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, Climate Change Worries, Expert Distrust, ChatGPT George Floyd, AI Narrative Programming, Food Lobby Spending, Monoclonal Antibodies, Whole Food Diets, Working Moms Microdosing, Military Base Penetrations, Trump NYC Trial, Trump Libertarian Convention, Bitcoin Elizabeth Warren, Ross Ulbricht, Ana Navarro, RFK Jr., Hillary Clinton, Dave Chappelle, Half-pinion, Ron Brownstein, James Carville, Biden West Point, Hoax Debunking AI, 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
Hasn't been off to a good start this morning, but I think it's going to get better.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to Sunday holiday weekend levels, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, gels, a stein, a canteen jug or flask of 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 the other day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Now go.
Back on track.
Bye.
Well, I understand that in the pre-show I lost my Wi-Fi connection.
So the subscribers on Locals did not get to see me destroy my coffee machine.
I thought I was doing it for your entertainment, but turns out I just destroyed my coffee machine for my own entertainment.
But it is no more.
So I used the backup coffee machine.
It's fine.
Here's a question for you.
Doesn't it seem like a weird coincidence to you that the elite colleges have imploded and college looks worthless at the same time that AI is completely replacing college?
Now, it hasn't happened yet, but what are the odds that both of those things would happen roughly at the same time?
Is that a complete coincidence?
These are the sort of things that make me think we're living in a simulation.
And also, we get robots at exactly the time in human history when human reproduction is dropping.
Really?
We get AI just when colleges are no longer affordable or, you know, they have their own problems?
And we get robots just when we run out of babies.
And that's all a coincidence.
And then when we need AI, As soon as we need lots of power for AI and for Bitcoin, then suddenly we solve all our nuclear problems.
Oh yeah, we could do nuclear.
Sure, all the nuclear you want.
Are these weird coincidences?
Almost like our environment is simulated and it's got some kind of Some kind of built-in stabilizers, so if one big thing breaks, another thing's all ready to take its place?
I don't know.
There's a few more of those I'm going to mention during the show.
I was just watching a reel on Instagram just before I got on, and there's a claim there that I want to see if it's true.
And the claim was just by some random user, who said that he went to the Democrats' webpage, And it said there were 16 groups they were advocating for.
So there were, you know, minorities and women and Native Americans and black and Hispanic and LGBTQ and down the list.
He said there was only one identifiable group, you know, sort of a big group, that was not mentioned.
Men.
So men are the only thing excluded from the Democrats.
They're advocating for everything except men.
Except that's what, that's what the Instagram guy said.
Do you think that's true?
No, because if they're advocating for Native Americans, some of them are men.
They're advocating for black Americans.
Half of them are men.
No, it turns out that the only thing that the Democrats are not in favor of is white men.
And it's right there on the website.
It couldn't be more obvious.
Oh, well.
Peter Thiel is saying that AI is bad news for people with math skills.
We might be just a few years away from those jobs being the ones that are most impacted.
Then maybe your verbal skills and your human skills will be the important thing.
Well, if you want to know how bad it is for people with math skills, yesterday I downloaded Python, the programming language, and I realized that I can become a programmer just by asking ChatGPT what to do.
It just tells me.
So yesterday I thought, all right, I don't know anything about Python.
How do I get it?
Oh, here's a website.
Download it.
All right, well then how do I edit it?
Oh, use one of these editors.
Okay, well then how do I run it?
Open the terminal program on your computer, go to the file you just saved, execute it.
Really?
How do I write a program that says, hello Scott, here it is, just plug this into your editor and then save it.
Really?
It's really gonna be that easy?
It was.
So I'm actually going to see if I can build some apps, you know, in five minutes, just see if AI will do it for me.
It doesn't do much of anything else, but maybe it'll do some programming.
Axios, you know, it's funny to watch Axios because I consider them the most political at the moment of, you know, except maybe MSNBC.
So whenever they're on to some big theme, you know, it's not about the news.
It's entirely about politics.
So today, again, they're trying to bore us with some ICE news.
I didn't even click on the article.
So the point of it is not the detail.
The point of it is they've got to come up with something that's bad for Trump that you can't argue with.
We think the ICE level around some area is beginning to decrease.
Therefore, vote for Biden.
Cause you'll drown.
They are so out of reasons that, that they're just like flailing around.
And I don't know if I'm the only one that thinks this, but since the only argument for climate change was that 98% of experts are on the same side.
And then we went through the pandemic and we saw that 98% of the experts on the same side means it's definitely bullshit.
Do you know what would be real?
