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 Justice Alliance, Senator Capito, Mike Goodwin, Libertarian Nominee, President Trump, Trump VP Selection, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Dana Bash, Certifying 2024 Election, Vivek Ramaswamy, Alina Habba, Judge Merchan, Greta Susteren, Byron York, James Carville, Better Political Messaging, DNC Jaime Harrison, Ross Ulbricht Pardon, Justice System Credibility, J6 Political Prisoners, Political Prisoner Peter Navarro, President Biden, King Randall School For Boys, 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
You know, I've got an incoming report from another network, Robots Read News.
I'd like to read that for you.
And this is breaking news.
So the robot says, Google CEO says it created its AI based.
So Google says it created its AI based on human patterns.
And now they can't figure out why it lies.
In other news, MSNBC recommends wearing a face mask to keep the glaciers from melting, and a new CNN poll says 98% of climate scientists would be homeless if they doubted climate science.
So, you'd see that news every day if you were a subscriber to the scottadams.locals community.
That's right, I do over 700 comics a year.
If you're watching Dilbert on either the X platform where you can subscribe, or also on the Locals platform, you would see what I consider one of my finest Dilbert comics.
But I can't tell you what it is.
Because if you're not a subscriber, it might be a little too rough for you.
So trust me when I say that today's comic Which involves the CEO of Dilbert's company trying to get a celebrity female voice actress to be the voice of their AI, based on the Scarlett Johansson story.
So let's just say there's a twist that doesn't allow me to put it in the general public.
I just want to, it makes me laugh every time I reread it.
How many of you have ever seen these so-called reaction videos on social media?
I'm a big fan of them.
It'll show somebody that the most common form is some young people listening to some classic, you know, greatest rock songs.
So they hadn't heard them because they're young and then they're blown away and then you get to see the reaction.
So it's a reaction video.
Well, Lizzo did a reaction video after she heard that she had been mentioned on a South Park episode.
And it might be the greatest reaction video of all time.
Now, I'm going to have to give some props to Lizzo.
If you can imagine, you know, Lizzo obviously knows that South Park is going to be kind of vicious.
She does a reaction video.
And it looked like she really legitimately had not seen the video and yet she still posted it.
So I have to give her an A plus for how she handled it.
But the thing that South Park was making fun of is that not everybody can take Ozempic.
Some people need a product they called Lizzo.
And if you take the Lizzo product, it makes you just be okay with being overweight.
And she's watching this thing.
She's watching her own brand become a brand for being unhealthy.
And she's just like, oh, it's the greatest.
It's the greatest reaction video.
You have to see it.
Anyway, Senator Capito, I think that's her name, was saying that she was following the money.
On the Inflation Reduction Act, that's Biden's so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which was mostly a green technology thing.
And I guess $40 billion in that went to the EPA, and then the EPA can dole it out to various groups.
One of the groups that got $50 million is the Climate Justice Alliance.
Oh, well, that makes sense.
Climate justice?
Well, who doesn't like that?
So, of course the EPA would give them $50 million.
They sound like an awesome group.
The Climate Justice Alliance.
The CGA.
C-J-A.
Yeah, they're great.
See, what else have they done?
Oh, well, okay.
There's a little bit of a problem that they're an overtly pro-Hamas organization.
According, at least according to their marketing materials.
And they want to decolonize Palestine.
Decolonize?
What would be involved in said decolonization?
Would it start with October 7th, just for example?
And they also want to defund the police and the military.
So that's right.
Your tax dollars, 50 million of them, went to Basically terrorist sympathizers.
Terrorist sympathizers, if you want to put it that way.
So, do you think that our government is audited appropriately to figure out where the money's going?
No.
Should we trust them with more money?
No.
I remind you of the wisest political commentator I've ever known.
His name was Mike Goodwin, and he was my boss when I was working at the phone company.
And one day there was an election coming up, he said he was going to vote, and I think I mocked him for imagining that he knew enough to vote, you know, that nobody really understands the topics, especially the local stuff.
Nobody really understands any of the topics locally.
And here was his response.
To my very good analysis that he didn't understand the topics for which he was voting.
Now, watch the wisdom in this.
He said to me, it's easy.
I vote against everything that would cost money.
And I mocked him.
I'm like, come on!
That's like such a brain-dead way to vote.
Seriously?
Just everything that needs money.
Like, it doesn't matter what the benefits or the costs are, just everything that costs money, you're going to be against.
And he said, they already have enough.
And I said, but what if it's like a really, really great idea?
And then he said, they should take the money from the bad ideas.
And I said, Well, fuck me, everything you said makes sense and everything I said sounds like a fucking idiot.
And from that moment on, I consider him the greatest political observer of all time.
And then he went and voted exactly that way.
He voted against every additional expense.
Because they were things that would be, in fact, added to the budget.
He said, no, you got enough.
Make it work like everybody else in the world does.
Everybody else in the world has a constrained budget.
So just make the government have the same discipline and everything will work out fine.
Greatest political observer of all time.
