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, College Students PTSD, AI Training AI, President Claudia Sheinbaum, Election Integrity, Mail-In Voting, Hunter Biden, Fake Historian Season, Michael Beschloss, Steve Bannon, Fake Election Polls, Poll Propaganda, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Hunting Republicans, Pro-Trump TikTok, Larry Fink, Maxine Waters, David Pakman, Megyn Kelly, SCIF Schiff Play, Alex Soros, Konstantin Kisin, Briahna Joy Gray, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I don't think you've had a better time in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no human can even understand with their tiny, smooth brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker chalice, a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sipping happens about now.
I hope everybody's here.
So good.
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's talk about some of the fake science before we get to the fake news.
Did anybody miss the sip?
I'm trying to time it so they stall just long enough for you all to get in here.
All right.
Well, there's a study that says the number of college students diagnosed with PTSD has more than doubled.
Do you believe that?
I believe that the number diagnosed is more than doubled.
Do you think that the number with PTSD has doubled?
Or do you think maybe it's just because it has a name?
Here's a mental experiment.
If I said to you tomorrow, there's a new condition.
It's a mental condition in which you worry too much about what other people will think about you.
And it stops you from doing some things.
And you'd say, well, that sounds like something that has some other name.
And I'd say, no, no, has a new name.
Has a new name.
There's a new condition.
How many people would be diagnosed with that condition tomorrow?
Millions!
Because as soon as you have a new name for something, suddenly you think, well, I got a name for it.
So, let's see which side is, this side's a little light.
Yeah, I think it has something to do with the fact that it became a popular thing that everybody had a name for.
And once they had a name for it, everybody had it, or got diagnosed.
But on top of that, I do think that the lesser physical activity and Maybe the ultra-processed foods and just the terror of living in the modern world.
It might make it worse.
But I would think that 60% of it is just because they gave something a name that was a common experience before it had a name.
Meaning that people felt bad and traumatized for a variety of reasons that just didn't have a name.
Well, the Wall Street Journal says that AI might be slowing down.
And it's possible it was overrated.
Now, this falls squarely into the category of the things I told you before other people told you, which is, it seemed to me, logically, that once you trained it on everything you could find, you know, all the good stuff, you would run out of things to make it smarter.
Which is what's happening.
They're running out of new material to train it.
So it's as smart as it's going to get from the things it's already trained on.
So instead they create what they call synthetic training material, which is they have one AI, I don't know, hallucinate.
And then the hallucinations became what trains the other AI.
Now on paper, I got to say that sounds like a terrible idea.
I don't even know how logically that could work.
Can you learn things from your own imagination?
Think about that as a human.
If you wanted to, like, get good at something, could you just close your eyes and imagine it in an artificial way until you were good at it?
I don't know that the machine can do that either.
I mean, they say it is, but I got a question about what is the upside potential of that method.
Anyway, so we got a few things going on that could make AI overrated.
Number one, The advances are slowing down.
So each new version of it is not going to be twice as good as the one before.
It might be 5% better and even decreasing after that because they don't have anything new to train it on.
And it could be that it's a commodity as well.
So it takes a lot of money to train the big ones.
But if all the big ones get trained on the same material, i.e.
everything on the internet, Then they're all going to end up being about the same.
So maybe there's not that much.
It might be a commodity.
It might be like air, so that there's nothing to pay for.
It's like, well, everybody's got a trained AI.
You know, you can get one for cheap.
So it could be that some of the profit will be taken out of it, except for, I suppose, NVIDIA will do great.
And there's also a thought that it will be useful for fewer things than we thought.
Who told you that first?
Me.
Here's the problem.
When you imagine AI, you automatically and reflexively imagine that it's smarter than people, or that it will be soon.
Whereas I said, how can it be smarter than people if it's trained on people?
I don't think you can be smarter than people if you're trained on people.
And if you were to say something smarter than people, you know what would happen?