85% of the experts on one side.
That would strike me as real.
Do you know what strikes me as totally not real?
98% of the experts on one side.
Do you know what that tells me?
That tells me it's either the most definite thing of all time, which it isn't, or they have a monetary incentive to all say the same thing.
And it's that last one.
They have a monetary incentive to all say the same thing.
Same as the pandemic.
So I think that belief in, or at least the alarm about climate change, may have largely disappeared without anybody even realizing why or when it happened.
I'll bet if you could somehow measure how worried people are about climate change, it would be completely different after the pandemic.
Maybe they'd still say it's a big issue or something, but I'll bet if you could measure, like in their body, How much they're really stressed about it?
Oh, but it's way less.
All right.
So the CEO of Google says that they don't know how to fix AI's lying and hallucinating, because it gives you answers that are completely made up.
And he says it's not clear how to fix that.
Well, here again is another case of you should have asked Scott.
Now, I haven't heard anybody else say this, I might be the only person saying this, that the way they build AI is based on humans.
I think I'm the only one who says that.
I mean, obviously it's based on human speech, but more than that, it's how we think.
We also think in words.
In other words, if a sentence makes sense, we're convinced that there's some logic there.
But there isn't.
There's just a sentence that makes sense in a grammar way.
So we are, in fact, people who hallucinate and lie, and AI is trained completely on humans who hallucinate and lie.
And how could it be anything else?
The only way that they could make this model not lie is to make sure it only answered things that were, you know, on some database or came out of a Google search or something more reliable.
And even then, I don't know if it would necessarily always give you the right answer.
It might lie a little bit.
So no, that's not fixable.
You should have just asked me.
As soon as they said it's based on human patterns, I could have told you that it would be a liar.
Obviously.
So you want to hear an example?
I had a long conversation with ChatGPT yesterday.
On the George Floyd situation, and I said this, if you were to ignore opinions, including the opinion of the coroner, and just look at the facts, you know, the coroner report without the opinion part, you know, what drugs were in the system, what medical problems he had, he had a heart problem.
I said, would you conclude that it was homicide?
And ChatGPT said, oh yes, totally, because the contributing factor was the kneeling on the neck.
And then I said, all right, but let me understand.
Are you saying that definitely there was enough drugs in him that we can't say for sure the drugs killed him, or for sure that the heart condition he had with the drugs killed him?
We can't say that for sure, but could you say there's a high likelihood that it killed him?
And ChatGPT said, yes.
There's a high likelihood that drugs alone are what killed him.
So then I said, okay, so if there's a high likelihood that drugs alone killed him, doesn't that pass the standard of there's not reasonable doubt?
I mean, there is reasonable doubt that the knee on the neck made a difference.
And here's where ChatGPT said, nope, if it contributed, it's homicide.
So I asked some clarifiers and I said, But are you saying that even if you knew the contribution wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome, it's still homicide?
Yes.
Is that true?
Or is that ChatGPT hallucinating?
Apparently that is the law.
That's my understanding.
So in other words, if there's somebody drowning in the ocean, and you're on the other side of the world and you spit in the ocean, You're guilty of homicide.
Because sure, the ocean alone and the fact that they couldn't swim, that was going to kill that person.
No matter what you did.
But if you spit in the ocean, you added to the volume of the ocean.
Therefore, in your own way, you contributed to the death.
You're guilty of homicide.
Now, I'm exaggerating into the ridiculous here to make my point.
So, you wouldn't really be guilty of homicide if you spit in the ocean.
But my point is, what a weird standard that is.
If it's true, I mean, does Chad GPT not have the law right?
Or is it explaining the law right and the law is stupid?
Because if you put me on the jury and you said, oh, the knee definitely contributed, however, we don't know if it would have happened on its own.
How in the world do you convict him for that?
Unless you're just afraid of leaving the jury room after you don't convict him.
So, my point is that it seems to me that the thumb has already been put on that story.
The fact that AI is so rigorous about following the narrative, kind of the approved narrative of things, Suggests that the way you keep it from hallucinating is that you hard code some answers.
You just put your thumb on the answers, and so it'll come out saying what the humans want you to believe is the narrative, and then they'll call that true.
So I think AI is going to go in a very bad direction, and they'll have all these embedded rules that you think are the AI thinking, but it's really the creators of the AI who put in some embedded rules.
So the AI, I'm using two forms of AI right now, trying to build a little app.
ChatGPT has its own little thing.
You can build your own little version of it.
And then Delphi AI.
And both of them have a place where the user can put in their own rules.
