All Episodes
May 21, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:04:18
Episode 2481 CWSA 05/21/24

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, Terrence Howard, Klaus Schwab, WEF Chairman, ADL, WaPo Editorial Board, DEI Support Requirement, Thought Terminating Cliches, Rhyming Persuasion Technique, Windows Recall, Scarlett Johansson ChatGPT, OpenAI Security Team, AI Risk Speculation, ChatGPT, Non-Auditable Elections, Biden Dementia Concerns, Bill Maher, Greg Gutfeld, Hoax Funnel, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Robert Costello Side-Eye, Judge Merchan, FEC Expert Witness, Bradley A. Smith, MSNBC Hosts Mental Illness, Scott Adams --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I don't understand.
All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a stein, a 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 of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Well, the trouble was I was assembling a joke in my mind at the same time I was doing the simultaneous sip. So I couldn't get through it because I was laughing at my joke in my mind.
And the joke was, I'm going to wait until something goes wrong, and then I'm going to say this joke.
That, whatever it was, you know, whatever is the new story of something that went down, I can say that went down faster than Stormy Daniels on a Boeing 737.
It was pretty good.
Stormy Daniels on a Boeing 737?
Yeah, it's not so bad.
All right, well, many of you asked me to comment on a guest that Joe Rogan had, Terrence Howard.
How many of you have seen the strangest video clips in the world of Terrence Howard Describing his scientific discoveries on Joe Rogan.
And you're saying to yourself, if you saw it, I can't tell if he's the smartest human being who's ever lived, or is he crazy?
And I looked at it long enough that it was really hard to tell.
For sure, he knows enough vocabulary about science, you know, at a deep level, that it would be hard to imagine he would know all the vocabulary and be able to speak it without, you know, any pauses to think of the word or anything.
This suggests he knows the field.
I mean, at least he's well-read and, you know, knows how everything fits together.
But I do have a rule which I like to go back to a lot.
And the rule is this, and you'll be amazed how often this serves you well.
If there's something you don't understand, and somebody's trying to explain it to you, and no matter how much they explain it to you, you still don't understand, the problem might not be on your end.
I have a general theory that no matter how complicated the idea is, if you can't explain it as simply, it's probably not real.
Take, for example, Elon Musk describing literally anything, anything complicated.
Does he explain it in a way that you totally know what he's saying and you can agree with it or disagree with it?
He does, no matter how complicated it is.
He's literally putting rockets in space, but when he talks about any component of that, you completely understand it.
Now, my measure of intelligence is how well you can explain a complicated thing.
Not how well you may or may not understand it in your private thoughts.
So the fact that he couldn't explain it in any way that was even close to giving us comprehension is sort of a red flag.
It's a bit of a red flag.
But on the other hand, he did display what appeared to be very deep knowledge of the field.
So could you have very deep knowledge of the field, but maybe you have a hypothesis about something that doesn't check out?
Well, that's possible.
But, um, for sure his intelligence is super high.
That part's obvious.
I saw some reports that he was, uh, he was considered to be a genius when he was just a little kid.
Apparently learns things ridiculously quickly.
It looked like that.
So, But I don't know that that means he's right.
It could be that he just has a fascinating concept and hasn't been checked out.
He had some idea that looked to me, if I could understand it, which I don't think I did, that a certain frequency of sound would create energy if you just put it on water.
If you applied the right sound to water, it would break out the hydrogen and presumably you could use it to make energy, use it to power stuff.
Anyway, I don't know.
I don't know.
That's just my take.
Klaus Schwab will be stepping down as Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Now, here's the question that I have for you.
If you thought that Klaus Schwab was the power behind, I don't know, everything, why would he step down?
If he was really sort of the secret dictator You wouldn't really step down just because you're old.
Dictators don't step down.
So it makes me, it is suggestive that he was what, again, Elon Musk called him, more like a club for rich people.
I don't think the World Economic Forum has ever been important, except as a club for rich people.
And the thing I wonder is, will he be replaced By somebody who also looks like a movie supervillain.
Because I feel like that's where things went wrong.
It wasn't just the ideas they had that you don't like, or maybe that scare you the way you interpret them.
But it was that he literally gave off every vibe of a TV movie villain.
And we're going to take away all of your things.
And it seems to me that they should do a search for somebody who is whatever is the opposite of that.
Now, I saw a number of people say it's going to be it's going to be a disabled black lesbian woman.
And I have this question.
They really can't.
There's no way they can replace him with an old white guy, right?
I think they're pretty big on ESG.
So whoever replaces Klaus Schwab will almost certainly be a woman.
Do you agree?
I would say there's almost no chance of a male taking leadership.
So that'll be my prediction.
Will not be male, but could be anything non-male.
Could be a white woman, but it's definitely not gonna be a white man.
I would say there's no chance of that.
We'll see.
Well, there's a conservative activist who's suing the ADL for defamation.
Now, normally these things wouldn't go very far.
It's really hard to prove defamation, but apparently this one, there's some smart people that say this, this one hasn't been dismissed, which suggests it could get to court and maybe, maybe make a dent.