People would reprogram you.
It's like, I don't recognize that as being true, so I better get rid of that.
Yeah.
It really, logically, the way humans operate, I don't think they can build something smarter than themselves.
At least with the current technology.
I'm allowing that there might be some future development that allows that to be true.
But if you're training it on humans, I don't know how it gets smarter than humans.
I mean, just, my brain can't really hold how that's a possibility.
It could be smarter than an individual human on an individual skill.
And certainly things like math and planning and chess, you know, the obvious things that computers do, it'll be better than that.
But will it be better in, let's say, interpreting what's real?
Which seems to be the most important thing for us.
Can it tell which studies are a BS?
Will it know who's lying?
That's the important stuff, the stuff that keeps you alive.
Anyway, Mexico had a vote.
The Amuse account on X reminds us that to vote in Mexico, you have to have a government-issued ID.
That's right.
To vote in Mexico, you need a government-issued ID.
But if you walk across the border, Apparently you can vote in the United States with nothing, including citizenship.
Now, if you get caught, I think your vote won't count.
But I'm not so sure too many people are getting caught, so I don't know how that works.
Just something to be aware of.
It looks like the winner is Claudia Scheidenbaum.
Uh, just the weirdest thing.
I never expected that the next president of Mexico would be a Jewish woman.
I mean, she's a Mexican citizen, but she has a Jewish background.
There can't be a ton of that in Mexico, but let me tell you why, what I liked about her.
I saw, I know nothing about her except I've seen some pictures and she's her mentor was the current president.
Uh, But of all the things, this is the thing that stood out when I saw her pictures work in the crowds.
She's wearing a ponytail.
And she's pulling it off.
Not everyone can make a ponytail work, but she totally pulls off a ponytail while she's doing her campaigning.
Do a lot of American politicians Do they ever wear ponytails in any official capacity?
I feel like I've seen a AOC in a ponytail when she was casual, maybe.
I don't know, I liked it.
She pulls off a ponytail.
Is it just me?
I'm always impressed by anybody who can simply pull off the look.
Right?
Because the reason that, you know, big hair is popular is that we like it better.
You have to have just the right look to pull off a ponytail, and she does.
That's the least important thing in politics, but there it is.
Here's a story which you probably thought was real news that maybe is fake news.
So today I will disappoint my audience by telling you things you thought were true that maybe are not so true.
You may have seen a story as I did this morning that there's a claim, and I'm going to tell you that What's wrong with the claim in a minute?
The claim is that there are 74,000 mail-in ballots received with no record they were mailed out.
That would be more than the margin of victory in Arizona in the 2020 election.
Does that sound pretty convincing?
So this is a fact.
It's a fact, and then I'm going to tell you why you're misinterpreting it.
But it's a fact.
That you're supposed to know how many were mailed out, and then you're supposed to keep record of how many were received.
And don't you think it would be a problem if your record of how many you mailed out was way different than the ones you received?
Now, if you received way fewer than you mailed out, totally normal.
Not everybody mails them.
But if you received substantially more coming in, than you ever sent out, that would be a huge signal for fraud.
Would you agree?
So would you agree that there's no other explanation for that?
Are you on the same page with me?
That there can't be any official explanation that would ever satisfy you if that's true.
And it's true.
It's confirmed to be true.
So how do you interpret that?
Think in your mind what could be any other explanation for why you get more in than you ever mailed out in the first place.
So therefore there was pretty confirmed bad behavior, wouldn't you say?
All right, so here's what you're going to learn today.
That what you think is you analyzing a situation is not what just happened.
That's not what happened.
What happened is you analyzed your own ability to imagine, and it failed you.
You couldn't imagine a situation in which that could be okay, despite the fact that everything about it looks like it's not okay.
Alright, now I'm going to tell you what the official explanation was.
Now, I'm not going to say that the official explanation is correct, I'm just going to say that as soon as I heard it, it sounded correct.
