All Episodes
May 18, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:03:12
Episode 2478 CWSA 05/18/24

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, ChatGPT Debates, Jeff Clark X Revenue, Diddy Girlfriend Cassie, MTG, Democrat Squinty Demon Face, Stock Market Expectations, Jordanians Quantico, Ted Lieu, President Trump, MSNBC Debate Spin, Presidential Debates, Fauci Emails, Trump Black Voters, Biden Inflation Candy, Tiny Tic Tac Visual, Debunking Climate Change, Gain of Function Research, Earth Depopulation Viruses, Depopulation Scientist Fanatics, Harrison Butker Speech, U.S. Debt Crisis, Digital Currency, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Understanding that there are a lot of podcasters who don't do a weekend show.
But not me!
I care.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a finer time.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only demigods and other awesome people can understand, all you need for that is a cup or a glass of Tanger Chalicerstein, a Kemptine jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's happening now.
we'll go. All right.
In the comments, how many of you have tried the get out trick to get out of your own head?
The one I taught you, the reframe?
I'll just see your answers in the comments.
They'll be a little bit delayed.
You'll be amazed if you haven't tried it yet.
The get out technique.
There it is.
The yeses are coming in.
All right.
Ann Coulter's interview with me has dropped.
So I think there's a clip on X, but it's a Substack thing.
I'm not sure what access you have or not.
But if you're following Ann Coulter on Substack, check that out.
Well, I saw some news that ChatGPT has got this great new update.
It's way better than it was in many different ways.
And so I thought to it, to myself, I wonder if it can detect a hoax.
So I asked him about the drinking bleach hoax, and it still seems to suggest that maybe the president was a little unclear about what that disinfectant was.
So I went to Grok, and Grok is accurate.
Grok just tells you what actually happened.
It's not a hoax.
So what will happen when you have two advanced intelligences, they look at the same situation, And they have different interpretations of what they see, not, not just philosophical or anything like that, but what's there on the page and what happened in reality and there'll be different.
And I believe they will be different forever.
And I think as most, mostly has to do with how it was trained.
Um, I don't think it's an accident.
All right.
I've got a question for you.
This also comes from my conversation the other day with chat GPT.
Who tried to convince me, well actually this was my own AI, when I was arguing with my own clone.
So I made a clone of myself when I was arguing with it the other day.
And one of the arguments was, was January 6th an insurrection because 1% of the people were violent?
And I say to you, if January 6th was an insurrection, because 1% of the people were violent, What do you call the NFL?
Did you know that the NFL has about 1% of them get arrested every year for something terrible?
You know, that's fairly serious.
Well, it's bad enough to be arrested.
I mean, that tells you something.
Now, how many of you racists just said to yourself, whoa, those NFL people get arrested a lot?
Wrong!
The NFL get arrested way less than the normal public.
Did you know that?
I didn't know that till this morning.
I didn't know one way or the other, but I didn't know it was that.
So apparently the general public, if you looked at the same age group, we're not talking about anything race, so race is not part of it.
But if you just took young men and you looked at their arrest rate, apparently young men get arrested at about 11% per year.
What?
Did you know that?
If you looked at the same age, it's about 10 times more people get arrested in the general public in that demographic.
And again, not race, this is just gender and age.
It's kind of shocking.
But it is an interesting question.
How many in a group have to be bad before you can say the group is bad?
It's definitely not 1%.
I would say that we should all agree that if 1% of a group is doing anything, It does not tell you much about that group.
I would say you need to get to around 30%.
And then you can start saying, okay, if you joined a group, you know, if you voluntarily joined a group where 30% of them are going to be doing something terrible, we cannot really say that you're good.
Would that be fair?
At about 30%?
If 30% of your crowd was criminals, And you willingly joined a group where 30% were criminals?
Could we really say you're innocent?
Or maybe you say 50%.
But there's some number where you can't really say you're innocent if you willingly joined that group.
That would be like saying, well, you know, somebody joined the KKK, but they were really there for the social reasons.
It doesn't really fly.
Once you get to 90% bad, You gotta say maybe you shouldn't have joined that group.
But at 1%, I think we'd all agree that's not telling you much about the nature of the group in general.
Jeff Clark, who's a U.S.
attorney who's under Trump, and he has a great follow on X, except that he reports he just had his X ad revenue cut for no reason.
Something about a Supposed violation of a creator content rules, but I don't think he was doing anything we weren't doing, which is just retweeting stuff on X. But because he's really good at it, and he's a good advocate for Trump, probably got reported more than other people.
Do you really think he broke any laws?
Probably not.
I think he was just tweeting like, you know, posting like everybody else, and then suddenly something happened.
Is there anybody who has the same worried suspicion that I do?
That although I trust Elon Musk, I don't know if I can trust all the employees who are still working at X. Do you have that feeling?
I feel like there's going to be some manipulation within X that the boss is not aware of and certainly would not support.
And it feels like maybe we're seeing some suggestions of it already.