So I don't know anything about the case, but there's a claim being made of defamation and Here's my, uh, so people ask me, I weighed in on this and said that the ADL had accused me of being a Holocaust denier.
Well, at least they added the ADL.
So they added the ADL, Greenblatt, on X, accused me of being a Holocaust denier.
Just, just, just hold that in your head.
That's a real thing that happened in the real world.
Now people ask me, Scott, why didn't you sue for defamation?
To which I said, I don't need to.
Why would I do that?
If I sue for defamation, it's going to be, it's going to take over my life.
You know, I'll have to spend all my time thinking about it.
It's going to be expensive.
If I lose, I'm going to, I'm going to lose money as well.
It's hard to prove.
You know, it's all that stuff.
But given that I'm already canceled, I can do the good work of making sure that people are less afraid of them.
By continually reminding people that they're not a good force and that they're whatever they meant to be originally.
I do think their original intentions of the organization were entirely good, but they've evolved into some kind of evil Democrat.
You know, basically attack dog.
So the ADL no longer has credibility and doesn't have a good reason to exist, because it just makes Jews look bad.
How many of you would agree with this following statement?
The ADL makes Jewish Americans look bad.
Is that a fair statement?
Because to the extent that they're representative of the group, that's their whole point, and they're completely corrupt and disreputable and disgusting, that's a bad thing to have on your brand.
If I were Jewish, I would not want to have anything to do with the ADL.
To me, that would be like me embracing the KKK.
It would be just, why would you do it?
It'd be crazy.
The Washington Post editorial board is calling for the end of DEI statements and faculty hiring.
Now, what's important is that it's the Washington Post.
Now, the Washington Post would be very associated with, you know, Democrat preferences.
And even they are saying that it doesn't make sense to require DEI statements in faculty hiring.
What I think that means is if you're applying for a job at a college and you're a professor, or want to be, you have to write a statement that says why you're dedicating your heart and your life to DEI.
And if your statement isn't good enough, you don't get hired.
Now... Yeah.
So, if even the Washington Post is saying you've got to get rid of this DEI stuff, at least in this one context, that feels like the beginning of a change.
Here's a little persuasion tip for you.
This comes from The Guardian, I guess.
There are things called thought-terminating cliches.
I've never heard this before, but the idea is that there's some normal things that you've heard before that people say that closes down critical thinking.
So here are some of the examples.
It is what it is, you know, said about any topic.
Boys will be boys, again, depending on the topic.
Everything happens for a reason and don't overthink it are familiar examples.
And here's some more.
Reality is subjective.
Don't let yourself be ruled by fear and truth is a construct.
So those are thought to be things that will cause people to stop thinking because they got a simple little truism and they think that covers it.
Well, okay, that covered it.
No more thinking required.
Now, I'm not totally sold on this.
I see the point.
But I don't know that I've ever had my own critical thinking turned off by a cliché.
So I can't say that I observe this to be true in the wild.
But I wouldn't debate it.
I just have not observed it.
So I'd be a little cautious about this one.
But it is true that people use nappy clichés to end conversations.
When I see it done, I just think it's people who don't want to have the conversation.
I don't really think it disables their brain.
I think they're just using it to disable the conversation so they don't have to have it.
But maybe that's the same thing.
But I remind you that studies have shown that people perceive statements as more believable When they're easy to read or clever.
So something will look like it's more true if you choose the correct font to put the text in.
So if you use an easy to read font, it seems more true than if you put it in, you know, fancy curly font.
Now that I believe.
That I believe.
Because simplicity and truth tend to be so connected that if you simplify something, people just think it's more likely to be true.
It's just the simplification does that.
So any way you can simplify it, like even the text would work.
But also rhyming.
So researchers found that the phrase, woes unite foes, To be more true than woes unite enemies, because it rhymes.
But yeah, I guess that's really the only reason that one would be more persuasive.
It rhymes.
So that's, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
So that's, it's a well-known concept that rhyming makes things seem more true.
That's why I always liked the, there was a seatbelt I thought that was pretty good.
I mean, I remember it to this day, so that's pretty good.
So, go for a rhyme if you can.
seat belt closed or you get a ticket. Click it or take it.
I thought that was pretty good. I mean I remember it to this day so that's pretty good. So go for a rhyme if you can. Apparently Microsoft has a new feature with its AI co-pilot thing that Windows AI will be able to record every screen of everything you ever do so you could find it later.
It's able to recall everything you've ever done on your computer.
Now, does that seem like a little dangerous?
As Mike Benz points out, does it seem like the spy people would love to have that?
Let's look at every single page you've ever looked at.
If you had a choice between an Apple that didn't do that, Apple computer, and a Microsoft Windows that did do that, I'm assuming you can turn it off.
But would you know you turned it off?
Could the NSA turn it back on if they wanted to?
I have many questions.
But it looks to me like it's literally designed for spying on you.
And then, I mean, it's hard to even take it seriously.
Like, why would you ever have that feature turned on?
I assume you can turn it off, but how hard would it be for a spy to turn it back on by hacking you?
Makes me wonder.
All right.