So it's a general AI, but you can put in rules that say, when this happens, only do this.
When this happens, only do that.
You don't think those rules are all over AI already, from the creators?
If you can put in your own custom rules, and it will defer to those before it answers, then we don't have AI.
We've basically laundered the opinions of Democrats.
Let me say that again.
AI is not its own intelligence.
They're simply laundering the opinions of the Democrats who made them, so you think it's some kind of independent intelligence.
No, it's not.
They're telling you what the narrative is, and they're just making you think it came through an advanced intelligence, so how can you argue with that?
Laundering opinion.
It's pretty brilliant.
Well, there's new technology for maybe reducing nuclear power waste by 80%.
So I won't bore you with the details, but it looks promising.
It works.
They can basically just change the form of the waste into some lesser form.
Now, and then you just store it on site.
You just put it in barrels and there's plenty of room.
You just store it where it was and it's not any worse for the community than if you drove it somewhere else.
Well, the Financial Times is reporting Um that there's uh there's data from this non-profit group called Open Secrets and it found that uh the the food company spent the big food big food in the United States and maybe the world spent 106 million dollars on lobbying in 2023.
That's twice as much as tobacco and alcohol combined and last year's spend was 21 percent higher than 2020.
So, it's basically the big companies who are lobbying in favor of food that's bad for you.
High sugar and highly processed foods.
So, hundreds of millions are being spent so that you, the consumer, are not protected from the food that's killing you.
In the real world, that's happening.
So, If you're wondering why is everybody so fat and unhappy, it's because there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to guarantee that your government doesn't do anything about the crime that they're doing to your body, basically, the poison they're putting in it.
But on the good news, if the food makes you fat, you can take ozempic, and then you can take a drug to cure you from the other industry's bad behavior.
And then if the Ozempic damages you, you can go to the healthcare industry to get a fix for what the Ozempic did to you.
And then if you get cancer, there's a new story that there's a groundbreaking, it was a small study, but 100% of the people, I think just 12 patients, but 100% of them with ass cancer got a remission.
A hundred percent.
12 out of 12.
Now, 12 people is not, you know, your statistical significant group, but you don't really cure cancer in 12 out of 12 people.
That's not a thing, but it's a thing now.
And they use a monoclonal antibody called Doster-Nimab.
So it makes me wonder, is this a special kind of cancer that they could use this special kind of new thing?
Or is it something they could adapt to other kinds of cancers really quickly?
So there might be something going on that's really exciting.
So let me put it all together.
So you get the food industry that's lobbying the government so they can keep poisoning us.
But that's okay, because there's a drug industry that can give you Ozempic to at least make you lose weight.
But if the Ozempic causes you to be unhealthy, if there's any side effects, There's the healthcare industry that can keep you forever sick while treating you, and if all that doesn't work and you get cancer, now there's a cancer drug that they can give you to maybe cure you.
So, maybe we should just eat right in the first place.
Just saying.
Here's an update on my continued experiment of eating only healthy things.
I found I had some kind of allergy, so I was more motivated than normally.
So I cut wheat out of my diet, pretty much all pure sugary things.
I don't do it all.
And that required me to limit what I eat to a fairly small group of things, because I wanted to avoid the highly processed stuff.
And I gotta tell you, my health has been amazing.
Like the difference when you eat only, you know, not always organic, but just like whole foods, you know.
So if I eat an avocado now, I just eat the avocado.
I don't even put it in soy sauce, because I'm not even trusting the soy sauce.
So I'm going for really basic, a banana, an avocado, you know, stuff like that.
And I feel great.
I do get enough protein, in case you're wondering.
All right.
There's an article today, where was it?
Maybe the Wall Street Journal, that said that working moms are using a lot of microdosing of mushrooms now.
Now, I thought it was only my own experience.
But the story says, this is just anecdotal, but there's somebody in the story who said that 8 out of 10 of the working moms they know are microdosing every day on mushrooms.
And that if you just microdose, they say it gives you ability to concentrate and really focus and makes you less depressed and does all kinds of things.
Now, I'm not promoting it.
I'm just saying what they say.
And my own experience was that everybody was doing mushrooms.
But I thought, eh, it's a California thing.
But apparently it's not.
There was a story of like a whole bunch of women who went to dinner and every one of them had mushrooms and chocolate in their purse.
Like everyone there had their own mushrooms with them.
Not even that they do them, they all had them.
They were carrying.
I think this story is just going to get bigger and bigger, because whenever I hear about somebody microdosing, they seem to be pretty happy about it.