So a complete will, all right, you ready?
There are two ways to do mail-in voting.
One way is they mail it to you, you get it in the mail, you fill it out and you mail it back.
If that was the only way it happened, then it would be clear sign of fraud if more came back than wherever mailed it.
But there are two ways.
One is it doesn't get mailed to you, You walk into a voting center, you pick it up from a shelf or something, you fill it out, and you drop it in a box.
That would be called a mail-in.
But nobody mailed it to you.
You went to the place where they were sitting in a big pile, took one off the pile, filled it out, and dropped it in the box sitting next to it.
Did you know that?
Now that's the claim from the official people who are debunking it.
Now, my point is not that the election was or was not fair.
I would say it's hard, you know, from my perspective to know one way or the other.
But the point is, if you can't imagine what the alternative was, the problem is in your head.
Your imagination is not up to the task.
Here's another case like that.
I believe that you're all familiar with the fine people hoax about Charlottesville and how something was taken out of context and Democrats came to believe something that never happened.
And you know, the drinking bleach hoax.
Democrats came to believe that Trump said, maybe you should drink bleach.
Never happened.
It looks like there might be a version of that on the Republican side.
And it's called Ashley Biden's diary.
So I tried talking about this yesterday with my audience, and people just flipped out.
And I thought, oh, I'm going to stay away from this topic.
And then I thought to myself, no, the flipping out is the story.
So I'm going to make you flip out.
I challenge my audience, because I never talked about this story, and I don't want to get into the details, but I'll just say that there's a thing called Ashley Biden's diary, which some people say is fake and some people say is real.
I think it's confirmed to be real as far as I know.
But then there's a claim that there's a specific entry in there, or entries, that would, if true, would be a horrible situation that Joe Biden was involved in.
I'm not even going to give you any details.
I'll just tell you this.
I said, can somebody show me that?
I keep hearing about it, but I've never seen it.
Like, can you show me the words in the diary?
And I said, I don't believe it exists.
So somebody showed it to me.
And then the following thing happened.
Here it is.
Look right here.
And I said, I'm looking at it.
I don't see what you said.
It's right here.
Okay.
I'm reading it.
I see every word you're pointing to.
I don't see what you're saying.
Now, does that mean that it's not there?
I'll tell you what I saw.
I saw something that was ambiguous that could be interpreted one of two ways.
One way is, President said you should drink bleach.
The other way is that something ordinary happened that was worded poorly.
Now, I'm not going to defend anything that anybody did, so don't interpret this as me defending Joe Biden.
I'm telling you that the claims that I read all the time on the internet are not supported by the thing that the claims derive from.
I looked at it myself.
Now, part of it is that there are two claims.
One has details.
And one is just a ambiguously worded thing that looks like it could be trouble, but you don't really know for sure.
So the one that's got details is not supported by any documents.
There's some kind of forgery floating around.
So if you heard the one that, you know, says under certain conditions, a thing happened, there's nothing like that in the diary.
There's nothing that said under this condition, this happened or how often or what ages were involved.
None of that's in the diary.
There's just one little thing that any normal person would be very concerned about, but it's a lot like the drinking bleach thing.
What she said directly looks really troublesome, but it almost couldn't have been that.
In other words, the most provocative interpretation of what it meant is probably the least likely.
But if you want to believe that stuff, you kind of go to it automatically.
Now, if you add it to the hair sniffing and the weird behavior that we see in public, it does create an overall picture that says, maybe we should know more about this.
But to say that it's sort of documented and it's written writing and we can all read it.
Nope, I don't buy it.
I do buy that there's something there that raises your eyebrow all the way past the top of your head.
Can we agree on that?
I think we can agree that if you read the part that is confirmed to be real, you're going to have some questions.
But I think there's probably more than one way to explain what that is.
Very much like if you didn't know that mail-in votes, sometimes you walk into the office and drop it in the box.