He also named Dilbert, by the way.
That is his other contribution.
He came up with the name Dilbert and suggested it to me.
Anyway.
So Biden, but there are other ways in which the government is spending the money really well.
For example, Biden wanted to build 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations, and there was a whole bunch of money for that, $7.5 billion.
So they got $7.5 billion, and so far they've completed out of the half million that they're trying to build of the EV charging stations.
They're already up to Eight.
They have eight.
So that would only give them $4,990.
Well, they're not exactly on schedule.
They're hoping to get to half a million, but they have eight.
Well, I'm lying.
It's seven or eight.
It's seven or eight, depending on how you count it.
So, yeah.
But at least the Libertarians are not crazy, am I right?
The Libertarians are doing some smart things.
They might not get elected, but at least they're doing some smart things.
The Muse account reminds us that they just nominated the person they're going to put forward for president, Chase Oliver.
And things he believes in, for example, are transitioning children, mask and vax mandates, men and women's sports, and open borders.
So let me summarize that.
Trump got all of their votes.
Is there a shorter summary than Trump got all of their votes?
What the fuck are they thinking?
Are you serious?
Oh, by the way, I don't want to say Happy Memorial Day because it's not a happy occasion, but let us take a moment to recognize the service of All the men and women in the military who have passed.
And we'll just take a moment just to reflect on that.
Should have done that at the start.
All right.
All right, now that we've done that, there's a Trump movie called The Apprentice in which Trump will be depicted violently raping Ivana Trump.
Now, you know, I believe that she's made some kind of claim like that, but it's not the kind of claim that should be credible enough to make it into a movie.
Bye.
But this is more evidence of what I consider hilarious.
Here's the larger context.
The Democrats have so given up On arguing that they have better policies or a more competent president.
They've given up on the things that are the job of a president.
Being capable, talking in public, functioning, policies.
Completely given up.
So here's what they have left.
They have a fictional movie.
This is actually like a major part of their hope for winning.
A fictional movie.
That, you know, they'll try to tell you is real.
They've got fake news.
They've got massive number of hoaxes that their people believe are real.
And then on top of that, they have their words.
Here's some words.
So Nikki, let's see, Nikki Haley, when she was running against him in the primaries, let's see, some things she said.
About Trump, uh, let's see.
Uh, there's all this chaos about him and he's got this bad rhetoric and, um, he's, uh, well, here's some things that other people have said about him recently too.
It's not just Nikki Haley.
He's authoritarian.
He's got this bad rhetoric.
He's seething and unpopular.
Uh, he's going to steal your democracy and my candy's too small.
That, that's their argument against Trump.
They literally have only words, fiction, hoaxes, and fake news.
And that's a fact, that's not hyperbole.
They literally don't have anything they're pushing forward that's sort of policy-like.
They got nothing.
They're just shooting blanks.
And the longer they go shooting blanks, the more you're going to notice.
I think they can go for a little while, Doing nothing but insulting him personally.
And you'll think, well, that's, you know, part of the process.
Everybody insults everybody.
But after a while, you're going to start noticing what I've noticed a little while ago.
There isn't anything else.
It's, it's all a scare tactic to make you think there's something about his personality that did not emerge in the first four years that will magically appear this time.
Fiction, hoaxes, fake news, and insults.
That's their entire campaign.
So, I think Trump needs to pick a vice president that does the best job of keeping him alive.
And I have a real concern that Nikki Haley is not the right choice for that.
Do you think that if Nikki Haley is the vice president, the deep state, if they were thinking about assassinating him, wouldn't that be the go signal?
Oh, we got our good backup.
She loves the military industrial state and funding Ukraine.
Funding Ukraine is the only thing the important people care about.
So I think Nikki Haley would be Trump committing suicide.
But I worry that he may have struck a deal.
Just think about it.
What if Trump struck a deal, and the deal was, we will let you be president, because it's going to happen anyway, and it's too hard to stop you, it would be too obvious if we stop you, but we're just going to wait you out.
We're going to put a VP in there that we trust, and we're just going to wait you out.
We can wait four years.
And, but I worry that he may have made a deal to that effect, that they would not use dirty tricks to get rid of him, uh, but that they would be lying.
And the first thing they would do is assassinate him because Nikki Haley would be their choice.
So I think somebody like Vivek, I've got a feeling he's not really interested in the vice presidency.
You might have a bigger portfolio in mind.
Head of Homeland Security?
The Homeland Department?
Maybe.
But Trump needs somebody that makes him assassination proof.
Alright, speaking of that, Tim Scott was on CNN talking to Dana Bash.
Now, you know I've told you that CNN appears to be leaning toward the middle, at least on this election, in a way that I think is laudable and noticeable.
But Dana Bash would not be an example of someone who, in my opinion, is leaning toward the middle.
I think she's still in the old world where she's just working for the Democrats, but she has a job on TV.
So she has Tim Scott on, and of course she asked them the gotcha question.
Will you say now that you would certify the election in 2024?
Now that is a gotcha question.