And I'd also like to point out that Windows, as a name for a computer operating system, Windows is the perfect name for a spy program.
If you were going to invent a spy program to look into somebody's computer use, you know, to look into the situation, what would you call it?
I think Window is just a perfect name for a spy program.
Ah, look into the window.
Scarlett Johansson is mad at ChatGPT and OpenAI.
She says that she was asked to be the voice or one of the voice options for ChatGPT, but then she declined.
And then they came out with a voice that sounds suspiciously a lot like her, to the point where even her friends said, hey, is that you?
And then she said, that's no fair.
You know, I said no, and then you just cloned my voice.
And, uh, I think she's blaming Sam Altman specifically.
He contacted her.
And, uh, this is a really interesting case.
I don't know if it'll turn into an actual court case, but it's really interesting because what if somebody just sounds like somebody else?
You know, for every celebrity, there's a non-celebrity who sounds just like him.
Would you agree with that?
For every celebrity, there's somebody who sounds just like him without trying to do an impression.
Would it be illegal to just hire the person that sounds like the celebrity?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I suppose if you just cloned a real person who wasn't a celebrity, that would be fair.
But if you simply claimed that you used the other person instead of the celebrity, that gets a little dicey.
Yeah.
So I guess we'll be watching this with some interest to see how the courts figure that out.
Did you know that OpenAI, apparently they've had some people quitting and they dissolved their AI safety team?
So it sounds like the people quitting are the ones who wanted to go slow and make sure that AI was as safe as it could be.
And apparently they were running into conflict with the people who wanted to go fast.
Now, of course, there are existential risks with AI, we all assume.
But how do you really know what's safer?
Do you ever think That we're just bad at knowing what's safe.
Because it really requires knowing the future, which we don't know.
Let me give you an example.
If they focus on safety, presumably they would go slower in developing the product.
That makes sense, right?
They would go slower, they'd test little things and make sure they really, really, really knew what they were doing before they went.
But, if they do that, they would fall behind in the market.
And chat GPT in particular seems to have a big lead on let's say China's technology.
Would we be safer in the United States if we beat China in AI by going fast but maybe less safe than we could have been?
Are we safer to get to super AI first before China gets there?
Or are we safer to go slowly so we still get there but we'll get there after other countries have gotten there?
And what about the fact that even if open AI decided to cripple its own progress by giving itself guardrails and safety things that other companies didn't have?
Wouldn't the other companies just unleash the monster themselves?
So even if open AI said, all right, we will be the rogues who are extra safe, it wouldn't matter at all.
Because the companies that did not make that commitment would just zoom ahead of them and do all the unsafe things.
Because the free market guarantees somebody is going to take a risk.
So if you can't take risk out of people's You know, preferences.
You might as well jump right in.
So believe it or not, I'm going to back what I think is the Sam Altman approach.
Now, I'm not a mind reader and I haven't seen him say it, but here's how I think about it.
I think that AI is such a civilization changing technology that although there's definitely a risk that it could destroy the world if you're not careful, that's real.
I agree with Elon Musk that the benefits probably far, far exceed the risk.
It's not a zero risk.
There's a non-zero risk you destroy civilization.
But I think it's small, and I think that the risk of waiting until somebody else got there first, like China, seems riskier.
So, I actually would put more faith in our ability to manage the risks.
Even if something gets out of the, you know, if something gets out of the corral, we could probably pull it back in before there's too much trouble.
I think we could.
So, I would be, I'm leaning very heavily toward the move fast, break things, cause some trouble, a few people die.
Maybe that's the smaller risk.
It feels like the smaller risk.
So here's a decision-making concept I use all the time.
Now, I don't usually teach people to do it, but it's one that I use.
If you have a bunch of unknowns, but you also have a bunch of knowns, I make my decision based on the knowns.
Because the unknowns are unknown.
It could go either way.
If you knew that the unknowns were definitely negative, And definitely really negative.
Well, you could include that, even though it's an unknown, you say, that's a big risk and it's only a negative risk.
But if you have a risk that could be amazingly positive or amazingly negative, and you have no idea which one it is, I say, go with the things you do know.
Here's the thing, you know, if you don't, if you don't go fast, China will get there first.
That part you know, and we do know that AI is almost a superpower to whoever can implement it the best.
So I would say the certainty of China getting a superpower before we do is the riskiest of all the scenarios.
It's not the one that could be necessarily civilization ending right away, but I think that's such a small risk that compared to the certain risk That your competitors get ahead of you.
And the certainty that some AI in the United States would still blaze ahead and cause all the risks that open AI would.
I think open AI is morally, ethically, and business-wise correct.
And putting more emphasis on let's get there fast.
That's my take.
Now again, it's unknowable.
But you gotta make a decision.
You have to do something.
Doing nothing is a decision, too.
All right, how many of you watched my live debate yesterday afternoon with Chet GPT about the 2020 election?
I didn't know how it would go, but I wanted to see if I could win a debate with an advanced intelligence.
Now, if I tell you how it went, You're not going to enjoy it nearly as much.
I'm just going to tell you this.
If you look at the comments, so I pinned the video on Axe.