It's just that your imagination, getting back to my prior point, your imagination fails when you read the diary.
You say to yourself, I'm pretty sure this could only mean one thing, and it's really, really bad.
But could it?
Can you imagine that if you heard the real story behind it, it would sound different?
I'm not saying it would.
I'm saying, can you imagine it?
Because I think we need a little better standard for blaming innocent people of crimes, especially bad ones.
It shouldn't be that you strongly suspect it.
I think we need to go a little bit better than that.
But I'm not saying it's false.
I'm just saying a little better evidence would be better.
All right.
Speaking of Biden's kids, Hunter Biden's going in for his felony gun charges.
You know, when this whole felony gun charge thing first came up, my first instinct is that this is not the thing that I want my legal system to be chasing.
Because I like the Second Amendment right, and I know that the law particular law said he was he lied on his application and he was an addict and so he shouldn't get a gun and I Understand the technical part of the law But as a Second Amendment supporter I just had some problems with the fact that of all the things in the world you would go after him for wanting to own a gun and Probably he's in the category of people who are safer with one. I mean, maybe the people around him are less safe, I
suppose but I've completely changed my mind on this because the lawfare case.
Because I'm fairly certain that Joe Biden was behind the lawfare against Trump, I think his family is in play.
Sorry.
Yeah.
If Hitler were doing Hitler things and you had a chance to take out his kids, you'd do it.
You'd do it.
And Biden is doing Hitler things.
So when you're lawfaring the other candidate, Trying to put him in jail and maybe trying to kill him.
If the legal system comes for your kid, it's war.
It's war.
So I would say my empathy for Hunter has disappeared and I'm not proud of it.
I'm not proud of it because it takes me off principle.
Yeah.
So anyway, I'm not even going to comment on what I'm seeing in the comments.
All right.
You should know it's fake historian season.
We're in fake poll, fake news, fake historian, fake justice system territory as we approach the election.
But the one I always look forward to is the fake historians.
So the bad guys have these historians who will say absolutely anything.
And they'll act like they're experts because they're historians.
Here's what we know today.
History is all fake.
History is fake.
We know that because we're watching fake history being written in real time during our lifetime.
What are the chances that just started?
We've always known that the winners write the history.
Yeah, there's nothing about our history that's accurate.
The facts, maybe some of the big facts about what war happened and who died and who was the king, But all the narrative, the stuff about why anything happened, that's all fake.
How would you like your job to be an historian, and you have to pretend that history is real?
That's a weird job.
So if there's anybody you should not trust in this world, it's someone who thinks history is real.
Because they might also think the news is real today.
Because they live in a world in which they have to believe that fiction is real, because their job is to tell you that it is.
Hey, that fiction about history, it's totally real.
Listen to me, I'm an expert on it.
So, uh, one of these, uh, historians, uh, Michael Beschloss, he's famous for coming out with that, those grinning things that are bad for Trump.
Yeah.
Have you seen the face where they're a little bit too happy about the things coming out of their mouth?
I don't, I don't even know how to describe that face.
But they're so happy, it looks like they're having some kind of physical dopamine, you know, overdose while they talk about how bad Trump could be or is or was.
So it's like, oh, he's going to become a steal in our democracy!
I mean, you almost think they're tubing below the camera angle because they're just way too happy about what they're saying bad about Trump.
And it's like creepy.
Uncanny Valley stuff.
It's like, ooh, what's wrong with you?
Anyway, Beschloss is the top of that list.
And he says, he warns that Trump's second term could lead to dictatorship and anarchy.
The choice is actually pretty clear.
We've got a convicted felon.
He's a historian.
And he told you that Trump is a convicted felon.
And he left out the fact that it was complete bullshit lawfare, and that nobody but Trump would have ever been convicted of it, or even indicted.
He's a historian who proved to you while you were watching, he could not interpret correctly the narrative of our current time, but his job Is to tell you the narrative of all the prior times, which we all know at this point is fake news.
