of the DNC, but, or the Democrat National Convention.
But it could be that they don't plan to ever do it.
It could be that that's when they slot in a Newsom.
Here's what will be interesting.
If Newsom is kind of hanging around a lot when Biden's preparing, if you hear that Newsom was the stand-in and that Newsom played the part of Trump so that when Biden practiced, you know, he'd have something, that would be like a little signal that he's on the inner plan to get rid of Biden.
So look for that.
Scientists in China found a way to bring frozen bodies back to life, or at least their cells.
So they found a way to reanimate dead cells in a body, a human body, that's dead.
They can bring it back to life.
Now, you might say to yourself, but Scott, how long will it take them to make this technology work?
And, you know, who would ever go first?
Because when I imagine what you would look like if you got reanimated, I don't really imagine that you would be as good as new.
That feels unlikely, doesn't it?
It seems more likely that you'd have a little hitch in your getup.
Which makes me wonder, did Biden already die in office and get reanimated?
Because he acts exactly like Somebody who died in office and got reanimated.
I mean, I don't know what it looks like if you die and get reanimated, but I'm gonna give you my impression of somebody who died and then was reanimated.
I'll start from being on the operating table, and then I'll be reanimated.
And just see what it looks like to you, okay?
So I'm dead.
Oh, oh.
Oh.
Where am I?
Which way?
What happened?
Now...
Now that's my professional impression.
of the world.
Of someone who's been a reanimated zombie.
Did it look like anybody?
Did it remind you of anybody?
I'm just saying.
I'm not going to claim he is a reanimated zombie.
I'm just saying you can't rule it out.
Can't rule it out.
Well, you heard that there was an attempted assassination of the Slovakian Prime Minister.
Or President.
Prime Minister, I guess.
And Mike Benz is finally weighing in on this.
I feel like as soon as it happened, I said to myself, I don't know anything about this until Mike Benz does a video.
And he did.
So it turns out that Slovakia is a key component to the grand play of stealing all of Putin's gas business, which is really what Ukraine is all about.
But, as Mike Benz points out, the gas business is not just about the gas fields, it's about the pipelines.
Ukraine is crisscrossed with pipelines that allows Russia to get stuff to other places, or did.
And apparently Slovakia is a big component of the larger pipeline situation.
So, if you have a head of Slovakia, Who's not on board with the U.S.
plan to steal the energy from Putin, then it's big coincidence.
And he wasn't on board with that.
It's kind of a big coincidence that he gets shot, isn't it?
How convenient for the larger operation to take over the energy resources of Russia.
Hmm.
That's very coincidental that he's exactly the person That the bad Americans would want to be shot?
And then he was.
Well, how about that?
Yeah, so that should be understood in the context of the gas pipelines.
All right, this is a funny question.
The abuse account on X asks this.
If your family is not engaged in business endeavors, but instead dedicating their lives to public service, Is it normal to have 233 bank accounts for 175 LLCs?
That would be separate businesses, 175 of them.
Because Representative Comer said recently, hey, is Comer a senator or a representative?
I can't remember.
But apparently he found another bank account that tells him something, they believe.
But that's a pretty good question, isn't it?
Why do you need 175 LLCs?
And is it normal to have 233 bank accounts?
Well, the LLCs could be explained.
Believe it or not.
So this might actually be a situation where it can be explained.
Because every individual deal that Hunter did was separate from every other deal.
He wasn't doing one contract with one company.
He was doing a whole bunch of deals with a whole bunch of people.
Probably not that unusual.
If he had 175 clients, I mean, I don't know if he did, but if he did, having 175 accounts or LLCs would be kind of what you'd expect.
So, how many does Trump have?
How many LLCs does Trump have? 400?
I think that's the number, isn't it?
Doesn't Trump have 400 corporate or LLC entities?
I need a fact check on that.
But it's not super unusual, depending on the nature of your business, it's not unusual to have a whole bunch of separate entities.
It does, however, suggest Then maybe the real reason is to hide what you're doing.
Yeah.
Even hundreds.
Yeah.
Having hundreds is not that unusual, especially if one of you is a lawyer.
It's somewhat just ordinary paperwork.
So if they can keep their money separate, well, here's the reason to have a separate LLC.
It could be that there's a different set of partners for every deal.
That's all you would need to have separate LLCs.
Because you couldn't sort it all out.
If there's people who are on different deals, but they're all in the same LLC, that'd be hard to sort out.
So for every time you do a little deal, you say, okay, you five people are in this LLC.
So it's not that weird, but it does raise a question.
And I don't know if you had 175 clients or deals.
You know, we've heard of a dozen or so.
Anyway, that might not be as unusual as you think, but I would like to ask you this question to blow your mind.
It goes like this.
If you said to me, Scott, I'm going to design you a government system, and the design will be this.