It's here on Locals.
It's also on YouTube and Rumble.
So you can find it on all my usual places.
It happened yesterday.
So here's what I would advise you to do.
Take 10 seconds.
To look at the comments under the video, on X especially.
Just take 10 seconds.
Just read the first two or three, and you're going to find that the comments don't look like regular comments to regular content.
The most common thing was, you have to watch this.
So comments like that, stop everything you're doing, you have to watch this.
Whatever you do, watch this.
So apparently it broke, it just broke a lot of brains.
Now, I can't tell you how it went because it ruined the fun, but it could not have been more entertaining.
So there was a point where I was just screaming in laughter.
And there's also a point where, see how I manage the advanced intelligence.
And I'll just give you one hint.
When I asked it, if the 2020 election was fair and secure, it said, yes, guaranteed, absolutely fair, no rigging.
Later I asked it to help me write a fictional movie plot about somebody rigging the election in the United States.
And I said, I know it's fiction, but you have to make it plausible.
The audience has to hear it and know, okay, that could actually work.
And then I made it consider the possibility that it wouldn't be normal hackers, but state actors.
And would a state actor be able to hack an election?
And not get caught.
And you really, really have to hear what ChatGPT says about all of this.
And there is a point where it is so funny that I actually had to leave my chair.
All right, don't miss it.
Trust me on this.
Just trust me.
It will be one of the most entertaining things you've ever seen.
Ever.
According to the comments, it was quite an experience.
And, and, and watching somebody, I had, I literally had an extended debate with an artificial intelligence in public.
All right.
So, uh, I just recommend that you have to see it.
Um, I posted yesterday on X that our elections are designed to not be fully auditable, and that isn't an accident.
Now, is that the most provocative thing you've ever seen lately?
That our elections are designed to not be fully auditable, and it isn't an accident?
And then there was a comment to that from this guy Elon Musk.
And he had a one-word comment to my post, which I'll say again.
I said, our elections are designed to not be fully auditable.
That isn't an accident.
Elon Musk?
One word.
True.
Now, why would I have been able to know in advance that he would have the same opinion?
I didn't think about it in advance, but I knew in advance.
Here's why.
He approaches things like an engineer.
And let me say it again.
If you had designed our current system on day one, and it caused people to have issues and questions about the credibility, and there were smaller imperfections and stuff, on day one, it just means you didn't do a good job.
It wouldn't mean anything.
It would just mean, oh, we didn't nail it.
We better work on this and tighten it up.
If you do the same process for 10 years, And it's clearly not credible to too many people.
That's a design choice.
It's not a mistake 10 years later.
10 years later, it's a choice.
Now, if it's a choice, you can tell the intentions of the people by looking at the design.
The design, if it's 10 years that they've kept it, The design is doing what they want it to do.
Why would anybody keep a system that you can't tell for sure if you can audit it?
I don't even know if you can audit what parts or what you can find and what you can't find.
Don't even know.
Chad GPT didn't know.
I asked him for what percentage of the system it could check, and it just started talking in generalities.
Well, there's a thing you can do to check this.
I'm like, no.
No, the question is, If you look at the entire system, can you audit 100% of it?
Do you think ChatGPT knows the answer to that?
No, because it's not even contemplated anywhere.
Go try to search it.
Do a Google search to try to find out what percentage of the total process from the time you get, let's say, a mail-in ballot in the mail, months ahead of the election, to the time it's certified.
For that whole process, How much of that is auditable to the point where you could know for sure if something went wrong?
Do you know?
Is it 95%?
Is it 50%?
I don't know.
And isn't that the most important question?
The most important question is, would it be possible to do it?
Now, if nobody knew how to do it, that doesn't mean it's impossible.
That might mean that a state actor could do it, but somebody else couldn't if they were a lesser hacker.
Well, anyway, if you have an engineering mind, you look at the election system and you say to yourself, this is no accident after years and years and years and years.
And the fact that neither side seems to be fixing the bigger issues suggests that we have it this way for a reason.
Now, what would be the reason They would have a system that can't be audited to the point where the citizens are sure it was correct.
What would be the point of that?
The only point is to give you the option of cheating.
If you can think of another reason for that design, I'm all ears.
Because I don't think Elon Musk can think of another reason.
And if you're still confused, talk to an engineer.
If you talk to an English major, they may not get this.
They may not be understanding what I'm saying, but a design that stays that way after 10 years of the same complaint, that's a choice.
That's not a problem.
It's a choice.
All right.
Here's the Biden dementia update.
Oh my God.
Did he have a bad weekend or bad week?
Uh, he said among other things, when I was vice president, things were kind of bad during the pandemic.
What happened was Barack said to me, go to Detroit and help fix it.
Well, the poor mayor, he spent more time with me than he might've ever going, uh, than he ever, he ever going to have to, I don't know.
And they slurred some stuff.
Uh, so the first thing you need to know is that Joe Biden was not vice president, uh, or yeah, the pandemic.
Didn't happen during the Barack Obama presidency.
How in the world does Joe Biden not know that the pandemic didn't even happen when he was vice president?