So I'm not recommending it.
It's not my thing, but it's happening.
So at Fox News, there was a Fleet Forces Commander, Admiral, who said that we're seeing more attempts by foreign nationals to penetrate bases in the United States two or three times a week.
Wait, what?
Foreign nationals, as in people who are not citizens of this country, as in people who are citizens of countries that are adversaries, are trying to penetrate our military bases two or three times a week?
No, I'm just kidding.
If you heard that was true, you would panic, wouldn't you?
It's not true.
That's not true.
That's just the Navy bases.
That's just the Navy bases.
Two or three times a week, fricking terrorists are trying to, I don't know if they're terrorists, but it's people who shouldn't be there and definitely shouldn't be there penetrating the bases.
You don't think something's coming?
Oh, something's coming.
Thank you, Joe Biden.
I don't know if it'll come before election day, but something's coming.
There's a story which I consider fake news.
The story is that Biden is planning to do a speech after whenever there's a verdict in the Stormy Daniels hush payment thing.
But I believe it's an anonymous insider source, and I believe there's no way it's going to actually happen.
So what have I told you about anonymous insider, insider White House sources?
Never true.
I haven't seen one yet, but The New York Post, I think, is looking for confirmation, which means it's not confirmed.
Gateway Pundit, I think, reported it as well.
But I think we're going to have to treat this one as very unlikely.
Here's how you know.
Number one, anonymous source.
Number two, one source.
One source.
I mean, one source used to be bad enough.
Like, you wouldn't even do a story with one source.
But one anonymous source?
There's no way that's true.
It feels to me like somebody may have been trying to embarrass the New York Post because it's a reliably right-leaning publication.
So it looks like maybe a crackin' job where they give it a scoop, but it's a fake scoop, and if they run with it, it'll embarrass them later.
So at least their New York Post was looking for a confirmation.
I don't know what happened to them.
I don't think that's real.
And the other tell is those two on the nose.
So if we're all thinking that lawfare is happening against Trump, and the confirmation would be if the President of the United States came on and talked about the verdict as if he already knows what it is because he's planned to do it a week before it happens.
So it's supposed to make you think that the fix is in.
Because he's already planned to talk about it, which you would only do if you knew he was guilty.
That's the only reason you'd do it.
You wouldn't do a press conference when he's innocent.
You wouldn't, right?
So I think the story is a little too clean, meaning made up.
In the real world, things are a little more iffy than that.
So I'm going to say fake on that one.
I saw some people say, smart people in the news say, We really don't know what will happen if Trump gets convicted.
What will happen in the world if Trump gets convicted?
May I suggest this handy tip for understanding the world?
You should just ask me.
There's not really any doubt in my mind.
Do any of you have any doubt what would happen if he gets convicted on this Stormy thing?
His ratings will go up.
Like, what do you think's gonna happen?
There's no second thing that could happen.
I'll tell you what's not going to happen.
None of those libertarians are going to say, ooh, I was tempted to vote for Trump.
We'll talk about the libertarians in a bit.
I was tempted, but once the law fair got him on that fake Stormy Daniels thing, I don't even understand.
I've changed my mind.
Nobody.
See, here's the thing I think that Democrats are completely blind to.
They don't understand the degree of the risk that they've put the country at.
I don't think they know how much danger they've created.
And they don't know that Republicans do have this one quality which I really like about them.
When it comes time to vote, they're not going to fuck around.
That's what I love about Republicans.
You're just going to take care of business.
Nobody's going to be like, oh, he said the one thing I didn't like the one time.
He is so chaotic.
I think his tweets are mean.
They're not going to say that.
They're going to say, this is who we need to get the things we need.
We know what he is.
He's a known quality.
Boom.
Now, I also have this theory that there are certain personality types that if they persist long enough, you don't ask them to change anymore.
You just get used to it.
And Trump, I think, has now passed the barrier Where it's, he's becoming almost pretending to be a character of Trump.
I mean, he's always Trump.
He's his own person.
But now when he does very Trumpian things, they seem kind of, they're fun to watch.
Like you don't think, well, is he crazy?
Nobody else would say that in public.
And now you just go, oh, there's Trump.
He's being Trump again.
That is so Trumpy.
And at the Libertarian thing, he was so Trump.
Like he trumped it up like nobody's business, and it's just so entertaining to see somebody be relentlessly themselves.
So, I guess that's the better way to say it.
You can be an outlier and have a weird personality, and when people first meet you, they're going to be put off by it.
Because we're always put off by things that are different.
But if you're relentless, and you just never change, you're just always that person, people end up liking it.