Now, could there be a more ridiculous character?
I can't imagine a more useless and worthless human being than somebody who studies history like it was real, knowing it isn't, and then gives you pronouncements about how because of the felony, which is fake, That means that Trump will turn into a dictator and anarchy, even though we already observed him not doing that.
That's the weakest take of all takes.
Meanwhile, Steve Bannon is set for a hearing on the 6th, so three days from now, to decide whether or not he's going to be remanded to prison.
Now, I don't know what that decision involves.
Wasn't he found guilty?
So, I don't know exactly what they're going to be talking about.
Is there some appeal that I don't know about?
Anyway, let's game this out.
Let's say Steve Bannon goes to jail.
Is that good for Democrats or bad for Democrats?
It's bad for Steve Bannon if he goes to jail, but My guess is that Trump's going to raise more money, and it's going to make more people vote for Trump, because it's going to look to people like yet another example of lawfare.
And whatever you thought happened to Trump, if you wondered if it might be coming for you, You're going to say to yourself, I don't know the details of this case.
I'm not sure what that Peter Navarro situation was.
I don't know what the Steve Bannon situation was, but it all sounds like they're going after Trump supporters for details.
You know, like technicalities.
Now you could argue whether they are, but it would feel like that to the casual news watcher.
So I would think that if Steve Bannon goes to jail, it's going to be a boost for Trump.
I don't want him to go to jail, but I feel like that's the way it would go at this point.
We're also in, as I said, not just the fake historian season, but also in the fake news season, even faker than usual, because it's election season.
And The Hill has a story with a headline, Why Are Americans Feeling So Negative About The Economy?
Do you need to read that?
Is that an article you want to click on and say, huh, let's dig into this a little bit.
Why are Americans feeling so negative about the economy?
Does anybody have a question about why people are negative about the economy?
I'm pretty sure anybody who ever bought anything in the last year, anything, you know what's wrong with the economy.
Anybody who is white and tried to get a job recently, you sure know what's wrong with the economy.
No, it's not really a mystery.
I'm sorry, The Hill publication.
I don't really need to read your article about why Americans are feeling so negative about the economy.
And let me suggest that the tone of the title of the article, Why Are Americans Feeling So Negative About The Economy, suggests that whatever this article I didn't read says is going to be a steaming pile of bullshit about how Everything is great, and I don't know what's wrong with you just because you can't afford shit Why are you not seeing clearly that everything's terrific?
So fake news season, you don't have to read that article.
It's also fake polling season.
I told you and you'll be able to see it yourself that there need to be a bunch of fake polls to balance out the real ones if things aren't going your way because if you plan to cheat or even if you just wanna keep your supporters incentivized and feeling like they can win, you do some fake polls to balance things out.
Now, I don't know exactly which ones will be fake and which aren't, but it's a guarantee that there will be fake ones.
And when I say fake, all they need to do is tweak a few variables in how they ask the questions and they can get any result they want.
So here's one.
About half of Americans, this is according to a poll, ABC News Ipsos poll.
Would you trust a corporate news entity like ABC?
To be associated with a poll during election season that was accurate?
Or would it be your expectation that this is really likely to be the kind of poll that would be faked?
Because they want the public to think that the felony conviction is causing people to be less inclined to vote for Trump to make it safe for other people to say, oh, lots of people are changing their mind because of the felony.
I guess I could do that too.
So the point of the polling is to tell you what normal people are thinking, even if they're not, so that you, thinking you're a normal person too, can maybe be a little more likely to be persuaded to be on the same side with the normal people.
So let's see what the normal people said.
About half of Americans believe Trump should end his campaign after the guilty verdict.
Half of Americans I think he should end his campaign because of the guilty verdict.
Does that sound like a legitimate poll?
Before I even tell you the answer, I mean, you didn't even need to know what the answer was.
Does that sound legitimate?