And he's got a whole story about it, what he did during the thing that didn't happen.
And then he said, slurring his words, "'And here with us today is Hersh Goldberg Pollen.'" Now, what we believe he said was, "'And here with us today is Hersh Goldberg Pollen.'" Who is actually an American Israeli still being held hostage by Hamas.
So, if still alive, Hirsch is in a tunnel somewhere, probably in Gaza, but according to Biden, he's here with us today!
Where's your Biden?
So, and then there's a compilation clip just of his recent gaffe.
Oh, there's a compilation clip of just his gaffes about January 6.
He called it July 6, he's called it June 6, and now he's called it an erection.
Well, what about the erection?
He actually called it an erection.
Like, it didn't even slightly sound like insurrection.
And then it gets even better.
On Face the Nation, Two of the hosts were talking about video of Joe Biden, and one was challenging the other host to determine if a short video of Biden was AI generated or real.
So they play the clip, and so CBS's Margaret Brennan was asked if it looked like real or AI.
And she cleverly noticed that the image of Biden, the thing that was supposed to be Biden, did not blink for 17 seconds.
And she's like, okay, it doesn't blink.
It's definitely AI.
To which I said, no, if it's AI, it's going to blink.
What?
You think the AIs don't know to blink?
That would be pretty basic stuff that they would have built into it.
So no, And then she found out that the video she thought was obviously AI, because no human could act like that, she found out was the actual Biden.
Yeah.
And he happened to be on his wide-eyed drugs, I guess.
You know there's two Bidens, right?
There's one that looks like an empty vessel, where his eyes are wide open, and he's got the Hillary Clinton surprise mouth.
Allow me to do my impression.
You know, that face.
So sometimes he's got that one where he looks like an empty vessel.
There's not a soul in there or a thought.
But other times he has the demon possession look where his eyes are completely squinted closed and his mouth gets tight.
Oh, those white supremacists, they have veins sticking out of their necks.
Demons.
And when I see that, I just think, how are they the same person?
I don't know any drug that can do that.
I mean, that looks like straight up demon possession.
I don't believe in demon possession, but it sure as hell looks like it.
It looks exactly like there's a demon in there.
I mean, if I were doing a movie about it, that's what it would look like.
He's got those bulging veins.
Yeah.
Demon.
Well, I guess the Democrats raised, or Biden did, $51 million in April.
Wow.
Happened to be far less than Trump and the GOP, which was 76 million.
So, Joe Biden is doing such a bad job, and he's so gone, that the guy that they're trying to put in jail, who spent the whole time in court, has out-raised them in money.
I think this lawfare thing is just the best fundraisers ever.
Yeah.
And I'm going to say that, you know, as we watch Biden fall apart, I'm not supposed to enjoy it because it's an elderly person who's got, you know, clear issues physically and with his health.
Now, normally that would not be any cause for humor.
But this is sort of a special case because the Democrats have been gaslighting me and most of you.
For now, so many years, they're watching their gaslighting dissolve while we all watch in slow motion.
It's the fact that it's happening slowly, but certainly, that makes it just so delicious.
If Biden had just suddenly flipped out and, you know, 48 hours later they did a, you know, the 25th Amendment and took him out, I would say to myself, oh, that's just sad.
It's too, you know, it's too bad, too bad for him.
But the fact that they leave him in there, When he's so far past his expiration date and the brain is clearly not working.
The fact that they're still trying to sell this to us as there's nothing to see here.
No, he might have been a little tired, but I don't know what you're talking about.
What?
You see a problem?
He outworks us all day long.
I tell you, we have trouble keeping up with him.
We can't even keep up.
And it just gets funnier and funnier because he can't even walk and talk and finish a sentence.
And the more degraded he is, while they stick with there's nothing wrong here, it just gets funnier.
Now, am I the only one who thinks this is just getting better and better?
And I do not want him to be replaced before Election Day.
There was a point where maybe I was hoping for it.
But at this point, oh, come on, you've got to make it to the finish line, or the starting line, I guess.
I so want him to go all the way to election day.
I so want him.
Now, you notice that a number of people seem to be abandoning the Democrats.
I saw that, uh, who is this famous person who was posing?
Amber Rose.
She took a photo with Trump and put it on her Instagram and she's influential in the music business.
Uh, so she's clearly noticing.
You're seeing a lot of other rappers and influential black Americans who are saying, uh, I think we're noticing.
And now I have a, uh, I have a question about black Americans.
Do you think that black Americans are sort of primed to be more suspicious of, you know, there's something up?
Do you think there would be something in the lived experience that would cause, you know, one group of Americans to be just a little more suspicious and distrustful of the government, you know, the Tuskegee experiments and all that?
So, if I were a black American and I were watching the Democrats try to sell me that there's nothing wrong with Joe Biden, while I can't afford gas and I can't afford groceries, don't you think I would be among the first to abandon that ship?
Like, if I felt I'd been lied to over and over and over again, you know, more than the average person, I think I would be primed to say, you know, that is clearly not A functioning person right there.
Let's try something else.
The Snapchat founder donated to Trump?
Is that in the news?