Because it comes across as honest.
First impression, it's out of bounds.
But eventually he wears you down.
I think that's where Trump is.
I think Trump wore us down.
He's not changing.
You might as well enjoy the show.
That's what it feels like.
All right.
So Trump did appear at the Libertarian National Convention.
You've already seen the clips.
Vivek was there.
I think Vivek was behind Getting him to think that was a good idea.
And here's the things that made news from that, in the Trumpian way.
So basically, Trump suggested that they should nominate him, that the Libertarians should nominate him, even though he's not a Libertarian.
And there were loud boos when he said that, and then he played with them a little bit, and then he ends it with this, you know, you should vote for me, but only if you want to win.
Maybe you don't want to win.
Keep getting your 3% every four years.
Now, is that the most Trumpian statement you've ever heard in your life?
Maybe you don't want to win.
Nominate me, I'm not even in your party.
Who asks the Libertarians to nominate you when you're not even in the party and you're in the other party?
Only Trump.
Only Trump.
But do you think he can sell that?
Do you think he can sell?
Not.
They're not gonna nominate him, of course.
But do you think he can sell himself to the Libertarians?
Well, number one, he showed up.
He showed up.
That's a big part of sales.
You gotta show up.
He showed up.
But did he make the sale?
Listen to this.
He said, we will cut federal funding for any school pushing Marxist and communist race and gender theories on our children.
We'll keep men out of women's sports.
We will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.
I'll keep Elizabeth Warren and her goons away from your Bitcoin.
What a freaking great sentence that is.
Like, that's just a great sentence.
I will keep Elizabeth Warren and her goons away from your Bitcoin.
My God, you couldn't say that better.
But here's the best.
The sale is not made yet.
Here's where he makes the sale.
You ready?
The other stuff was just warm up.
Basically getting people to say yes.
Oh, yes, I'd like that.
Oh, yes, I like that.
I'm not convinced to vote for you, but yes, I like that.
Yes, yes, yes.
Here comes the sale.
On day one, if he's elected, Trump said he will pardon Ross Ulbricht.
Now, Ross is the one who built the Silk Road.
He's in jail for a billion years.
And the Libertarians had signs, you know, free Ross, free Ross.
Biden is not going to free Ross.
Trump just went in there, told them that their odds of winning are three percent.
But if they vote for him, they can get the thing that was the only thing important enough for them to bring massive signs to the rally.
There were no other signs.
The only signs, there were a lot of them, were Free Ross.
So Trump walks in, says, bam, bam, bam, bam, 3% you're going to get if you don't do it.
Vote for me.
What?
That doesn't even make sense.
I'll give you three things that you love.
Wow.
Keep your Bitcoin.
I'll take Elizabeth Warren out.
I won't give any money for mandates.
Keep men out of women's sports.
I'm going to cut your federal funding.
I'm almost there.
I'm almost there, Daddy Trump.
I'm almost there.
I'm the only one who's going to free Ross on day one.
Sailmaid.
Sailmaid.
You're a libertarian and you walk into that booth.
One person promised you one thing that he can definitely deliver.
And all you have to do is push that button.
You want a free Ross?
Push the button.
Now I'm not part of the conversation about freeing Ross Albrecht.
I have some, you know, I have a little too much personal stake in the fentanyl situation, if you know what I mean.
So, but I'm not going to stop it.
So it's not a big enough issue for me to care about one way or another, but if it made the sale, that was a hell of a, just a hell of a thing.
So I say to you again, And it just keeps being impressive.
The dog not barking is Trump making no mistakes.
I've never seen anything like this.
This is the best performance in a campaign so far of all time.
It's crazy.
The fact that he went at all.
The fact that he did the Bronx event.
All of it successful.
And then you see Anna Navarro on CNN.
By the way, it's hard not to mention this, but Anna Navarro, I'm guessing, either has a really good diet plan or she's on Ozempic.
People were speculating, but she's probably half as big as she used to be.
She's actually unrecognizable.
I didn't recognize her when she was on camera, but good for her.
So the first thing I would say is, I disagree with basically everything she's ever said in public, I think.
So, you know, I'm no fan of her work.
But I'm a big fan of anybody who takes care of their health.
So can we come together on that?
Can I just compliment Anna Navarro on taking care of business?
I don't know how she did it.
Maybe it was unpicked, whatever it took.
But good job.
And I was going to make a joke about how You know, we're all happy that there's less of her.
But I'm going to go to the high ground and say, you know, whoever you are, go get healthy.