Let me tell you what's wrong with it.
If it wasn't jumping out at you, here's what's wrong with it.
This is a poll in which they ask you to compare Trump to Trump.
Did you get that?
It's a poll about the election in which you asked to compare Trump to himself.
So you're comparing Trump not convicted to a Trump convicted.
Is that what you're going to vote for when you go to the election booth or you mail in your ballot?
Are you going to say, huh?
Who do I vote for?
Trump who wasn't convicted or Trump who was convicted?
No, that's not your choice.
That's not your choice.
The choice is only And the only one that matters, Trump versus Biden.
Right?
That's the only one that matters.
And if you ask a different question, so that you can get, you know, an answer that sounds more like what you want to hear, that's an influence poll.
That's not about information.
Right?
At the same time, in the article on this, it says that Trump's approval level stayed the same.
So could it be true that half of Americans think he should drop out of the race at the same time that his approval levels stay the same?
If his approval levels had changed, maybe that would be telling you something.
All right.
So here's what I think.
I think it might be entirely true that half of Americans think he should end his campaign.
But do you know what half of Americans also think?
Probably half of Americans believe That this should not be a contest between Biden and Trump.
Wouldn't you agree?
Probably half of the country, if you gave them the choice, they'd say, you know, we do love Trump versus Biden, but all things considered, Like, if we could just start with a blank slate, we'd go in with a, you know, 40-something DeSantis, 40-year-old, whatever age he is, and we'd, you know, get more years of young people and we wouldn't have the provocations and all the, you know, all the worry and everything.
So, it seems to me this is a clearly a poll that's designed to drive opinions, as opposed to tell you what opinions are.
Maureen Dowd, who's a famous Trump non-lover for the New York Times reports that her sister, who interestingly is a Republican, decided that she would vote for Trump because of the felony conviction.
It's her own sister.
So one of the famous anti-Trumpers is, to her credit, she's reporting it.
So, you know, you have to give her credit for transparency.
But the sister's reason is the interesting thing.
It wasn't just that it was unfair and people are saying, eh, the system's unfair.
You know, we're going to have to correct it by electing Trump.
It went deeper.
And here's what I warned you about.
She was worried that there's nobody that would protect her.
So Maureen O'Dowd's sister is a Republican.
And when she watched the top Republican get law-fared, she said, who would protect me?
You know, my father's dead.
Who would protect me if I got lawfared?
And so she realized that she's living in an environment that's too unsafe as a Republican and that she had to vote for the one person who might be able to protect her.
And that's Trump.
Now that is important.
It's one person.
So we don't know if that's a generalized feeling, but it is what I predicted.
And what I predicted was empathy.
That people would see Trump as themselves for the first time.
When Trump is in, you know, the Golden Towers, I don't say to myself, oh, he's just like me.
You know, when he's doing Trumpy things like rallies and things, I don't think, doesn't feel just like me.
But when he gets accused of something that's sketchy, and then the system closes in on him, that is me.
Because I live in the same system.
That system is surrounding me, touches me every moment I walk and live and breathe.
Same system.
If a guy, him, I feel it personally.
Now I'm a public figure, so maybe I'm at more risk than the average person, but if somebody who's just a voter, an ordinary Republican, is going to say that I feel threatened because Trump got law-fired, that's what I predicted.
I predicted empathy.
See, remember, empathy is not just your empathy for the other person.
There's always a little bit of it, which is, I'm glad it's not me.
Like, that's connected to empathy.
I'm glad it's not me.
So, I think people feel this one personally.
I did.
Yeah, the conviction of Trump didn't feel like a political outcome to me.
It wasn't just because I'm supporting him for president.
It felt personal.
Like, I felt I was being handcuffed.
I mean, I can't explain it, but did anybody have the same experience?
That you just put yourself in the scene, and you saw yourself unfairly convicted and law-fired?