I see a lot of people complaining that something seems to be happening with their account, but no confirmation.
I mean, it's probably confirmation bias, if anything.
But I worry about it.
Yeah, I worry about it.
Could the CIA possibly put up with a situation in which they don't have control of that platform?
Is that something they could live with?
And if they couldn't do it with the agreement of the boss, and probably they couldn't, could they do it just by making sure that they had their own moles in the organization?
Seems like they could do that.
So I'm not so sure that X is free of influence.
I just have a like a little suggestion, a little concern about that.
So we'll see if anything comes from that.
But you should follow Jeff Clark on X and it'd be nice if he had some way to figure out what it was he did so he could reverse it.
So there's a video that came out, as you know, of Diddy.
And beating up his girlfriend in the hallway of a hotel.
And today we learned that he may not be charged for that because it's past the statute of limitations.
2016.
So it turns out that Diddy will probably get away with badly abusing his girlfriend on camera.
As long as he doesn't record the expense as a legal expense.
Am I right?
Yeah.
As long as he does his accounting correctly.
Apparently he'll get away with beating up his girlfriend because of the statute of limitations.
Do you know who would have had the same situation but didn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I need a fact check of this.
Isn't the only reason That Trump ended up in the E. Jean Carroll case is that New York changed the statute of limitations just for Trump.
Now, they made it look like it was for other situations, but it was suspiciously applicable to Trump.
I think that actually happened, right?
Yeah.
In New York, they changed the statute of limitations.
If I have this right, I think they briefly opened a window Where people could come forward with much older complaints beyond the statute of limitations just for sex crimes.
And Everybody's Smart says, well, that's a big coincidence because that's exactly what they needed for Eugene Carroll to come after Trump.
Oh, how coincidental.
And by the way, do you know, she narrowed down the date of the assault to, I think it was one of these years.
So.
Seems to me a lot of Democrats get away with the crimes.
Let's talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene.
You all saw her dust up with AOC and the other congressperson whose name I can't remember.
Crockett?
Cricket?
Crockett?
Something like that.
And of course, we're all supposed to act shocked and outraged.
Can I do some pretend to shock and outrage?
Oh!
I hate it when the representatives of my government act a little bit unprofessional in public.
It embarrasses the country so much.
So much.
Okay.
Nobody believes any of that, right?
I think I probably agree with most of you that it was fun to watch.
And that's my entire feeling about it.
It was fun to watch.
And we're done.
The funny thing is that we try to imagine that if they had not been doing what they were doing, which is fighting over eyelashes, if they had not been fighting over eyelashes, we're supposed to think that they would have been doing something useful for the country.
Really?
Really?
If they could have only avoided that eyelash discussion, We could have paid down the national debt and gotten out of Ukraine?
I don't think so.
And Van Jones said that, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene has never accomplished anything and that she's sort of a, she's, she's a clown.
She's a clown.
To which I say, if you're working in a circus, is it wrong to be a clown?
I mean, if Congress were any kind of a respected institution, then I would say, oh, you don't want to put a clown in a respected institution.
That would be like putting a turd in a swimming pool, wouldn't it?
Am I right?
Yeah.
You don't want to see that tootsie roll swimming in your swimming pool because it's out of place.
But suppose your swimming pool, instead of water, was filled completely with feces.
Nothing but feces.
And you added a turd to it.
Would it seem out of place?
No, it would not.
It would not.
So if you add a clown to Congress, when you watch it, you say, what's going on here?
This seems so out of place.
When everybody else was doing the serious business of governing, there was this one person who seems to be breaking the decorum.
My God, I'm so embarrassed for the country.
We send Joe Biden to represent us.
And you think I'm embarrassed about Marjorie Taylor Greene insulting somebody's eyelashes and what I thought was actually kind of funny?
No!
Read the room.
Read the room.
If she's acting like a clown, it's maybe because she read the room.
Look around.
How should I act?
Well, clown seems right.
Seems like a fit.
Anyway.
How many of you have noticed that there are three Democrats who have a weirdly demonic look and it's the same kind?
Have you noticed that when Biden talks, he squints in an evil way?
So he does evil squinty eyes, but his mouth is like smarmy, fake smile evil.
So his eyes are closed, but his mouth is sort of, it's like he could barely suppress his smile.
But his eyes are so closed because he doesn't want to look at you when he's lying.
And then Jamie Raskin and Schiff have that same look.
Their eyes are closed when they're on camera.
Look at Raskin.
But he's got to tell you that Donald Trump is certainly doing some things that are bad.
Don't look at my eyes because my eyes are revealing that I'm a demon.
Don't look at him, I'm going to close him.
But look at my smile, my Barbie smile.
So basically Schiff, Raskin, and Biden, they register as demons to me.
Don't they?
When you see a face that doesn't look like a human face.
Well, here's the difference.
And here's the theme that I'm getting to.
When I see a Republican saying something ridiculous, I almost always think that they believe what they're saying, and that it's just somebody's wrong or, you know, got bad information.