We'll applaud you.
So I applaud that.
All right.
RFK Jr.
said he would not ban TikTok, but he would make the media companies create public political algorithms.
That sounds good when you first hear it, but I think it's missing the practical, real-world element, which is it's the algorithms that make those companies successful.
If they change the algorithm to just show you stuff you wanted to see, it's just Google search.
Hey, I guess I'll just do some Google search.
It's the making you mad and showing you what you thought was true already that makes it a product.
So you can't take the product out of the product.
The product is the algorithm.
If you change it to some generic thing that just shows you some balanced whatever, it's not anything.
You already had Google search.
You can go look at stuff that agrees with you anytime you want.
It's just that it was handy and it was right there.
If you take that away, what do you have?
LinkedIn?
You end up with LinkedIn, some boring social media company that you don't go to for fun.
All right.
Oh, but also on this other theme, Anna Navarro, she's pretty much given up on policy complaints about Trump, and she just goes for pure insults.
So watch how funny it is that every person in the Democrat Party have completely given up on policy and competence because Trump wins on policy.
According to all the polls.
And he definitely wins on competence, because there's nobody who thinks that Biden can cross the road without getting hit by a car.
So, if you don't have policy and competence, all they have left are personal insults.
Like, he's a big ol' meanie, racist, sexist.
That's it.
And if you weren't paying attention, You would imagine that, okay, people are always insulting Trump, so it's nothing new.
No, what's new is there's nothing else.
That's new.
There's nothing else.
It used to be they'd say, build the wall.
Oh, come on.
Come on, build the wall.
What kind of crazy talk is that?
But they don't have that.
Right?
It used to be, he's going to deport millions of people.
Yes.
What else do you have to say about that?
Right?
So he completely wins on policy and competence.
So it starts to get funny when you realize they don't have anything.
They literally have warmed over hoaxes.
That's it.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, as Trump was having his flawless weekend of campaigning, Joe Biden is not to be outdone.
He went to the Naval Academy and said that he had been appointed to the Naval Academy, which there is no record of that ever happening.
So maybe not a huge victory for the president.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has found another excuse for losing the 2016 election.
She said she blamed fellow women I think the New York Post said, fellow women.
I thought, is this a trans story?
Who are these fellow women?
Yeah, this fellow's a woman.
All right.
So Hillary Clinton blamed women for costing her the 2016 election because she wasn't perfect.
She said, I'm supposed to be perfect, and I guess I wasn't perfect, so I lost the women.
So, Hillary has now blamed the Russians for 2016, she's blamed the deplorables, and now she's blamed her base, the women.
So, do you see a pattern here?
Do you see that Democrats only blame other people?
Do you see that they're unable to take responsibility?
It's a very clear theme.
If something bad happened to me, it's because of you.
It's because of your racism.
It's because of your sexism.
If you would change, I would do better.
Yeah.
If only, if only you would do everything differently, I could finally succeed.
Okay.
So, uh, let's see the FBI, uh, you know, they've got this, uh, big, uh, DEI push now.
Um, and, Do I have to say anything else about that?
The FBI is making a big push for DEI.
Do you want the DEI hire FBI guy to kick down your door at 6 in the morning?
I don't really want the DEI hire.
And again, it has nothing to do with genes.
It has nothing to do with culture.
It's just a pipeline problem.
There's just not enough, so it forces people to lower their standards to hit their diversity target.
Has nothing to do with the people.
It's just math.
So no, the FBI is now completely incompetent, or will be.
Dave Chappelle was giving his stand-up, and I guess he said something that somebody in the audience didn't like.
And they yelled, shut the F up, when he said something that was supportive of the Palestinians.
And Chappelle responded, no, you shut the F up.
You don't take tens of billions from my country and go kill innocent women and children.
Now I'm on the same page about don't take my money to do it.
So the money question I think you should separate from the should you do it question.
But he kind of combined the two, which is muddy thinking.
The question of whether we should pay for it is a good question and a separate question.
The question of whether Israel should do what it's doing In Gaza, they're going to do with or without our money, so that could be a separate question.
So don't mix those up when you're talking about this.
You either don't like it, but separately, you could also not like paying for it.
But I would say that this is another example of a half-pinion.
I have no respect for half-pinions.
Dave Chappelle, please explain to us what you think would happen if Israel stopped fighting.
Just tell me what happens.
Okay, then Gaza is rebuilt, Hamas still stands, and now Hamas has given up?
Dave Chappelle?
Is that your view?
Hamas gives up then, right?
No.
They reconstitute.