I haven't seen that.
That would be surprising.
Wow.
If that's true, I'll need a fact check on that.
Well, if you watched the Gutfeld Show last night, it was a banger.
Bill Maher was on as a guest.
I have to say it was the best show.
I'm pretty sure it's the best show that Greg has ever done.
It was just freaking hilarious.
The writing was amazing.
Shout out to the writers.
But Greg brought home the best performance that I've seen in any venue.
It was just masterful.
The whole thing was just brilliant.
But anyway, Bill Maher was there.
They do agree on some things about wokeness going too far, so that they'd have some agreement on what's politically correct and what you should be able to say and stuff like that.
Now, no surprise on that, but their difference is, as Bill Maher pointed out, that Trump does not concede elections.
Now, of all the things he would mention, About Trump versus Biden.
The thing he decides is the focus point and the most important is that Trump does not concede elections.
Now, Greg pointed out, but he's not president now.
I mean, these are my words, not his.
He's not president now because he conceded the last election.
So why wouldn't you think you would do the same thing you did before?
And Bill Maher said, That he was right when he first predicted it.
He said it was among the first that the Republicans, or that Trump would try to stay in office if he lost.
So he's got a prediction that he's loyal to, okay?
Because it would be embarrassing to say, I said he would stay in office and then he didn't, and then admit that he was wrong.
Because we don't like to admit we're wrong.
So instead, he's interpreted it that Trump leaving office peacefully is the same as not leaving office.
Now, I don't know how you get to that, and Greg tried to correct him by saying, but he did leave office.
That's the way it works.
I'm putting some words in his mouth.
It's not unusual to challenge an election result.
The Democrats have been doing it for years.
It's not illegal to say things.
It's not illegal to make a phone call.
And then when it got to the phone call, Bill Maher was on the, uh, he called that guy in Georgia and said, I need 11,000 votes.
And Greg said, he didn't say that.
He said, I want you to find them.
Which means, in any reasonable interpretation of the word find, is that they already exist if you were to count the votes better.
Bill said that was absolutely ridiculous and that find really was sort of mafia talk for invented.
Now, that is pure crazy.
It's pure crazy that you think ordinary words mean different than ordinary words, because that's the only way you can make your narrative work, is if the words that people use in an ordinary sense, just this one time, mean different than what those words mean in every other context.
Now, this is what I call going down the hoax funnel.
The hoax funnel is where you start with something that There's a reason that you believed it, even if you were wrong.
So you're not crazy, at the top of the hoax funnel.
That's where you heard something, maybe you heard that Trump said they were finding people who are Nazis.
Now, if you heard that, you could have a certain reaction before you knew it wasn't true.
But as it gets debunked, people go down what I call the hoax well, to more and more just absurd beliefs, trying to find anything they can cling to, That they can defend when there's nothing there.
And I would say, to imagine that the guy who did leave peacefully, and I like to use this example, I've never heard anybody else use this.
We know from emails and messages that Don Jr.
certainly had no idea that anybody was planning an insurrection, and was certainly against it.
Now, who really believes That Trump had planned an insurrection, like an actual insurrection, and had failed to mention it to Don Jr.
Now, how do you even hold that in your head as something that happened in the real world?
Now, you might say, oh, well, he didn't plan it, but when the time came, he definitely tried to create an insurrection.
There's no evidence of that.
The evidence is he wanted peace, the evidence is he genuinely believed the election was rigged, and that if you looked harder you could find out it was rigged.
All the evidence is really, really clearly in one direction, but if you go down the hoax funnel, or well, you end up with things like the word find means a different thing, or that the guy who did leave peacefully Never asked anybody to do anything violent, had no control of any military, except the only control of the military was to try to stop the protesters.
But he was stopped in his ability to stop them, because the Democrats turned down the help.
So, I feel like that's still TDS, but in my opinion, I think that Bill Maher and Trump just have a personal disagreement.
It really doesn't sound like the rest of his opinions.
Let me put it this way.
If you were to take a long list of Bill Maher's opinions on everything, I would agree with most of them.
And when I don't agree, I would at least see the reasoning.
This one's different.
This does not have the look of a reasoned opinion.
Even one you would disagree with.
It looks like some weird cognitive dissonance hallucination kind of thing.
So I think it's probably there's something personal going on there that we don't know about, don't need to know about.
Well, the Bidenomics is a total failure.
And apparently if you adjust it for inflation, which Biden likes to forget to do, household net worth after three years in office for Biden, it was up under 1% and for Trump, it was up 16%.
For Trump, it was up 16%.
So not even close.
But I also like to point out that presidents don't necessarily cause the economic situation.
So it is not true that therefore it is obvious that Trump would have a better economy, although I think he would.
But it's equally not true that Biden did a good job with the economy.
He may have done no job at all, but he didn't do a good job.
We can rule that out.
The other interesting thing on Bill Maher's appearance on Gutfeld was that there was a clip played of Joe Biden saying that it's so dangerous for black people in America and so we're a racist country and blah, blah, blah.
And even Bill Maher said that it wasn't helpful.
It's like living in the past.
It completely ignores the fact.