The only reason anybody would ask that question is if they want you to answer it inelegantly so they can turn it into a news cycle.
You got that, right?
They're not really curious about the answer to the question, and they know that their viewers are not the least bit curious about that question.
Because you know what everybody knows?
Everybody knows that if it looks legitimate, people are probably going to say, well, damn it, if they don't like the outcome.
And if it doesn't look legitimate, then there will be problems.
Why in the world would anybody agree in advance that under any condition in the future, they will act as if nothing had gone wrong?
Who would say yes to that?
Now, that's what makes it the gotcha.
Because if you don't answer it with real precision, They can so easily turn that into you're planning a, you know, you're part of the dictatorship that's coming or something like that.
So here's how Tim Scott handled it.
And I got to say, not bad, not bad.
He said, I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty close.
He said he paused for a second.
So you could see it was processing that this was a trap.
And then he was probably thinking, do I call out the trap the way Rand Paul did, which is a good technique, or do I Say something so clever that I can avoid the trap.
Here's what he said, and I'm going to say, this is very close to an A. There might be an A-plus that could have been had, but this is a solid, solid answer.
Listen to this.
Based on the expectation Trump wins, yes, we will certify.
And then Data Bash ran out of time and had to end the segment.
Nicely done!
Nicely done.
And suppose she'd had more time and pressed him, and said something like, but are you saying that under any condition you would certify?
Then what he should do is repeat his first statement again, and keep repeating it as many times as she wants to hear it.
We expect Trump to win, so of course I'll certify.
But what if he doesn't?
We're expecting him to win, so the only thing I can imagine is certifying.
Well, but, but, but, I'm definitely going to certify.
But only if Trump wins?
Oh yeah, Trump's going to win.
But what if he doesn't?
But he is.
It's actually pretty good.
Because you can just filibuster until they run out of time.
And you just keep saying he's going to win.
So they didn't lay a glove on him.
And I'll say again, Tim Scott is solid.
He's a solid guy.
He's not my first pick for VP, but he's solid.
I have no complaints.
Here's how I would have gone.
Dana Bash, will you certify?
Let's say I'm the senator.
Dana Bash says to me, will you certify the election in 2024?
Then I would say, I think Rand Paul said this too, you mean no matter what happens?
Make them answer that question.
Are you asking me no matter what happens?
Now make them answer the question.
Then after they do, say, well, let me ask you this question.
If the vote were tomorrow and 99% of the voters, the election said 99% of the votes went to Trump, would you certify that or question it?
Well, I'm the one asking the questions.
Will you certify?
I know you're asking the questions.
I'm just curious the context to your question.
Is there some situation in which you would certify something that was 99% Trump votes when you know that wouldn't be possible?
Would you certify a result that you knew was not possible in the real world?
Well, I'm the one asking the questions.
Apparently you're not.
Apparently you're not the one asking the questions.
Because maybe you should ask better ones.
You know what I would probably say?
Why don't you ask a better question?
Because I'm pretty sure that nobody knows what they'll do in the future under situations they can't predict.
How about that one?
Ask a better question.
Here's what would be a better question.
If the election looked obviously rigged, would you complain?
Why don't you ask the question that way?
Because that's what happened last time.
It looked obviously rigged.
Now we, of course, needed to look into it to make sure that our observation matched reality.
But if it looks obviously rigged, what would you do, Dana Bash?
How would you handle something that looked obviously rigged to you?
If you were in charge of making sure the country was well served and the voters' voices had been heard, what would you do?
Just let it go?
How would you play it, Dana Bash?
That's what I'd do.
Speaking of Vivek Ramaswamy, he says the far right and the far left have a lot in common at the moment.
And they listen.
Because when he first said it, I thought, they don't have anything in common.
But they do.
The far left and the far right.
Some of the things Vivek says they agree on.
Opposition to funding foreign wars?
Oh yeah, that's true.
I guess they do agree on that.
Surveillance, the surveillance state expansion?
Oh yeah.
Neither the left nor the right likes the surveillance state.
Medical mandates?
Probably.
I don't know how much the left disagrees with them.
And they don't like corporate lobbying.
Yeah, that's actually quite a bit to have in common, strangely enough.
That's a lot to have in common.
So, that's all looking good for Trump.
So the Stormy trial conclusion could come as early as today, is that true?
Give me a fact check.
No, tomorrow.
Tomorrow I think would be the earliest day we could get a conclusion on the Stormy Daniels hush money payment thing.
But do we assume we'd get a conclusion the same day?
Or do we think it might begin a multi-day process?
I don't know if anybody knows.
This is what Alina Haba, one of Trump's lawyers, said.
The jurors are going to watch MSNBC and CNN over Memorial Day and then convict Trump.
If they're left-winging and they're watching MSN—DNC, as she calls it, as my client calls it, or CNN, they're not going to get fair news.
Now, how in the world Does the judge think that this jury, in this specific case, can be free into the real world over this long weekend without the jury being tainted by the news?
How in the world could that even be, like, a slight possibility?
There's no possibility.