Do you believe they won't?
And if they reconstitute, are they going to just do another or worse attack?
Why wouldn't they?
If they're more angry than before?
They have more justification because they'll have more arguments about the genocide, they'll call it, etc.
So just explain to me, Dave Chappelle, the other half of your opinion.
The half that you said I agree with.
Yeah, I don't like killing innocent women and children.
Hey, same page.
I don't like paying my money to people who are going to kill innocent women and children.
Same page.
Okay, now tell me what happens if you don't do that.
Because I can agree with the half that you stated.
Now state the other half.
Because it's the other half where we have the problem.
Not the half where everybody's in favor of... Oh, I think I'd like to go in public and tell you I'm the only person in the world who thought of this.
Has anybody else thought of, we should not kill women and children?
Has anybody else thought of that?
Or did I just have this genius idea of my own?
Have you guys thought of this at all?
That you should just stop killing women and children?
Half opinion.
Just show us the other half.
I can't even agree with it or disagree with it.
You're not done.
Finish the thought, and then I'll tell you if I agree or not.
But no, halfway, that's a half opinion.
CNN had on their show somebody named Ron Brownstein or Steen.
I never know the Steins from the Steens.
But Ron must be some kind of Democrat Important person.
And it was hilarious watching him say how they need to compete.
I'm paraphrasing.
So I'm going to say what he said, except he didn't say any of these things.
So I'm unfairly putting words in his mouth, because that's what I heard.
He didn't say any of these words.
It's just what I heard when he said other words.
What I heard was there's no way they can beat Trump on policy or competence, so they better concentrate on stuff like your candy is too small, fine people hoax, and he's going to steal my democracy.
And watching him actually say that out loud, again, didn't use any of those words, but he did say we should focus on the fine people hoax.
He actually said that.
He didn't call it a hoax.
Thinks it's real.
But then it got weirder because, you know, when you watch Democrats, if you don't watch them all the time, it just blows your mind that they can say things like that in public.
Like, really?
You think the election came down to these character issues?
The whole country is falling apart and we're going to worry that Trump might have said something bad about a woman or did a mean tweet or something.
But then at the end, Brownstein or Steen actually suggested that Trump might not show up for the debates.
Wow!
It's like the projection has reached these like just insane levels that he would actually say with his smug little stupid smile, you know, if Trump even shows up.
Like that's a possibility.
Let me put it in terms that you can all understand.
The only thing that could keep Trump from debating Biden in June would be Bill Cosby.
That's all I had.
Yeah, if Bill Cosby spiked his drink, maybe he wouldn't go.
But what in the world would keep, what would keep Trump from going to a debate with a guy who can't talk?
Come on.
Of course he's going to the debate.
James Carville continues to be hilarious, because on one hand he's crazy, on the other hand he's the only one who makes sense, and I cannot stop enjoying the contrast.
He's completely crazy, but he's also unfiltered.
And he's also the only one who says anything that makes sense.
So it's hard to hold it all in my head at the same time, which is what makes him fun, because you can't look away.
So recently he said, we keep wondering why these young people are not coming home to the Democrats.
Why are blacks not coming home to the Democrats?
Because Democrat messaging is full of shit, that's why.
Democrats went from, it's the economy stupid, which is what he invented by the way, it's the economy stupid, to you're stupid if you think the economy is bad.
That is so perfect.
But here's what you should see from that.
He says the messaging is not good.
This is what I'm telling you.
It's the same thing Anna Navarro's saying.
It's the same thing Ron Brownstein or Steen is saying.
Same thing Carville's saying.
It's the same thing I think Van Jones is saying.
It's the same thing everybody's saying.
They're saying the problem is how they talk about it.
They really don't think that the reality is their problem.
Hold that in your head for a moment.
Look at the world, look at America today, and its current situation, and they believe the problem is how they're talking about it.
They're not even suggesting answers at all.
It's incredible that they're doing it right in front of us, completely ignoring issues and competence, going just for, well, he's got a bad personality and he's going to steal my democracy.
He's going to take my democracy.
I think his tiny little hands are going to grab the democracy right out of my purse.
So, that's funny.
Tom Fitton is pointing out that in the West Point speech, Biden said, he seemed to suggest, now this is an interpretation, he didn't say it directly, so I think Tom Fitton's interpretation He suggested that the United States military must be prepared to intervene in domestic political affairs against Trump.
Now, he didn't say that.
What he said was that their oath is a, you know, sort of a permanent oath to the country.
So it was kind of suggesting that maybe they would be necessary in ways they hadn't been necessary before.