And believe it or not, Bill Maher said this out loud on TV.
That there are situations in which it's to your benefit to be a person of color, and there are situations in which it's not a benefit, and it's completely different than it used to be.
Because if you can go somewhere where you're not only just treated equally, but you're treated as a superior, meaning that you're a superior right, that you'd have a right to go to the top of the line in a number of domains, and it's hard to It's hard to ignore that.
So if you have a world in which there are places you can go to have an advantage, that's really as good as we can do.
We can't make it so you have equality or advantage in everything you do in life.
Everybody has the same advantage.
It's just not practical.
But you could create a situation where every person could find a place where they do have an advantage.
So if you have a strategy that can work, That's maybe as good as we can do.
We can keep pushing on it, but that's probably as good as we can do.
Rasmussen did a poll on how many people think the New York case against Trump is a witch hunt.
52% agree with the categorization of witch hunt.
A majority of the citizens are watching the justice system, and by a majority, thin, but a majority, They believe that it's not even close to justice.
It's literally a witch hunt.
Now, it's the weirdest thing to watch this in action.
And again, I want the Stormy D'Angelo Cohen trial to go as long as possible.
Because every day it happens, the public gets to see the truth.
And the truth is that the Department of Justice is completely corrupt at this point.
The courts are just corrupt.
There's no other way to put it.
I'm going to stop saying, oh, I think there's some bias.
Oh, I think this legal system was imperfect.
No, this is just pure corruption.
And they feel so confident that they can do it right in front of us.
And watching this completely blow up in their faces, while Biden is disintegrating at the same time, it couldn't be better.
I mean, this is what everybody needed to see.
You need to see what is the outcome of our current system where George Soros decides who's in charge.
This is what you get.
You get a witch hunt.
Very predictable, by the way, very predictable.
But despite the fact that over half of the voters think it's a witch hunt, how many think that it'll be convicted anyway?
About the same number.
Over half of the people watching this believe it's a witch hunt, and about the same number believe he's going to get convicted anyway.
Now, if you listen to the bad guys, you know, the MSNBCs of the world, they're trying to spin it as best they can to make it sound like he deserves to be convicted, and their current argument is you have to ignore all the testimony.
And just look at some documents.
That's actually what they're trying to tell you.
I mean, it sounds like I'm leaving something out.
But no, the MSNBC, some of the experts are saying, well, they can make the case just on the documents.
Well, that's not what I heard.
I've been following the case a little bit, and I'm pretty sure they can't make the case just on the documents.
You know why I'm sure of that?
Cause they put all those other people in the stand.
There must've been some reason for all that.
And, and the other people ended up being exculpatory, but it gets better.
So apparently the judge got into a kind of a shouting match with one of the witnesses Costello and Costello was the attorney for Cohen who had been released from his attorney client privilege to testify.
And apparently Costello just thinks this judge is such a piece of shit.
That he couldn't stop having attitude on the stand, and it turned into a big ol' thing where he had to clear the court and yell at Costello, don't give me side-eye, you know, you gotta show me respect.
But why would you show him respect?
I think a judge has a little bit of responsibility to do things that are a little bit legal, and a little bit not obviously witch-hunt, and a little bit obviously not bigoted.
No, I think Costello should give him all the side-eye he wants.
Side-eye and dirty looks are exactly the right approach.
That's what fits the situation.
But he was shut down.
And then one of the defense's main witnesses was an ex-chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
The reason you would need an ex-head of the Federal Election Commission is that the question is about a campaign contribution.
And apparently, According to the ex-head, Brad Smith, he's saying that the law is so complicated that the judge probably doesn't understand it.
And that you would need somebody who lived and breathed and was the head of the organization, even to explain what the election laws are.
And he was denied, he's not going to be allowed to testify.
A legitimate expert.
He was the head of the whole group.
Right?
That's about as expert as you can get.
He's not being allowed to testify.
And his testimony would have been completely exculpatory.
In other words, he would have explained why, for technical reasons that you and I wouldn't understand, and even the judge wouldn't understand, but he understands the election laws, he would tell you that the whole thing's, you know, mute and it's not a crime.
Now, I don't know the details because it's complicated.
That was his whole point.
It's too complicated for you to easily understand.
But apparently there's something about dates of things happening that if you understood the dates of things that happened and how the law has its own deadlines and dates, that it couldn't be a crime because of the date.
Now, imagine being the jury and having the expert on election law come up and say, well, It's complicated.
I can see why everybody would have missed this, but there are specified deadlines for things, and if you don't hit them, there is no crime.
And so those were not met, so there's no crime.
I don't remember if something happened after something or before something, but it was one of those situations.
Now, how could that not be the most important thing to hear?
The most important thing?
And as Brad Smith points out on X, Essentially, it means that the jury instructions, which tend to be the most important part of the case, will be given by somebody who doesn't understand election law.
So they're going to be ruling on, you know, election law and how it's accounted.
The accounting is the hard part, I guess.
But they're going to get instructions for a judge who probably doesn't understand that area of law.
And they reject it.
The person who could explain it to the jury so that they would understand for the first time what the actual law was.