There's so many things wrong with this case, I'm starting to think the judge is doing it intentionally.
Like, it's beginning to look like he's intentionally doing everything wrong To guarantee it gets overturned.
Almost like he's rebelling against the system by obeying it or something.
You know, like playing along too hard to make it look... No, I don't think that's true, by the way.
My take on the judge is that he's just corrupt.
That's my take.
Because I look at... I swear, he just looks corrupt, honestly.
There's something about his look.
He just looks like a liar.
He's just got liar face all over him.
Yeah, he's a little too pretty.
There's just something going wrong with him.
He just doesn't look trustworthy to me.
And the way he's acting, you know, confirms that.
All right, but here's what Greta Van Susteren says.
Apparently, there is a Supreme Court case, 1999, Richardson versus the U.S., that makes the judge's instructions to the jury unconstitutional.
The actual instructions to the jury from the judge are clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.
Because if you've been following the arcane details of this thing, there have to be these other offenses that are lesser offenses that maybe have to be true, but not really, according to the judge.
But if you think they might be true, but you're not sure, you can still convict him for the other thing.
It's this weird convoluted theory of how small things add up to big things, but not really.
And there's a very specific case This says, this Richardson v.
U.S., as Greta Van Susteren points out, that the jury must be unanimous as to the series of underlying offenses, and that it says directly this, that each of the individual ones has to be proven, basically.
You can't just say, well, it looks like to me there were some underlying offenses, so we're going to say that he's guilty of the top-line offense.
You can't do that.
He actually has to be guilty of the specific things they say before you can find him guilty of the higher level thing.
And to me, it's mind-boggling that there ever could have been a possibility that the things that lead to your conclusion that he's guilty of the top thing don't have to be proven.
And the judge basically said some version of, well, you don't have to prove the things which make him guilty.
In order to find them guilty.
I mean, it's almost a laughable, stupid, you don't even have to be a judge to know that ain't right.
You could tell a 12-year-old this situation, you know, in whatever 12-year-old way you could describe it, and a 12-year-old would say, well, that ain't right.
Like, that can't be the case.
It's just so obvious.
They're doing it right in front of us.
Anyway, it does make me wonder if he's doing it intentionally.
This is Byron York talking about the trial and trying to describe it.
Now we're talking about these other crimes, you know, the lower level crimes that the judge says you don't even have to prove in order to find him guilty of the higher level crime.
He's mocking the Trump prosecutor for saying, he didn't really say this, but in effect, the other crime need not have been committed for Trump to be convicted.
Just intended.
And by the way, it doesn't even have to be a crime.
Two misdemeanors plus a civil, I guess that's federal election law, violation and voila!
34 felonies, maximum 136 years in prison.
Let me explain what's really going on here.
Bye.
This is not really a case of the justice system and the facts and the law and the jury.
This is so plainly and obviously corrupt that it has passed out of the legal system.
It's just not part of the legal system at the moment.
Now it's raw power.
It's raw power.
If the legal system has the raw power to convict him, they'll do it.
But they have to contend with the fact that there are 80 million people who are not going to take it laying down.
Now, I want to be really clear here.
I do not recommend any kind of violence.
I don't even recommend going there to protest because it looks like you'll be in jail if you do.
But I'll make a common sense statement.
Here's a common sense statement.
The only thing that keeps civilization together Is the threat of violence from the men.
The threat of violence is the only thing that holds civilization together.
Why do criminals not walk into your home and steal things because they can?
Threat of violence.
And it's not from women.
It's from other men.
The threat of violence from armed or unarmed men is the only thing that keeps civilization together.
Everything else is window dressing.
And his window dressing has the effect of keeping the violent men non-violent for a while.
Right?
It's always temporary.
And that's it.
So once you've passed out of making a reasonable argument for his guilt, and they're not making a reasonable argument, if they find him guilty, you're going to have to deal with 80 million people.
And again, violence is a bad idea.
Don't do it.
But 80 million people can get anything they want.
Let me say that again.
80 million people are going to get what they want.
Now, the voting, you know, that was a special case.
But we don't want Trump in jail.
And we're going to get that.
One way or another.
80 million people could dismantle the jail while the military watched.
They could actually take crowbars to the jail, show up with pickaxes and hammers, and just start making a hole in the wall.
And if you had 80 million people, even the police are going to stand down.
Right?
So this has moved into pure power, and that's how I see it.
So do the 80 million people represent enough of a threat That the legal system will back down from what is obviously no part of the justice system.
I think, I think that one way or another, you know, Trump doesn't go to jail.
And I do doubt the Politico story and some others saying that Biden plans to give some kind of a White House speech after the verdict comes down.
I don't know if he's that dumb.
I mean, he's pretty dumb, but he does have advisors.
If Biden gives a speech immediately after a guilty verdict, and obviously they expect a guilty verdict if they're expecting to do this, I think it might be fake news, because it's such a bad idea that I can't even imagine that the Democrat campaign would do this, and they're full of bad ideas.