I rarely think to myself, well, that person is trying to tell us something that's not true right in front of us.
And do you notice that there are no Republicans who have that squinty demon face?
But you can find a number of Democrats who have it.
Squinty demon face.
Look for it.
Squinty eyes and smarmy smile.
So smart.
You all see what I see, that the president is doing things which we think are, oh, just so bad.
Oh, my God, they're hard to look at.
All right, so my theme for today is that It seems we're in this recurring Groundhog Day pattern where Democrats are running organized ops, basically gaslighting ops, and Democrats are trying to uncover how they did it.
And that's all it is.
All of our politics is the Democrats ran an op and the Republicans are trying to get to the bottom of it.
There's nothing else happening, but that's the same story in every domain.
What's going on there in Ukraine?
Maybe we should get the bottom of that.
What's happening with... Well, you'll see the pattern.
Well, in other news, Buffett and Gates both pulled down large amounts of money from Microsoft and from the market.
And so some observers say, well, wait a minute.
If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are pulling money out of the market, that means they know something we don't.
But it takes about a minute and a half before somebody adds context on X. You realize that's just sort of normally what they do.
So if you look at Microsoft, for example, Microsoft has basically doubled in the last couple of years because of AI.
Does it make sense that Bill Gates would take some money off the table if one of his investments doubled?
Yes.
That would just be normal.
Normal.
But here's my speculation.
Some smart people say that they're expecting the market to tank, and that maybe has something to do with the elections.
So some are saying, oh, this is an indication that they think the market is not going to keep going up, otherwise they'd have their money in the market.
To which I say, we don't know where their money is going to end up.
If the only thing we know is they're taking some out, we don't know where it's going.
It might be in 5% government instruments and they just want to ride it out if they think there's trouble.
But it's such a small part of their portfolios that it seems far more likely they're just rebalancing.
And if I were Bill Gates, what I would do is I would pull some money out of Microsoft, because that's basically an AI company now, and it doubled.
And I would take some of that money and I would spread it into robot companies and other AI companies.
Because AI and robots, And maybe, you know, gigawatt battery factories and stuff are going to be everything.
It's just going to be energy robots and AI and Bitcoin, I suppose.
So those are the four things that I would want to own in our uncertain times.
I wouldn't put my whole portfolio in them, but I would say if you're hedging, you're definitely going to want to own something in Bitcoin, something in AI that's, you know, fundamental to AI.
And something with energy could be nukes or batteries or something, because electricity is going to be gigantic.
What else?
And robots.
So it would make sense that they're rebalancing their portfolios if that's what's happening.
And another story.
Allegedly, two Jordanian nationals are now in custody.
They're not legal citizens in this country, and they tried to allegedly breach Quantico Marine Base.
And some say it was maybe a dry run for ISIS.
So isn't Quantico the... So Quantico is the Marine Base.
Hmm.
Where is the CIA?
I thought that was Quantico.
Why is the story called the Marine Base?
I guess I don't know.
Is Quantico the CIA or is it the Marines?
Or is it both?
Yeah, I thought it was CIA and FBI.
Langley?
Quantico is FBI?
CIA?
I guess we don't know what it is.
I've gotten three different answers.
That Quantico is FBI, that it's CIA, and that it's Marines.
Is it all three?
Could it be all three?
Anyway.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
But the question is, how many terrorists do you think are already in the country?
I have a book coming out in a few weeks.
I'll tell you more about it.
That's a republication of God's debris in the religion war and a new short story.
It's all going to be one book.
I'll let you know when that's ready to go, but it'll be just in a few days.
But a big part of the religion war, Was that the way the terrorists get even with the United States is by embedding terrorists in all of our population centers and activating them at the same time.
And I'm real concerned that that may be exactly what's happening because of our open border.
that China and maybe Iran and who knows who else, maybe ISIS, have put enough people into our country because you really only need one or two per city.
And the amount of damage they could do would be incalculable.
So if you are fighting a battle where it's really imbalanced, one has the biggest military in the world and the other doesn't, you would make up for that by putting terrorists in all the key places and having them activated at the same time.
So my concern is that they're going to activate at the same time, sometime in the future.
That's the big...
I'm less worried about the one-off, just because the odds of me being there personally are pretty low.
But the odds of everybody doing everything at the same time is really scary.
That one's a big one.
All right.
Ted Lieu at some public hearing was saying that Trump needs to be looked into because he's falling asleep in court.
So it might be a sign that he's not Healthy, because he keeps falling asleep in court.
Now, I'm no Dr. Ted Lieu, but I'm going to diagnose Trump without even seeing him.
Watch this.
It's called boredom.
Do you think there's any chance I could stay awake every day sitting in a court case, even if my life was on the line?
No.
It's the most boring thing you could ever do.
I'm pretty sure I fell asleep when I was doing jury duty.
I mean, not for long, but I probably dozed off.
And, uh, I was in my twenties when I was doing that.
So yeah, there's no problem with him falling asleep during a court case.
In fact, he should sleep through all of it.