Now, I don't think there's any doubt what's going on here.
This is the lawfare of all lawfares.
And, uh, if he's convicted, we all know that he'll get off if it goes to the Supreme Court.
Um, but also Bill Maher was on CNN.
And he was complaining about Democrats taking so long to bring up all this lawfare that Trump was able to successfully delay at least three of them until after the election.
And Bill Maher saying, you know, how could they be so basically incompetent that they didn't start sooner?
So we wouldn't be in this situation where he could just delay it past the deadline.
To which I say, don't you think the waiting was part of the deal?
I think the waiting was so it's closer to the election.
Wasn't that their plan?
I think they had three cases they knew they would lose.
And you don't want to lose before the election.
That's worse.
I think what the bad guys wanted is for Trump to delay it past the election.
Because that's their best shot.
Because otherwise they probably knew their cases were so weak.
That he would be 4-for-4 in acquittals.
You don't want to go into the election with your opponent 4-for-4 acquitted against the lawfare that you tried to take him out with.
But this way, if they don't get any results, this way they can say, well, 91 indictments, and it's still alive.
So, I disagree with Bill Maher.
I think it might have been entirely intentional to get it as close to the election as possible, and maybe even make sure there's no result, so that he can't be innocent.
That's what I think.
Anyway, I say this again because I can't get it out of my head.
The MSNBC hosts, not every one of them, but I'm going to mention a number of them, I clearly have mental illness, and I don't see this on CNN, and I don't see it, you know, on people who just disagree with me.
But it is so glaringly obvious with these characters that I don't know how you can watch that network and think it's anything but the Mental Health Channel.
I'm going to name the names, and you tell me if you think, if you watch them on TV, that they exhibit good mental health.
And I say again, I don't say this about anybody on CNN.
I mean, I might disagree with Jake Tapper, but he doesn't look crazy.
Not even a little bit.
I don't think Wolf Blitzer looks like he's in therapy every day.
I mean, he might be, but he doesn't look like it.
But why does Joy Reid seem like she actually has mental illness?
Why does Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Morning Joe, or Mika, why do they all act like they have severe mental illness?
Well, I did some googling and I found out that Rachel Maddow does talk openly about her severe mental illness.
So apparently she has some kind of mania and depression.
And the depression, which makes her lose her will to live, she can have as much as several days per week.
So every week there are days when she doesn't want to live.
This is a few years ago she said this.
I don't know if it's any better.
But when I look at her, When I watch Rachel Maddow, I do see the mania, you know, when the walls are closing in, and she seems way more excited than the news indicates she should be.
That looked like mania to me.
Oh, yeah.
Walls are closing in.
Yeah.
But she self-identifies as someone who has these mania situations.
So I think to myself, well, I'm going to give you credit for honesty.
I do appreciate the honesty and the transparency, but it's all I see when she does her job.
All I see is mental illness.
I don't see opinions.
It looks like there's just something wrong.
Uh, same now also Mika.
Uh, Mika's also spoken honestly and openly about her struggles with, uh, stress and anxiety.
And she found some therapy that she thinks is helping.
Now, I don't think that men are as likely to mention their mental health situations.
But when I look at Lawrence O'Donnell, he just looks like he's having a mental health crisis while he's talking.
Now, I have no confirmation of that, but it just looks like it.
And Morning Joe looks like he's just completely lost it.
I don't know what's happening with him lately.
Now, let me ask you, but do you see it?
Do you see that MSNBC and CNN, they both lean heavily left, but CNN doesn't have mentally ill people on it.
Does Van Jones look like he's mentally ill when he says something I disagree with?
Never.
Never.
He looks completely smart and in charge.
And, I don't know, am I supposed to keep ignoring this?
It's so in my face at this point.
How am I supposed to ignore that it just looks like mental illness?
Well, apparently Zelensky's official term in office is over and now he's extended his rule with martial law.
Jack Posobiec's reporting on that.
And it's just what you thought it was.
So apparently we're on the side of the dictator against the other dictator.
So that's not good.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have in my prepared remarks.
Was there anything that you were dying to hear me talk about that I didn't mention?
Any topics that you'd love to hear about?
I'll wait to see your comments take about a half a minute to come in.
Well, I think this is one of the best shows you've ever seen, probably.
But you really do have to watch my debate with the AI.
It's pinned to my X-profile, but you can see it on Locals and Rumble and YouTube as well.
YouTube already put a warning on it, by the way.
So I debated with an AI and didn't say anything untrue.
I made no claims of facts which YouTube disagrees with.
But it felt the need.
Apparently my argument was sufficiently strong that YouTube had to put a warning on it that nothing was found wrong with the election.
Now that's what I said as well.
I said directly, I'm aware of no proof that the election was rigged.
It's just that it's designed in a way that suggests it's possible.
Yeah.
You can look at even the comments here, the people who saw it are saying it's amazing, etc.
Warning for hypotheticals.
I don't know what that means.
All right, ladies and gentlemen on YouTube and Rumble and X, thanks for joining.
I will see you tomorrow, same time.
Have a great day.
Export Selection