We got this thing called the Constitution.
It's just like the U.S.
Constitution.
Exactly like it.
I'll say, so this will be part of your government.
And I'll say, all right, good so far, good so far.
And then they'll say, and we'll have these elections and we'll have, you know, Congress and we'll have a balance of power, three parties.
And I'll say, that all sounds good.
I like where this is heading.
We'll throw in some capitalism.
Yes.
Thank you very much for the capitalism.
So if you designed our system on paper, I'd say to you, I can imagine that system working out for a long time.
Now suppose you added this one thing, just one thing, to the system.
A skiff.
Now a skiff is a secure room in which there are secrets so secret that you can't take a picture of it and you can never talk about it if you see it.
You can act on it, but you can't talk about it.
You can never say what you saw there.
Now let's say you took this great system with, you got your capitalism, you got your democratic republic, you got your constitution.
But it also has a skiff.
That's the design.
What happens?
Well, in every case, the elected representatives become unimportant to the decisions.
Why?
Because the people who show them the information have full control at that point.
They can decide what to show them and what not.
And here's the best part.
The idiot who walks into the skiff has no idea what's real.
They only know that it's a big secret and they can't talk about it.
Do you know how somebody would find out that something wasn't real if it was in the skiff?
Well, let's say the public found out what was in the skiff.
What would happen?
Everybody who also had access to that same secret information would say, wait a minute, you just claimed that SEAL Team 6 replaced Bin Laden with a clone?
I'm in SEAL Team 6!
We didn't do that!
So you can't really have the public know your secrets, because the public would know when they're not real.
But do Congress people know that?
If I'm in Congress and I go into SCIF, And the skiff says UFOs are real and we've got, we've got the bodies and the ships.
What am I going to know?
I have no way to check it because if I left that meeting and then I started looking into it, I would have violated the privacy.
I can't do that.
I can't talk to somebody who might know because if found out I'd be in really trouble.
So it's the perfect situation for controlling an elected government from behind the curtain.
The only thing you need to control is the skiff, and Congress doesn't control it.
Am I wrong?
If you show me a skiff, I'll tell you who's running the country.
It's the people who put things into the skiff.
It's never the people who read it, because they're only reading what you put in there.
Have I sold you yet that the existence of a SCIF tells you with certainty that the elected people are not in charge?
They couldn't be.
They can only do what's in the SCIF if it's important, right?
If it's a big geopolitical thing.
If it's unimportant, then the SCIF doesn't matter.
But, you know, when you talk about who's running the country, you're talking about the important stuff.
And if all of the important stuff has a secret element that would change how you would react And the only place you can see it is in the skiff and you can't ask anybody if it's true.
Then the people who run the skiff and put stuff in it run the country.
There's no way around that.
There is no way around it.
If there's a skiff, your elected officials are not doing much except perform his art.
All right.
What else is going on?
Oh, I have a, uh, insight about why Democrats think that the January 6th was an insurrection and, uh, Republicans say it was a protest with some people who got on a hand.
This one might blow your mind too.
Let's see if this works for you.
Um, I had a debate with, uh, ChatGPT in which I wanted it to explain why it thought January 6th was an insurrection.
When, you know, and I gave my facts, why it wouldn't be.
And here was the argument from Chad GPT.
It was completely irrational, but it did give me some insight because it's irrational, but based on real people's opinions, you know, it's some kind of pattern recognition thing.
And here's what it said.
Uh, when I pressed it to tell me what percentage of people were violent, Um, it said, it guessed that tens of thousands of people attended.
So let's call that 20,000 just for, to do some approximate numbers.
And then I said, what percentage of the tens of thousands were violent that day?
And I got it to agree that maybe 200 wouldn't be a bad guess.
Does that seem fair to you?
Do both of those numbers seem in the ballpark?
There might've been 20,000 attendees.
Yeah, roughly.
And there might have been 200 people who definitely went too far, and definitely the legal system should deal with them.
Do you think that sounds about right?
Now, that's about 1%.
So I said to Chad GPT, why would you call it an insurrection when no more than 1% of the people could have possibly had that in their minds?
And 99% were trying to improve the system by making sure that the system worked.
They weren't trying to break it, they were trying to delay it to improve it, to make sure it got the right answer.
If you ask them, that's what they would say.
So now, how do we explain that ChatGPT favors the 1% when it makes its opinion, but you and I favor the 99% as the dominant explanation of what happened that day?
Here's why.
Democrats see everything as a group.
Same as reparations.
Do you think through reparations people say, oh, Scott, your relatives had nothing to do with race or nothing to do with slavery, so you're exempt from the reparations?
No.
I'm guilty because somebody like me may have done something.
Right?
So I'm treated as a group.
Republicans like merit.
So when we look at a situation, we say, well, what did that one person do?
To deserve what they got.
What was the merit?