Because we've all been, I think most of us have had the experience where the system was against them, unfairly.
It could have been anything.
It could have been your school administrators, you know, your job.
But everybody's felt the system being against them, and then we watched it happen to Trump.
Anyway, here's the other way they use the fake polls.
I think this was maybe in some publication.
They said that Trump has a 1.8% lead based on 173 polls.
So he's up 1.8% based on the average of 173 polls.
How many of those polls are credible?
So he's up 1.8% based on the average of 173 polls.
How many of those polls are credible?
Well, during fake polling season, you don't want Trump to look like he's up five, because that would be too big to rig.
So you put a bunch of fake ones in the mix, and then all the people who are trying to be reasonable, but of course they're making a mistake, they say, well, the reasonable thing would be to take the average.
No.
No, the reasonable thing would be to take the average if you knew that they all did a similarly credible job of doing their work.
But you don't average the fake polls with the real ones.
That's what they did.
Because I'm sure that some percentage of these are legitimately faked.
Right?
In other words, the people who did them knew what they were doing when they did them.
You don't average fake polls and real ones.
That's nothing.
That's trying to hide the ball.
That's what that is.
Meanwhile, Trump is on TikTok, as you know, but here's a surprise.
Uh, somebody named, uh, Tara Palm Mary.
I don't know what her role is, but she seems to know some stuff.
Um, she said that the pro-Trump content is 10 to 12 times more popular than pro-Biden stuff on TikTok.
And she says two TikTok officials told her that, um, that since November, there's been two times more pro-Trump content than Biden.
Uh, I don't know how that maxes with matches with the 10 times more, but okay.
And.
According to an internal TikTok analysis, Trump content beat Biden content by 10 to 1 in likes and 12 to 1 in views.
Does that sound real?
Do you believe that TikTok is pushing hard for Trump?
Here's one way to explain it, and I don't know if this is enough.
Biden is not memeable, but Trump is super memeable.
Like, the Trump memes are funny.
And they're interesting.
Have you seen the one where Trump is riding the back of a giant golden eagle?
And the golden eagle picks up Biden from the water like a fish.
And Trump is like, yeah!
Have you seen that one?
It is terrific.
It's just terrific.
And even if it weren't an election, you'd laugh at it because it's so well done.
So I just don't know that the left can meme.
You know, we've been saying that for years.
I think the quality of the meme has got to have a big impact on who views it and likes it.
So I would think that because Trump is the most memeable character in the history of characters, and Biden is the least memeable character in the history of politicians, at least, you would expect more Trump action.
But that there's so much even in what you would imagine would be a more left-leaning vehicle is weird.
It does suggest that China maybe is not putting their finger on the scales.
Or do you imagine that China is putting their finger on the scales of TikTok because they want Trump to win?
Can you think of a reason why China would want Trump to win?
Think of a reason for that.
I've got one.
Why would they want Trump to win?
Now, if you're a Trump supporter, you're going to immediately go to, oh, because they can negotiate with him.
Right?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Allow me to suggest another possibility.
If China is watching the news in America, like everybody else, you know, they must have people who are Good at English and watching the news and summarizing it for the leaders.
I'm sure that's happening in some form.
They would be watching the United States grappling with the most controversial character of all time, and it might look like the election of Trump would tear the country apart.
So it's entirely possible that from China's perspective, if they believe MSNBC, and they believe CNN, at least half of CNN, They might think that the worst thing that could happen to America is for Trump to be re-elected, because it'll tear the country apart.
They might be right, but if you go with the theory that China could make TikTok put their finger on any algorithm and any content they wanted, if you think that there is really control there, and if you think they exercised it, the only reason you would exercise it 10 to 1 in favor of Trump, which doesn't sound real to me.
It just doesn't sound real.
Unless it's a thumb on the scale situation.
Maybe they think he's bad for America.
Maybe.
Don't know.
Here's my mini theme for today.
Democrats have an idiot problem in leadership.