So it's hard to imagine they would do something that dumb, to have Biden give a speech right after a guilty verdict, but they might.
They might actually be that dumb.
I'm just going to bet against it.
I think they're not that dumb.
It would be hilarious if they were.
Well, let's see what else is going on.
We got, uh, Oh, somebody else called Trump a lawless psychopath.
Just keep watching the personal insults.
All right now.
So you've heard my take.
So my take is that the Democrats have nothing but fictional movies, hoaxes, fake news, and personal insults.
Now, do you think that's because I'm in the bag for Trump and I'm just saying everything's good about him and everything's bad about Biden?
Well, let's get another opinion.
Let's talk to prominent Democrat strategist James Carville.
He said, I think you've heard this before, 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.
So what does James Carville say is the solution to having no competence and no policies that people want?
What is the best Advisor to the Democrats say, get better words.
Get better words.
Here, did you see the dog not barking?
How about do a better job of talking about policies and being more capable?
It's not an option.
Even Carville can see that competence and policy are no longer part of the conversation.
He just wants better messaging.
Let me explain what better messaging means.
He's famously the guy who told Bill Clinton it's the economy's stupid, meaning that Clinton should just talk about the economy because if he does, he'll win.
Do you know why that worked?
Because Bill Clinton was good at talking about stuff, and the economy mattered, and it was a real issue.
It was a real issue.
And the American voters said, huh, economy, that's a real issue.
What are your policies?
Hmm, okay, all right.
Those policies sound okay to me.
He was sort of the perfect candidate, Bill Clinton was, because he was, you know, Southern and conservative, but he was also a Democrat.
You know, he had that perfect straddle both parties situation.
And then he focused on policies.
You can really win that way.
Now let's say you took a James Carville who was so smart then, and his advice was so good, what exactly could he say to Biden that would actually make a difference?
So the trouble is, if Bill Clinton is your man, and you've got real issues, and he's got some argument why he has better capability and issues, well then advice works.
But advice doesn't work if you can't implement.
You got nothing.
There's no better messaging that's going to make Biden not look like he's going to be dead in a week.
It's not going to make him stop mumbling.
It's not going to close the border.
They got nothing.
They're absolutely out of ammo except, oh, he's a lawless psychopath who's going to steal my democracy and my candy's too small.
And here's a movie we made with some bullshit in it.
He's going to grab you by the pussies.
If you elect him, he'll be grabbing you all.
All right.
There was a gentleman, Jaime Harrison, I guess, or Jamie, I don't know.
He was on the MSDEI channel.
So MSDEI had an all DEI panel, and one of them was saying that those MAGA apples are rotten.
Have they learned nothing?
Why did the Democrats genuinely not understand this point?
Going after the voters as rotten pretty much guarantees they're going to be incentivized to vote against you.
I don't want anybody in charge who thinks that somebody who wants a different president is rotten.
You don't want any of them in charge?
My God.
All right, did you notice I called them MSDEI?
Do you like it?
Just testing it out.
Taking it for a little test run.
MSDEI, come on.
All right, maybe it's a little too provocative for the rest of you, but I think it's warranted.
Meanwhile, there's evidence that Biden is Trump-proofing science.
Trump proofing science.
So the Biden administration is worried that Trump might not be supportive of science.
So here's one of the things they're doing to make sure he doesn't unravel all their science.
Let's see, this is from Politico and I guess the National Institute of Health Uh, wants to make sure that he doesn't change things when it comes to vaccines or diversity policies.
Vaccines and diversity policies.
Those are the things that they don't want Trump to do his anti-science thing with.
Because these things are definitely based on solid science.
Am I right?
So here's what they're going to do.
They've designated an official within the NIH to be the person who makes sure there's no political meddling in the agency's work.
In other words, they're going to hire a person to make sure that Trump can't do things that make sense, and they're going to say it's because he's anti-science.
Now, it won't stop him.
He would still have the power.
But it would make it politically awkward to go against the pro-science person who says you're anti-science.
Oh my god, they're just corrupt and terrible people.
Everything about this just feels like a scheme.
Everything the Democrats do looks like an op, or a scheme, or a dirty trick.
None of it seems straightforward.
Compare that to the Republicans.
We'd like to close the border.
All right, what kind of clever scheme is this, Republicans?
Well, no, there's just a whole bunch of people coming across the border, unvetted.
We'd just like to reduce that risk, so close the border.
What are you really getting at, though, racist?
No, seriously.
Have you seen the film?
They're like tens of thousands, like millions, like there might be 30 million people unvetted.
Many of them are military age and they're coming from our adversaries.
So really we just want to reduce that risk.
Yeah, but what's your real thing you're trying to do?
What's the op here?
What's your angle?
Angle?
Close the border!
We'd like to reduce your taxes.
Oh, would you?
Oh, I see what you're trying to get away with.
No, really, we think taxes are too high.
And, you know, we could be wrong, but we think this would be a good way to stimulate the economy and pay off the debt and stuff.
Oh, do you?
Oh, do you really?