It's a waste of time.
He should be well rested.
And, uh, some other people have mentioned this as well, but do you think that the, maybe the biggest story is going to be that Resting Trump, which is what the trial does, arrests him, might be the very worst thing they could have done.
Because if you were going to show any age-related issues, it would be from doing too much, not from sitting in a court doing nothing.
Right?
So, a well-rested Trump is the most dangerous thing in the world to a Democrat.
I mean, politically, not physically.
But politically, he's the most dangerous when he's rested.
And they're resting him.
I feel like they figured the worst possible thing they could do for themselves.
All right.
Trump said he's going to demand that Joe Biden take a drug test for the debate because he says Biden was, quote, high as a kite during the State of the Union.
Now, for entertainment, I watched MSNBC last night, so you don't have to.
On MSNBC, I swear to God, this is the conversation they're having.
Now, just try to hold in your head what you believe reality is.
And now, I'm going to tell you what MSNBC was discussing, and they were discussing it like it's obvious.
Like it's an obvious truth.
Are you ready?
They say it's an obvious truth that Trump will never debate and he's only going to look for an excuse to pull out.
In what reality does Trump run away from an audience?
How in the world does more than one person on MSNBC sit in the same conversation and say, oh yeah, Yeah, it's pretty obvious he's not even going to be in the debate.
It looks like he's just looking for excuses to get out.
Do you think this is one of them?
Do you think he says if they don't drug test Biden, he won't do the debate?
Of course he'll do the debate, because it's going to be even better if Biden is high.
Can you imagine Trump calling out Biden as being high at the moment?
Like, well, Joe, you're fairly coherent today.
What'd they give you?
Well, why are you saying that?
No, seriously, Joe, what did they give you?
What are you on?
Tell the public right now.
No, there is nothing that's going to keep Trump away from a crowd.
To imagine, the MSNBC people, I honestly don't know if they're dishonest or they have dementia.
That might be the least real take of all takes, that Trump would avoid a big audience where the other person there is Biden.
Do you think that Trump has any doubt, any doubt whatsoever, that he would prevail in a debate at this point?
Of course not.
Do you know what else I heard?
That if If Trump wants to debate, it must be because he knows he's in trouble.
What?
What?
How high do you have to be to think that?
As he's adding all the polls and everything looks good.
So, Trump has doubled down and he's agreed to four debates.
Now, I believe only two have been offered.
But Trump, independently, has said yes to Fox News and NBC and Telemundo.
Interestingly, when I wrote down my own notes, I wrote down NPC instead of NBC.
But NPC might be a little closer.
It might be.
It's MSNBC saying Trump is afraid to debate and might cancel at the same time that he's offered four debates.
Now, do you think it makes sense for Trump to offer four debates?
Of course!
It's exactly the right thing to do, because he's trying to force Biden to say no to at least one debate.
So he's basically saying, I'll take any debate anywhere, you name it.
As soon as Biden offered the two debates, Trump accepted immediately.
And now he's calling his bluff and he's, you know, increasing him two debates.
I'll tell you what Trump, what Biden doesn't want is two more debates.
He definitely doesn't want that.
So it's, again, it's perfect.
I feel like I'm the only one saying this.
Which is the dog not barking in this campaign is that Trump's campaign has been perfect.
I've never seen anybody hit so many notes correctly in a row in a campaign.
It's crazy.
He is doing so, so well.
And I think his advisors, you know, to his own credit, he must be taking good advice, but also he has good instincts, but he must be getting great advice.
Because he's just killing it.
Like, it's just a flawless, flawless campaign.
I mean, given the limitations of the court stuff, he's just playing it perfectly.
Well, Andrew McCarthy says that a hung jury in the Stormy Daniels trial would be a victory because it's unlikely that they'd be crazy enough to try to do it again.
What do you think are the odds?
What do you think are the odds that there's at least one Human male on the jury who is willing to buck the crowd and hang the jury.
I say almost certain.
I feel like it's closer to a certainty.
Now, if he did get convicted, I'm pretty sure it would get overturned.
But I think there's going to be at least one male who says, nope, nope, this ends here.
Do you know why I say male?
Because it's dangerous.
And when there's danger, there's more likely a man is going to do it than a woman.
So imagine sitting in a jury where, let's say hypothetically, 10 or 11 people are Trump haters, and all they want to do is convict them.
And they're like, guilty!
Don't even want to discuss it.
Could you be the one who says no?
Now, it wouldn't be physically dangerous while you're in that room.
But it would get pretty intimidating.
It would get pretty hot.
And when you left the room, people would find out you're the one that hung the jury.
That's dangerous.
It's dangerous.
Men can do that.
I would do it.
I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wouldn't even hesitate.
I would hang that jury so fast.
And I would do it without any regret, second thoughts.
I wouldn't even have fear.
Because once something is so right, My fear goes away?
I don't know if you have this, but fear is only there until you're sure you're right.
Once you're sure you're right, it's still dangerous, but your fear goes away.
Have you ever had that experience?