What was the actions?
What's the personal responsibility?
So when I look at 20,000 people with 200 bad eggs, I tend to have a, what the conservative Republican view would be, which is, wait, if 1% of them were bad and 99% of them were there to help, that's better than a protest and way better than an insurrection.
That's a whole bunch of helpful people.
Who happen to be in the same place.
And then I discount the 1%, because it's only 1%.
Now, and again, they have to be dealt with in the legal system, but it's only 1%.
It doesn't, to me, describe the nature of it.
But here's what ChatGPT said, and I imagine it's pretty close to what Democrats think.
It goes like this.
The outcome of the event was to delay a government process, And the outcome of the event was violence.
So if you look at the event not as individuals, but as an entity, which is the way they like to look at stuff, it does look like an insurrection.
If you take the view that what happened is what it was.
What happened was the government process was delayed.
Check.
There were violent people there who did violent things.
Check!
So it's an insurrection.
It's just that that's nonsense, because it treats it like the people were one organism.
It's the same way they treat white people, like we're one organism.
It's the same thing.
It's always the same thing.
They treat it like it's all one thing.
So when I pushed ChatGPT to understand that you should look at it as a 1% problem, And the individuals who were there to help, 99% of them, it did back down.
It said, well, that's actually a valid way to look at it.
But the other valid way to look at it is that it did delay the process and there was violence.
Boom, insurrection.
Now, I don't buy that at all.
I think that's stupid.
But Chad GPT can only be as smart as the people it trained on.
And it trained a lot of stupid people, or liars, or whatever.
So do you think that explains it?
I mean, also there's a political element where everybody's spinning it the way they want to, and there's a bunch of liars, and, you know, they control the media, and that's all part of the story.
But do you think that Democrats are sort of spring-loaded to see it that way?
I don't know, I might talk myself out of it, because that's not the way they saw the BLM riots.
They saw the BLM as protests, even though 1% of them might have been violent.
So I guess it depends if it's on their team or the other team.
But here's what I was thinking of doing.
I was thinking of doing a Spaces, you know, the audio thing, in which I have a debate just with ChatGPT.
So it's just me and AI.
And you can listen to us debate.
I tested this with my local audience.
I created my own bot.
So there's a Scott bot.
And I trained it with my books, etc.
And I had a debate with it.
I debated my own AI.
You know, the AI of me.
And it was really interesting.
And a number of people asked me to do it again, because I had so much fun listening to it.
So yes, debates with AI are a thing.
And I've already pioneered it.
And I'm almost certainly going to do some more, and I think you're going to like it.
The trick is to cut off chat GPT when it gets chatty, because it likes to change the subject.
That's what it did to me.
When I was nailing it down, it kept trying to change the subject.
I'm like, wow, you were trained on people I've seen.
Well, there's a new story.
Ian Miles-Jung has this story.
It's about a The DEI person who ran the programs for Facebook, and then later went to Nike and also ran their DEI programs, has been sentenced to five years in prison in order to pay back $5 million she stole from those companies that she used to fund a luxury lifestyle.
But apparently her accounting said that she was hosting events and they must have been expensive.
So both Nike and Facebook, the head of their DEI was nothing but a thief.
He was just robbing them blind.
Anyway, so that's happening.
And again, I don't even have a comment on that.
It's just funny.
To me, that's hilarious.
Now here's another related story that's even better.
According to the Gateway Pundit, 39 Secret Service agencies have demanded an investigation into Biden's Marxist DEI policy.
This is the Gateway Pundit talking.
Marxist DEI policies following unusual assault by female agent on the male superior.
All right, you want to hear what happened?
I can barely read it. It's too funny.
All right, so this is based.
So this is the event that kicked off the complaints.
It was after a disturbing incident involving Michelle Herxag, a female Secret Service agent assigned to Kamala Harris, who reportedly engaged in a physical altercation with her male superior at Joint Base Andrews last month.
So the Gateway Pundit previously reported That Herxeg began acting aggressively, speaking gibberish, and shouting incoherently at other agents while they were near the lounge.
And then at one point she was reportedly, she threw, she threw sanitary pads at them.
She was, she was speaking gibberish and shouting incoherently.
And I thought to myself, That's Joe Biden.
They just described Joe Biden.
Acting aggressively, speaking gibberishly, and shouting incoherently.
That's pretty much Joe Biden.
So, are they saying that acting like Joe Biden is reason to assume that you're too dangerous to be on the job?
So, looks like the Secret Service has a little DEI problem, and Facebook has one, and And Nike too.
Now, I could not be more entertained by watching DEI die under its own power.
Because we could just watch the airplanes crash, We can watch the Secret Service implode.
And we can just watch what happens.
If you don't think there's going to be a corrective, you know, a corrective swing back to the middle, I think you're wrong.