Oh, I think we're clever to this scheme.
And the Republicans have no schemes.
They have no ops.
They just have, I think this will work.
Why don't we do this thing that's always worked before?
Why don't we just do that?
And all of the Democrat strategies or schemes, they're all ops.
They're all plays.
It's like, yeah, let's see if we can game the district attorneys.
We'll get Soros to get us a bunch of crooked ones.
Then we'll use a bunch of lawfare to take out Trump.
Then we'll use the fake news to say it all made sense.
Like, the entire Democrat process is schemes and ops.
Every bit of it.
And because of that, I'm announcing today, have announced on X, that I'm changing my A view on the commuting of the sentence of Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht.
Now, I was quite a prominent, uh, disagreeer there.
So prominent that Ross Ulbricht's mom once contacted me to try to change my mind.
And I said, sorry, mom.
Fentanyl killed my stepson.
This isn't my fight.
You're gonna have to do this one on your own.
And so I said, nope, I can't be on the side of someone who allegedly made it easier to buy drugs.
You know, the bad kind.
Here's why I changed my mind.
The Trump lawfare proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our justice system cannot be trusted, especially in high level crime.
If we had a real justice system, one with credibility, One that was not trying to indict a president on 91 fake charges right in front of us.
I'd say, you know what?
I'll bet they looked into that.
I'll bet the jury did its job.
I'll bet the Justice Department was credible and on top of it.
And I don't see any reason to reverse it.
But we do live in a world in which the justice system is now so corrupt that it reveals that maybe it always was.
Some say that the only reason that he got taken down is that Bitcoin Was a big part of his model.
And the government wanted to either grab his Bitcoin and keep it, which apparently they did, some of it, and maybe just shut down Bitcoin as a way that people could do things without the government knowing.
So maybe it had nothing to do with the Silk Road.
Maybe it had everything to do with Bitcoin.
Some say.
Some say.
Others say, and this is interesting, I saw a John Lefebvre post on X He said that the government seized 50,000 Bitcoins from Ross when they arrested him.
If he had still kept those Bitcoins, because this was some time ago, the Bitcoins would be now worth 3.5 billion.
So the government took 3.5 billion in Bitcoin, by today's value, off of him.
Where'd that go?
Where's that Bitcoin?
Did they turn that over to the Treasury to turn down, to reduce the cost of things?
Or do you think there's somebody in the government who got a wallet that was worth, that came to be worth 3.5 billion dollars?
I have questions.
But here's the funny part.
According to the Guardian, they didn't get all of his Bitcoin, and he might have hidden, or secretly he might have as much as 600,000 of them.
Which would be worth in today's dollars, wait for it, dramatic pause, 41 billion dollars.
If his sentence is commuted, he'll come out as one of the richest people in the history of humanity.
If it's real, we don't know.
We don't know if he really has access to those bitcoins.
But, uh, so my vote is not a pro-Ross Ulbricht vote, because I don't really know what he did or didn't do and whether I should like it or not.
It's an anti-Department of Justice vote.
You can't put my president in jail and then tell me to believe this other thing.
Sorry.
Sorry.
If you were acting a little bit like you weren't corrupt, I'd say, well, maybe the other thing's good, too.
But under these conditions, and given the nature of what he was charged with, given the fact that the, you know, the sentence is insane, how long it is, and given the fact that January 6ers are in jail, given the fact that Peter Navarro is still in jail, given the fact they're trying to put Trump in jail forever, we don't have to live this way.
We don't have to live this way.
And do I care if Ross did something terrible that means he should belong in jail?
Actually, I don't.
I'm releasing on that.
And here's the other factor.
When I saw that, when I believed that Ross Ulbricht was part of what made fentanyl a bigger thing in America, it probably wasn't that big a thing on the Silk Road as a percentage of what they did.
But now that I know, I think I know, That the biggest drug dealer in the world is our own government, then no, I don't want a rival drug dealing gang, our government, the CIA, to put the rival drug dealer in jail.
Because that's sort of what it looks like happened.
Because if you could get anything you wanted on the Silk Road, well, maybe you don't need the Mexican cartels anymore, do you?
So it's beginning to look like maybe he was jailed to protect the Mexican cartels, because we work with them.
We, meaning the United States, they're dark arts people.
So no, under this particular situation, I don't give a fuck what crime he committed.
If he did, I don't care.
It's just not part of the equation at this point.
If you can't give me a Department of Justice that looks slightly non-corrupt, Then I want everybody who's in that system freed.
At least from the non-ordinary crimes, right?
If you murdered or robbed a store or something, you know, let's keep that going.
But for these things to have that political, social dimension to them, I think everybody needs to be released.
Because none of that looks real to me.
Peter Navarro is still in jail.
Let me put it this way.
As long as Peter Navarro is in jail, I'm not in favor of putting anybody in jail.
For anything political sounding at all.
So free the January Sixers, free Peter Navarro, free Ross Ulbricht.
We don't have to live this way.
We do have the power.
We just don't need to live this way.