Like, let's say, you know, you're afraid of getting in a fight with somebody, but after they do the first punch, your fear just disappears, because now it's just on.
Yeah, the fear is just when you're not sure what's going to happen.
Once you're sure what's going to happen, it's just go time.
And I think there's going to be at least one juror who says, you know what?
It's go time.
I think it's go time.
So I'm going to bet, I'm going to tell you that I have not lost complete faith in human beings.
I'm going to bet on at least one human being saying, too far.
Too far.
This is too far and it stops now.
And there's nothing you can do to me.
I'm stopping this jury right now.
I think it's going to happen.
I say hung jury.
All right, Representative Comer.
He's got this story about some kind of deleted emails.
There's some kind of Written indication that Fauci and his friends had figured out some way to make emails disappear after there had been a FOIA request, but before they had executed it somehow.
Quote, who said this?
I don't know.
I learned from our NIH FOIA lady how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA'd, but before the search starts, so I think we're all safe.
Plus, I deleted most of those earlier emails.
What?
What?
So this was about some of the pandemic stuff.
I think that's a quote of Fauci, but if not, it's one of the people involved in the whole business.
Now, remember my theme?
My theme is a whole bunch of bad behavior, often Democrats, and then Republicans are just trying to figure out how they did it.
This is it.
Just all over the place.
It's Democrats running ops and Republicans tried to undo the ops.
Even Bill Maher on the show last night is saying that the only reason for the June debate, which is months earlier than normal, is so they can replace Biden.
Now, everybody sees it at this point.
Republicans see it.
Democrats see it.
Imagine having your own candidate so weak that you're having an early debate so that you can increase the chances of replacing him.
And that's your best guy.
Best candidate.
So your best candidate is one that you hope to God you can replace really early.
We all see it.
We all see it.
The Amuse account on X asks this question.
Is it weird that the Biden family's banks filed more than 170 suspicious activity reports with authorities, but the FBI never bothered to investigate why they kept getting suspicious wires, why the Bidens kept getting suspicious wires from China, Ukraine, Russia, and Romania?
And the claim is that there's over like a quarter of a million dollars in checks that were directly wired to Biden with no explanation.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
No, this is more to my theme of Democrats are running ops, and the Republicans are just trying to figure out, what's going on here?
How did you do this op?
It's everything from, you know, the major hoaxes, you know, the Russia collusion, it's all the same.
It's just Democrats running hoaxes, Republicans trying to unwind them.
It's our entire system now.
All right, according to CNN, the black vote for Trump, which was only 9% in 2020, looks to be, according to polling, up to 22% in 2024.
22%.
Now, that's still way less than half, so it's nothing to brag about, but clearly something's happening.
Now, what's missing in the story?
What's missing in the story?
That black vote has more than doubled since 2020.
Well, what's missing in the story is the part that Frank Luntz is the only one willing to say out loud besides me.
He says that Trump could win the votes of one third of black men under age 40.
They identify with Trump, he says.
It could be as high as one third of black men under 40.
It's men.
It's not black people.
It's mostly men.
Is that a coincidence?
No.
Because men are rising, because there's an evil, and we sense it.
Let me ask you this.
Men, men who are watching this right now, don't you sense That there's an evil which you are personally responsible for, because we're sort of born to take care of this stuff.
Doesn't it feel personal?
Like, I feel like there's a level of evil that's trying to creep into our system, and that men specifically need to stop it.
Because I think women, for whatever reason, are on the side of the evil.
Doesn't mean they're evil, but they seem at least accidentally on the side.
So at least Frank Luntz is telling us the truth.
Thank you, Frank.
At least putting it in the right frame.
Probably not a coincidence that President Trump, or ex-President Trump, has just announced he's going to do a rally in South Bronx.
Now, I don't know much about South Bronx, but what's the demographic there?
Is that now a dominant Hispanic?
Or is it dominant black, or is it mostly black and Hispanic?
But whatever it is, it's not considered his normal stronghold.
But what if he kills it in the Bronx?
If he kills it in the Bronx, and he might, he might.
That's really going to change the frame, isn't it?
The level of confidence that that shows is really infectious.
Don't you love to watch Trump walk toward trouble?
It's my favorite thing.
I want to see him meet Kim Jong-un.
I want to see him meet Putin.
I want to see him meet Xi.
And I want him to do a rally in the Bronx.
Go right into your hardest neighborhood.
Make it work.
See if you can.
Now I'm going to call this the Andre Agassi strategy.
You know Andre Agassi, famous tennis player.
And he had a strategy that if he played a player, let's say, who had a strong forehand, but their backhand wasn't as strong, the normal way people play that is they would hit to the person's backhand all day long, because that's their weaker shot.
Andre Agassi was so strong as a player, he would go after their best shot.
And the reason is, if he could take a chunk out of their best shot, it would destroy their confidence and the entire, basically they'd collapse.
If you go after their weak shot, they expect it, and they also get better at hitting it during the game.