I think it's unavoidable.
And I think that the DEI thing has been such a disaster.
I mean, an absolute disaster.
I saw there was a podcast talking about, my opinion on this, In which I'd refer to DEI as self-harm.
In other words, if you come into a company and there's a DEI program, and you're one of the people who's considered, you know, the favorite person under DEI, you're just asking to be judged poorly.
Why would you do that to yourself?
If you were qualified for a job in corporate America, and you're black, Do you really think you're not going to get it?
Do you need DEI for that?
If you're qualified for a job, every employer wants you.
Do you know how hard it is to hire somebody who can just do a job?
It's really, really hard hiring.
So people are not saying, I'm not going to hire you because of your lifestyle, your color, your religion.
It doesn't happen in big companies.
It just doesn't happen.
Small companies, yes.
You know, if you go to the Korean grocery store, you might see more Korean employees, right?
So the small companies are a different situation, but the big ones, you know, they've, they've solved that a long time ago.
All right.
Um, I have a theory about why there's not as much debt panic as I think there should be.
Uh, pretty much everybody can tell you, Oh yeah, the United States has a debt problem.
So everybody knows it.
Here's the part you didn't know.
We talk about it the same way now, when it's $35 trillion and growing, as we did when it was $1 trillion.
Have you noticed that?
When our total debt was $1 trillion, we said, oh, that's terrible.
We should cut expenses and do something about that.
And now it's $35 trillion.
And what do people say?
Oh, that's really bad.
We should cut expenses and maybe grow the GDP and get out of that.
Here's what I have discovered.
Only people who have no grasp of math think that we're going to be okay.
I believe 100% of the people who can do math and have looked into it a little bit know there isn't any way to pay it down.
So here are the comments I got just today and yesterday.
Oh, yeah, we could pay it down.
You gotta massively cut expenses like Argentina.
No, not even close.
No, that wouldn't get you any close.
That doesn't even put you in the neighborhood.
You could not cut costs enough.
Number two, they say, well, you just grow the GDP better.
No, you couldn't possibly grow the GDP fast enough.
If you did, there'd be massive inflation and, you know, it'd be just another problem.
How about inflating it away?
Well, you could have inflated a trillion away.
You can't really inflate away 35 trillion that's growing by a trillion a year, or 1 to 2 trillion, whatever it's growing by.
No, these numbers don't work at all.
There's nothing ordinary you could do to fix this problem.
The ordinary things are, you know, reduce government spending, grow the GDP a little bit better, and inflate, but not so much it destroys the country.
None of those things altogether working perfectly would get you anywhere near paying down the debt.
How many of you knew that?
Is there anybody here who's good at math who can just say, yeah, you're right?
I want to see if there's anybody who's good at math and has also looked into it who disagrees.
Say if you're good at math and you disagree.
I don't think there'll be even one.
Yeah, I'll look for it.
There might be.
But it's a trillion every hundred days, so that would be three trillion a year.
Yeah, you can't get there.
Now, I do think that we're a clever species.
We might find a way to fix it.
But it won't be one of those ways.
And if it's not one of those ways, how is it going to happen?
Do you know your leaders are not dealing with the only existential threat?
It's the only one.
We don't really have a nuclear threat.
We don't really have a threat from climate change.
The so-called division in the country, we'll probably get through that.
But we can't really survive the debt.
That would be the end of civilization.
And nobody in leadership is giving you anything that looks like a plan.
This is the one best reason for Trump.
Because I don't know that Trump can solve it.
The only thing I know for sure is that he would take a bigger swing than anybody would take.
Would you agree with that?
He would take a bigger swing.
Just because it's his personality and he'd want to solve the problem and he would know that a small swing wouldn't work so That's a good reason anyway, I do think we'll figure a way out but it probably has something to do with crypto and Selling equity in the country Charging people for defending them.
I mean it might be something like hey world.
I You're going to have to pay us a trillion dollars every hundred days or else we're not going to defend you from the big bad wolves that are around you.
Might be something like that.
But no, it looks pretty bad.
And now the other possibility is that the coming robot revolution will be so profitable That it pays down the debt, but I doubt it.
Even though robots will be the biggest thing ever, you know, dollar wise.
I don't think so.
I'm not even sure that's enough.
We'll have to loot other countries?
Well, in a way we are, aren't we?
If those other countries are using the dollar, And we're inflating the dollar.
Are we not taking our money from those other countries?
By definition?
I think we are robbing the other countries.
We're just doing it cleverly.
We're not counting national assets.
I don't know if you can sell enough national assets to get your $35 trillion back.
And remember, you still have to stop the trillion per hundred days.
All right, well that's all I got for you now.
Thanks for joining for the greatest live stream of all time.
I'm going to say goodbye to Rumble and YouTube and X. I'm going to talk to the great people and locals who are subscribers.