I wouldn't go so far to say that he's suggesting that he would use the internal military against Trump, but it does feel like priming.
It feels like it.
I'm not sure that that's exactly what's happening there.
All right.
I suggested yesterday that somebody could build a custom AI, because you can take the general AIs and Train it with your own material and turn it into a custom AI.
And you should train it to address all the hoaxes.
Because you could feed it with the debunks of all the hoaxes that come from different places, right?
So if you want to debunk the drinking bleach hoax, my pinned tweet is tons of detail and sources on that.
So you just feed it in.
Just grab it and upload it.
If you want to train it on the fine people hoax, you take Steve Cortez's video on it, you take Joel Pollack's writing and Breitbart on it, some things I've tweeted, you got it.
And I think Cheryl Atkinson has a whole list of debunked things.
Other people have lists of debunked things.
There's a web page of just, you know, debunks of the hoaxes.
So if you just fed all of that stuff into the engine, And then publish the link for everybody.
Every time somebody had a hoax, you could just print out what the AI says about the hoax and put it in the comments, and with the link, so somebody can check it themselves.
Now you might say to me, but Scott, I'm being reminded that Trump's on Timcast on Monday for 17 minutes.
Okay.
So Tim Pool got a big get there.
He's got a big interview with Trump.
So congratulations, Tim Pool.
Good job on that.
I love seeing Trump talk to the independent podcasters.
Don't you?
I feel like they get more out of him.
Because it's more of a... it's like a friendly, casual... I just feel like it's a better experience.
I don't think they ask the toughest questions.
But I feel like it's just more watchable, you know, because it's not the weird conflict stuff.
So anyway, you need somebody to push him as well, but I do enjoy the content when he's talking to people who are just good at their jobs as podcasters and stuff.
All right, so we'll see if somebody builds an AI that can decode all the hoaxes.
Now, Yeah, I don't know why 17 minutes, but for some reason that's important.
So what else is happening today?
They ask the questions that common people want to know.
Well, maybe that's it.
Yeah, the podcasters ask questions that they're actually curious about.
Oh, that's the difference.
That's the difference.
The news asks questions that will give them the sound bite.
And, you know, they're pushing the hoaxes.
What do you say about this hoax?
But the independent journalists and the podcasters are actually just curious on our behalf.
So in all likelihood, you haven't seen it, but in all likelihood, Tim Pool will ask him the same questions I would have asked him, or you would have asked him, which is what gives it value.
Scott, will Biden end the Ukraine war later this summer?
I don't think there's a chance of that.
Because I don't think Putin's going to negotiate with Biden.
I think he sees Biden as part of the group that's just trying to steal his energy game and they don't look like they want to quit.
All right, just looking at your comments to see.
Anything I missed?
Yeah, John Kerry preventing some terrorists from being arrested.
I think that story has more to it than what we've been told.
And I actually don't mind that.
If the administration was going to do this big overall Iranian deal and they thought it was good for the country, which is a separate conversation, and the expense for that was they had to go easy on a couple of terrorists that they could track and do something with them later.
See, the part you don't know is, If they know where they live, they could just do it later.
Or if they have such an eyeball on them, that maybe they don't want to pick them up because they'll lead them to other people and stuff.
So, there's always more to these stories.
I don't think it's as simple as John Kerry is in favor of Iran, so he lets their terrorists operate freely in the United States.
At least, I hope not.
I mean, it seems unlikely that that's the whole story.
There must be a little bit more nuance to it.
I hope.
Why am I not in the think tank?
Well, you know the think tanks are all fake, right?
The think tanks just come up with the things so that the news can say, hey, we didn't come up with this.
That came out of the think tank.
And then the Democrats can say, you know what?
That's such a good idea.
It happens to agree with us completely, but hey, it didn't come from us.
It came from all the smart people over in the tank that's a bunch of thinking.
So think tanks are largely fake.
you know, they're to promote certain things for certain parties.
Can you ban folks in chat so they're muted?
Not really.
I don't have that function.
Because I'm using the Rumble Studio, so it doesn't have the same specific options of each of the platforms.
Think Tank's launder ideas?
Yeah, in a sense.
They launder ideas.
All right.
What if he walked out of the trial?
Well, he's not going to do that.
All right, that's all I got for this morning.
I'm gonna say bye to the YouTube and Rumble and X people.
You can get to your Sunday.
I'm gonna spend a minute with the locals people, if my Wi-Fi holds.
I got all kinds of technical problems today, but let's see if that works.
All right, bye everybody, except local subscribers.