Because you're literally giving them practice at their weakest shot, so they have a chance of playing their way into it.
But if you go after their best shot, and the other person knows they're doing it, And they say, wait a minute, you're hitting to my forehand.
That's crazy.
Oh, shit.
You just made the point.
Okay, but this won't work.
You're still hurting, hitting to my best shot.
How did you win that game?
And then you're done.
Trump is hitting to Biden's best shot.
He's going into the Bronx, in the same city that is so anti-Trump that they decided that's the best place to lawfare him.
So, I'll tell you what this reminds me of.
Remember when Obama was at the network correspondence dinner, the famous thing where they try to tell jokes and they all fail?
And he humiliated Trump in the audience, because Trump had done the birther thing by then.
And then Trump's response was to take the presidency.
Now we have a similar situation where New York, the state, is saying, we hate you so much we're going to try you here, the worst place we can do it for you, and we're going to put you in jail because New York is the place you're going to die.
And Trump says, I'm going to take the Bronx.
How perfect is that?
My God.
That is so perfect.
That I can't even express words.
In terms of strategy, going after Biden's strength is just so gutsy.
And when you see a leader go after somebody's strength because they're so confident they think they can take out his forehand, Andre Agassi style, oh my God!
Who doesn't want to watch that?
No matter what happens, the energy monster is He's doing his thing.
Energy monster.
So that is, whatever event it was last night, I think, Trump pulled out some Tic Tacs, you know, the little candies.
And apparently Tic Tac now has a extra small size container with fewer Tic Tacs.
So we're, I guess he had asked for a Tic Tac and somebody gave it to him.
Now he says he's going to carry it with him to use in the rallies because it's so hilariously small.
Now, you might say to me, but Scott, Biden himself is saying that this candy is too small.
So isn't Trump just agreeing with Biden and saying, oh, these corporations are evil, they're shrinking it?
No, Trump plays it the right way.
He says it's Joe Biden's tic-tacs because the inflation made them smaller.
Thank you.
He just went after Biden's strongest claim on the economy, That the real problem is the corporations shrinking their packaging, which is the dumbest thing anybody ever said.
So Trump, instead of avoiding it, holds up the tiny candy that President Small Candy had been complaining about.
And he says, here's your Biden inflation.
And I'm looking at him holding up that tiny candy and calling it Biden inflation.
And what was my first thought?
Build the wall.
It's visual.
It's visual.
If he can hold up that tiny Tic Tac thing, you know, the little container, every time and say, here's what Biden gives you.
Here's your Biden inflation right here.
And he makes the inflation visual.
He said he's going to keep it with him for the other events.
That is exactly right.
Every single time, reach into your pocket and say, have you heard of Biden's inflation?
Look what he did to the Tic Tacs.
Perfect.
Perfect.
All right.
I saw a award-winning journalist, Alex Newman.
He was on a show with Josh Phillip, I guess.
Crossroads is the name of the show.
Podcast, I think.
Podcast-y kind of a show.
I don't know too much about it.
But anyway, Alex Newman was saying that there are three new peer-reviewed papers Published in major journals, scientific journals, that basically say climate change alarm is bullshit.
One of the studies says that 40% of the warming can be explained by the heat island effect, and the rest of it by something called the sun.
That's a peer-reviewed current paper in a major journal.
Now, to be fair, I tell you all the time that the odds of any paper being published and peer reviewed and being true is less than half.
So there are three of them.
So that, you know, you might imagine that increases your chances, but each of them is only a half, 50% chance.
So what are the odds?
Wait, do the odds for me.
I don't want to be like Andrew Huberman.
You've got three papers.
And all of them are the same direction, saying that climate change is overdone.
But let's say there's a 50% chance of each one.
What are the odds then that at least one of the papers is accurate?
If it's a 50-50 and you don't know anything.
We're not good at statistics, are we?
I was kind of curious if everybody would have the same answer or if we'd be all over the place.
Twelve and a half percent unless it's correlated.
That sounds like the right answer.
From, uh, yeah, Jim Engineer.
I'm going to go with the engineer on this.
Twelve and a half percent I'm seeing more often than not.
So, uh, unless they're correlated, would they be correlated?
There's no reason they would be, I guess.
Except they're looking at the same topic.
That's the kind of correlation.
I don't know.
All right, all the smart people are saying 12.5.
110% somebody says.
So we can't believe the new studies, but here's my larger theme.
I do think that Trump is going to have the greatest third act of all time.
I do believe that climate change has been debunked sufficiently That even Democrats are having some doubt.
Do you think that's true?
The only way that AI is going to happen is with massive increase in energy.
And most of that will be green, I suppose, as much as possible.
So we'll be doing going hog wild with nuclear for sure.
I think that's guaranteed at this point.
Anyway, I don't know if this means that climate change is really debunked.
It's too early to say that.
But if there is a study that says 40% of the warming is from the heat island effect, meaning that the thermometers were put in places that later cities grew toward and where there's a city is hotter because of the concrete, which does not tell you that the world is hotter, just the concrete is hotter.