Rasmussen did a poll on finding out whether the race card is still working in politics.
Only 18% of likely U.S.
voters think most politicians who are talking about race are being serious about it.
And 70% say they're doing it just to win and it's BS.
And let's see.
So in a commencement speech, Biden was doing the political division stuff.
Here's what I think.
I think I think Trump should say that all Biden has to run on is racial division.
Because I think that Biden is super vulnerable to being called the person who's creating all the race division.
Because he's the person creating all the race division.
It's kind of all he has.
Like he's trying to get black voters back, so he's creating more race division, so they'll be scared back onto the plantation, so to speak.
A 69-year-old woman was arrested last week in my hometown for January 6.
That's what somebody's saying in the comments.
Just hold that in your mind.
A 69-year-old woman.
Do you think she beat up a cop?
Do you think she dragged a lectern home?
What was she being?
I don't know what the case is, but it all looks corrupt to me.
Totally corrupt.
So yeah, if I were Trump, I'd run on Biden being the racial divider, but I would also mock him for having nothing to say except personal insults.
So I think it's funny that, you know how you always become your enemy?
You've heard that, right?
You always become the thing you hate.
It's just too tempting to be like it, to fight it.
Yeah, the whole thing about Trump was that he was racially motivated or racially divisive.
But at the moment, there isn't any question who the racists are.
Trump has done literally zero things in that domain.
They've just suspected that he might, and of course it was never true.
But they've done a lot in that domain, and the rhetoric is even worse.
The more Trump just says we're America, the more he wins.
The more he wins.
I would like to give you a take on racism, if you haven't heard this one before.
I'm going to say something provocative, but don't let your head explode until I explain it all.
It all makes sense.
I've said this many times, but any kind of racism or sexism or religiousism against an individual is immoral and unethical and bad for everybody.
So it's bad for the person you discriminate against, it's bad for society, and it's bad for you, if you're literally discriminating based on those surface-y things.
Now, as I've said before, racism only lasts until you've been talking for 10 seconds.
And then you're judging the individual based on what came out of their mouth in 10 seconds.
And so it is... But, here's where it gets complicated.
I think most of you are on the same page that you shouldn't discriminate against an individual in any context, because the individual could be the best person who was ever born to do that one thing or whatever you want.
And you'd just be denying yourself access to more talent and love and beauty and all that.
Discriminating against groups of people, as opposed to an individual within the group, discriminating against groups is routine and recommended.
We do it all the time.
Do you know why I can't join the military?
Too old.
Right.
I might be the best soldier they ever had, but they're not going to check.
The Golden State Warriors are not going to give me a workout.
Say, well, you know, I don't want to discriminate because you're old and white and you're not tall.
I will give you a workout.
We'll give this a shot.
No, when it comes to entire categories of people, we routinely discriminate.
The military doesn't want any blind pilots.
Is that discrimination?
Well, In a sense.
I mean, I suppose you could build a plane that was self-driving or something.
So, you know, there's all kinds of places.
And think of all the organizations that are historically black colleges.
Do you have a problem with that?
I don't.
I have no problem with that, but that's clearly a case where race is the dominant factor of things.
So there are plenty of situations, plenty of situations, in which we routinely say, yeah, we can discriminate against the whole group, but it would still be wrong to discriminate against a person from the group.
Does that make sense?
These are things I believe we all agree with, that there are situations where you can have laws and even personal opinions about the whole group, As long as you don't apply them to a person from the group in a given situation, then you're still fine.
The reason I bring this up, I want to get a shout out to King Randall.
Now King Randall, that's his name.
His first name is King.
If you haven't been following him, he's a great follow.
And what he does is he gets together groups of young black, I think they look, I don't know, they look like 13, 14-ish, I think it's a range, but, you know, they're in the younger teen group, and he teaches them how to be men.
He just teaches them how to be a man in the modern world.
So, there's a video of him giving a lesson on shaking hands, making eye contact, and introducing yourself by your name.
It's the most inspirational thing you'll ever see.
Just watch a dad.
I mean, I don't know if he has kids, but he was acting like a dad to these kids.
Watch him teach these kids who are very, they seem to be willingly going along with the program.
I saw no resistance.
And each of them was going to come up and they were going to look him in the eye, shake his hands and say, hi, my name's Bob Smith.
And you can see that they had a little trouble doing it.
It didn't come naturally.
It doesn't really come naturally to anybody who's 14.
But he was working on it.
Now let me ask you this.
Somebody comes in for a job interview.
Let's say two people.
They have roughly the same job experience.
One of them, for some reason, you somehow know this, was trained by King Randall.
And one was not.
So the white guy just has the skill, but that's all you know about him.
The other one has the skill too, but he also went through the King Randall, how to be a man.
Who do you pick?
I'm going to take the King Randall kid every time.
Because that's somebody who went the extra distance.
They didn't just get the skills, they got the whole talent stack.
I'm going to pick the talent stack kid every time.
Because you can tell even at their young age, you know, the 14, 15 year olds, they're not going to be there obediently following King Randall's instructions unless two things happened.