Um, totalitarian roots.
Okay.
Now, Apparently there's somebody named Bill Maguire, you know, a green person who says directly the only way that we'll get to a sustainable planet is if there's something like a big pandemic that wipes out a lot of people.
And I used to say, well, those are just the crazy, you know, extremists.
They don't represent the public in any way.
But here's the thing I wonder.
You ever wonder why we're doing gain of function?
Now there's a story that the bird flu might be a gain of function escaped virus.
Of course.
Did anybody ever tell you why we do gain of function?
I mean, I think the, I believe the official story, the official story is that it's so we're ready in case somebody else makes a super virus.
But that feels weird because can you really guess How they'll make their virus?
Can you really do, you know, gain a function so specifically that you know exactly how the bad guys are going to try to get you with the virus?
That feels like a stretch, given all the zillions of ways a virus could be changed and express itself.
But you know what would make sense is if it were done intentionally to depopulate the Earth.
And I'm not going to make that claim, but I have this question.
If you apply to do gain-of-function experiments, and you're applying for the job at the lab, and you're in your interview, don't you think one of the questions should be, do you think that the population of Earth is too high?
If you're not asking that, I don't want anybody near a fucking virus that can wipe out the world.
Can we at least ask the question, do you believe the biggest problem is too many people?
Or like Elon Musk and like me, think that the biggest problem is the lack of a birth rate replacement.
If somebody says, I'd like to work on deadly new viruses that I'll create that could destroy humanity.
And by the way, I think there are too many people.
I don't want that person near a lab.
And do you think they ask that question?
No way.
Because nobody does, right?
But please.
Please.
And by the way, if somebody's already in the job, I would ask them the question again.
Do you think there are too many people or too few?
If they say too many, you gotta fire them and walk them out of the building.
I don't want anybody working on Gain of function?
Who thinks there are too many fucking people?
Can we get that right?
Can we do that one thing?
Just make sure the people who are developing deadly, humanity-destroying tools don't want fewer people.
It doesn't seem like a lot to ask, but I'll bet it's never been asked.
All right.
So the Democrats are trying to sell us And the fact that all the major Republicans who are attending the lawfare thing in New York, it's really because they want to kiss the ring of Donald Trump.
And they have to go into their demon smarmy voices.
You should see Adam Schiff and Raskin talking about it with her.
I'll do my impression.
Squinty demon eyes, followed by smarmy mouth.
And the only reason, the only reason they're going It's like they're all Gollum.
Anyway, comes off as a demonic possession, but can't be sure.
Everybody's still talking about that Harrison Bucker speech, the football kicker who did the speech at the Catholic school.
So even Bill Maher said, I don't see what the big crime is.
And he was reminding his Democrat audience that this is half the country, you know?
They get to have an opinion about the right way to live.
Which I appreciate.
You know, he's not saying that he agrees with it per se, but just, it's normal, and you should be able to talk about normal things.
Right.
You should be able to talk about normal things.
But I did watch MSNBC, as I said, And one of the things they said was that, and I didn't hear this when I was watching Right-Leaning News, I did not hear this at all, but apparently there was a comment about gay people being, what word did he use?
Yeah, so he definitely said some anti-gay stuff.
To me that's different, that's a different category from saying Some women might want to be, you know, homemakers and some might want to go to work.
That's just talking about, did he call them deviants?
Was that the word?
Now that's too far.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think that's too far going after individuals, but saying that women can have choices and they can be, you know, they can be any relationship they want with their husband.
That seems fair.
But if he was going anti-gay, or calling them deviants, to me that would be too far.
But I also think he has free speech.
I would find that distasteful, but not illegal.
Alright, I finally figured out the situation with the debt crisis.
Not in terms of a solution, But here's what I couldn't understand.
I couldn't understand why people are not more panicked about it.
But I finally figured it out.
Because every time I brought it up, people would say things like, oh, we'll just do what Argentina does and cut expenses.
Or if you just cut X percent from the budget every year, you'd be fine.
Or if you stop giving money to other countries, we'll be fine.
Or if you do what Vivek says and do a major cut of the government A trillion is such a big number that we can't tell the difference between 1 trillion and 35 trillion.
All of those things I just said were perfectly good plans when the debt was 1 trillion.
We probably could have worked our way out by spending less and making sure the GDP grows and a little bit of inflation and time and, you know, maybe we could have grown our way out.
But at $35 trillion, none of those things work.
And I was suspecting that the real problem here is that people are bad at math.
So I think the reason that we're treating it like it's not a problem, the public, You know, there's some small number of people who just harp on it all the time, like me.
But most of the public kind of thinks that things will get worse and worse and worse, and then the Congress will be forced to act.
But once they act, they'll fix it.
That's not where we are.
I think you're reading the situation wrong.
It is now so big, it's unsolvable.
There's no normal thing you can do to solve it.
You can't grow your way out of it.
You can't have like better economy and just pay it off.
You can't inflate your way out of it without destroying the country at the same time.
And you can't cut expenses enough to make any difference at all.
And I don't think people know, because they're still living in a 1 trillion world, not a 35 trillion with a trillion added every 100 days.
And I think that there's just a basic inability to grasp Math at the, say, conceptual level.
They can't tell the difference between a trillion and 35 trillion.
And their leaders are not acting so panicked.
If you turn on CNN today, they won't even mention it, will they?
It won't even be in the news.
But it's our only existential problem.
The rest, unless there's a meteor coming, the rest we can totally work on.
You know, war probably won't kill us.
The coming robots will probably figure it out.
AI, I think, will be okay.
Climate change was never really worried.
But the debt?
35 trillion plus a trillion every 100 days?
I have no idea how you'd fix that.
Not even a guess.
But I will say this.
There is some chance that our leaders are completely aware this is unfixable.
Because they act like it doesn't need to be fixed.
They can just keep throwing massive amounts of money at anything, because they'll never have to pay it back.
It might be that they know they're never going to pay it back.
They might know that.
And it could be that they think everything's going to fall off the ledge.
Maybe.
I don't think that's what it is.
But more likely, and I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but what does it push you toward inescapably?
What is it we're going to have to do?
No doubt about it.
Digital currency.
There's no way around it.
Because we're going to have to do a one, once in a history, reset, reboot.
I don't want to use reset.
Let's say reboot of the entire financial system in the United States.
At some point, cash is going to become useless.
They're going to have to value it down to zero.
In the short run, The digital currency and the cash will both have value, but the cash will continue to deflate.
And so there's going to be a big rush to get out of your cash that's going down to zero and into your digital currency that might be backed by something, maybe backed by the military or robots or something.
So it seems to me that since digital currency could be artificial, you could just say on day one, I magically create 50 trillion dollars in money.
And if you'd like to have digital instead of money, we'll just trade it one for one.
You don't lose anything.
So if you've got a million dollars, if you're lucky enough to have a million dollars, you can just trade it and you'll have a million dollars of digital money.
Now, of course, the government then has full control of you because they can see everything you do and stop it immediately if it's all digital.
So it gives the government gigantic power over the The public, not ideal.
So I think the public would maybe not vote for a digital currency or oppose it unless it was an emergency and there was no choice.
And I think the emergency is going to look like this.
There'll be a one-time movement into, I don't know, Bitcoin or something, digital currency, and that they'll just artificially make money and pay off the debt.
And they'll say to let's say Chinese bondholders They'll say money is going to be worthless.
But if you act now, we'll convert that into a digital currency and you'll be fully paid You just have to live with digital currency instead of the US dollar the normal US dollar So I put that out there because I don't see people suggesting how we could survive So I think it would have to be something so big.
It's so radical That it's really a rethinking of the entire financial system.
Now, there's probably a way to maintain the wealth that people have because the important people will want to do that.
Yeah.
Do we have a digital currency now?
Well, not a government-backed digital currency.
Wipe out what we owe to China because of COVID.
So the trouble with all of the get-rid-of-the-debt issues, if you ever cancel that much debt, then you can never do business again.
Because nobody's going to want to hold your debt if you can just cancel it.
So that doesn't work either.
Anyway, I think that's the problem is that we can't understand what a trillion is.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my prepared remarks.
Is there any topic that you're dying to hear me talk about that I haven't talked about?
Boomers ruined the world.
Do you know what the boomers said?
So I'm a boomer.
I said the greatest generation ruined the world.
Do you know what the people who come after you are going to say?
They're going to say you ruined the world.
Yeah, I talked about Diddy.
Australia seems to be lost.
So Mike Benz says that the way America is controlled now, since the CIA is not allowed to operate directly, domestically, that we just work with our partners overseas, and all of the American companies that are international have to do with the international community, say, and they basically just backdoor it.
He calls it the boomerang method.
So instead of just fixing things directly in the United States, you send the boomerang over to Europe.
Europe tells, let's say, X that they have to ban these people or else they can't have any business in Europe.
So, uh, we are of course losing our, whatever this was.
We're not really a democracy slash Republic.
We are a criminal organization.
And I would advise you to figure out how to thrive in a criminal organization.
Because that's what we are.
We just seem to be better at it than other countries at the moment.
Yeah.
What would the wealthy families behind the global banks want?
Well, that's my point.
I don't expect the dollar to turn into nothing in some fast way, because the rich people don't want it to happen.
And I think they can prevent it.
So it's going to have to be some major, major big play.
And by the way, name any president besides Trump who could pull off a major financial reorganization.
I think he's the only one.
Because he's mentally flexible enough he would understand the stakes.
I mean, Biden can't do it.
Biden can barely get home at night.
All right.
Buy land?
That's not a bad idea.
Yeah, buy land is not a bad idea.
At least you're safe from inflation a little bit.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and X. I'm going to spend some time with my beloved subscribers on Locals, where you should be subscribing to if you want the good stuff.
But I'll see you tomorrow, the rest of you.
Export Selection