Three.
Number one, their parents were on board.
Now, is that a good signal?
Oh my God, yes.
Their parents knew what they were sending him to and signed him up for the King Randall treatment.
Yes, good parents.
Or at least one good parent.
Say it's a single mom.
If a single mom sent her kid to the King Randall treatment, and the kid was on board, not resisting, you know you got a good mom, you got a kid who's trying to figure things out.
Which is a really good signal.
Just the willingness to figure it out.
Like, how do I make this life work?
Who's got the secrets?
Who's my mentor?
Who knows how to make this happen?
And then they follow instructions.
If you find me anybody who can take a class they don't have to take, follow instructions, build their talent stack, I'm hiring that one.
So you tell me, where's the racism?
The racism still makes sense for groups.
And let me give you another group example.
We now know that the, uh, which, which medical school was it?
They, they dropped their, uh, requirements for the doctors, but only for some groups.
Now, if I said to him, if I said to you, I don't want a doctor who came out of that, uh, low DEI, low bar situation.
And I don't want that was, you know, in that group, they got the special treatment.
Is that discrimination?
Yes, it is.
Is it appropriate?
Yes, it is.
Because you're not really discriminating against an individual.
You're discriminating against the system that ruined them.
Right?
If somebody is a terrorist, you're not judging them on their race.
It's the terrorism.
If somebody went through a system that did not certify them to be capable, and you want somebody who is certified to be capable, Then you can reject every black and brown person who came out of UCLA during these years when the news has reliably reported that they massively lowered their standards.
Is that racist?
Yes.
Is it appropriate?
Yes.
If you're white and you decide to go where there's the least amount of DEI programs, is that racist?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Is it smart?
Yes!
You should get the hell away from anything that says you're the problem and we need to take your money.
Get away!
Get away from that!
But I would definitely be King Randall's neighbor.
That guy's awesome.
So, yeah, you should get away from any system or group situation that's bad, but don't apply that to individuals.
You just can't do that.
All right.
I ran a poll the other day on X, very unscientific, in which I asked this question.
Who has done more for black America?
Charlemagne, the god, or me?
So, a well-known black, I'd say philosopher, commentator, you know, social political mind, very successful, very smart, And has he done more for Black America, or have I?
Well, here's the first thing I've done for Black America.
I told you the truth.
If you don't know the truth, you really can't get anything done.
You're just flailing.
And the truth is that DEI makes me want to have no association with you whatsoever.
And if I can get away from it in any way I can, I'm going to do it.
And I would definitely advise you to do the same thing.
However, if you're Black, Or LGBTQ or anything that would benefit from DEI, you should run toward it.
Because it will help you.
So, you know, my advice is the same.
It's just, you know, the other side of the coin.
Run toward things that are good for you.
Run away from things that are bad for you.
That's all I'm saying.
That's all I'm saying.
Here's my argument.
And by the way, The voters, I think it was nine to one in favor of me helping black America more than Charlemagne the God.
And I think that's the right answer.
Here's why.
I focus on solutions.
So my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, was not written for any specific group, but it was very specifically written for people who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
So it was basically written for everybody who didn't already have an advantage when they were born.
Now, how many black people read that book?
A lot.
How many other books were influenced by it?
A lot of the biggest ones.
If you include the ripple effect of how many people are seeing my ideas of building a talent stack, The King Randall thing.
How many are seeing systems versus goals?
How many are seeing that you might lose a lot of times before you win?
How many are seeing me saying that your strategy should be to use racism to your favor when you can, and to escape it when you need to?
These are all useful things that make people successful.
Have I heard from black Americans who said, I used your advice and it really worked great?
Yes, I have.
Have I personally mentored a lot of mostly black men, but a few black women in their careers?
And has it made a difference?
Yes.
How often do I do it?
Continuously.
It's just private.
People contact me privately all the time for advice.
And I do actually make a special effort to give black people more advice than white people, probably, just because I feel like that's my little way of balancing things out, I guess.
So, yes, if black America wants to get better, the trick is skills.
So listen to King Randall.
Listen to me.
And if Charlemagne the God is also promoting that you should go get skills and add to your talent stack, then that would be very helpful.
If he's talking about how nobody's helped and everybody's bad and Biden's bad and Trump is bad too, I don't know how that helps.
Does it help to say I don't like my choices?
I mean, it's true.
I like the fact that it's honest.
Nobody's ever accused Charlemagne of lying.
Or have they?
I don't know.
I doubt it.
He seems like he's just trying to do what makes sense and trying to do a good job for the world.
But I think that my approach of literally teaching people how to make stuff work is probably 10 to 1 more valuable than finding a better way to complain.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings you to the conclusion.
Of the best live stream you're going to see today, because I feel like all the lazy people will take the day off.
So it's just me and you today.
Aren't you glad I show up every day?
All right.
And thanks for that.
I'm going to go talk to the Locals subscribers personally.
But for now, those of you on YouTube and Rumble and X, thanks for joining.