I'm going to give you several examples of idiots in the leadership of Democrats.
You know Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock?
They were really big on ESG.
And then he said, ESG is really embarrassing us, we better pull back.
Because the DEI thing completely exploded and embarrassed them.
Now he's saying that you need clean Uh, energy that isn't intermittent because we're going to need so much for our data centers.
Do you know what that means?
Pro nuclear.
And maybe get your finger off of all the, uh, things that would stop energy from being produced.
I think, I think Larry Fink is what I call a smart idiot.
If he and I did an IQ test, I think he'd beat me.
I think you probably could get into a better school than I could have at the time, et cetera.
So I'm not saying his IQ isn't high.
But with this ESG stuff, we observe him acting like an idiot.
Like maybe he didn't understand the implications of what would happen if he made ESG his centerpiece of his thing.
But it looks like it all blew up in his face.
And I think I could have told him.
I think I could have told him exactly where that would end up.
So, he's a smart idiot.
And I think what causes that is obviously not the smart part, because the smart part seems fine.
There's something about the gaslighting and the brainwashing that the Democrats get that will make even the smartest person turn into an idiot.
But then they have real idiots too, like Maxine Waters.
So she's saying that Trump supporters are, quote, domestic terrorists, And she wonders if they're preparing a civil war against us.
So she said that again recently.
Now, you can say to yourself, well, she doesn't believe those things.
She's just saying them for political purposes.
But if she is, she's the worst leader ever.
Because it's just a terrible thing for a leader to be saying.
So I'd say she's a leader and she's an idiot.
But unlike Larry Fink, who might have a high IQ, there's no indication she's anything but dumb.
I watched a conversation online between Megyn Kelly and David Pakman.
Now, David Pakman is a prominent pundit podcaster on the left, and what I learned was that when somebody on the left talks to a well-informed person on the right, it always goes the same way.
The person on the left realizes that they haven't been getting correct news the entire time.
So, Megyn Kelly fact-checked him so hard, I think he left his jockstrap a block back.
I mean, he got banged down hard.
And when I was done with it, I said to myself, huh, David Pakman does not look nearly as smart as Megyn Kelly.
Like, they don't look like they're even on the same level, really.
But David Pakman's a prominent voice on the left.
Compared to Megyn Kelly, he came off as an idiot, but he would be, you know, a normal person.
He has normal IQ, but I think he too, well, based on what I saw, he didn't know enough about what was true.
So his opinions were all ridiculous, because he didn't know what the facts were.
And when Megyn Kelly sort of informed him what was true, it caused like some kind of weird cognitive dissonance in him.
So you have to watch that.
Then, so that's more idiots.
Let's see, David Sachs on the X-Profile points out that the Hillary campaign operative who cooked the books to hide payments for the Steele dossier became the SEC chairman.
Then the Biden campaign operative who orchestrated the 51 spies who lied about Hunter's crimes on the laptop, I guess.
Became Secretary of State.
And then David Sachs says, Dems know how to reward election interference.
Now, I'm going to add this to my theme of Democrats having idiots for leaders.
In this case, they have criminals as leaders, because they were actually promoted for doing things that maybe weren't technically illegal, but look like they should have been.
How smart is it to promote the people who get caught?
The reason that we're talking about these two people who got rewarded is because we know what they did.
I'm going to go with Trump.
I prefer people who don't get caught.
I think the smart people can do bad things and not get caught.
But the Democrats have people who aren't smart enough to get away with it because they all got caught.
But they got rewarded anyway, so I guess I should ask who's the smart one here.
Is it me or them?
They got promoted, so maybe they're the smart ones in this case.
Then we have the Biden dementia tapes.
Still trying to get those.
Apparently they've been locked in a skiff so that somebody can go listen to them, but they can't let you listen to it.
That's right.
So then when, let's say, some Republican listens to it and comes back and says, oh, it was really terrible.
He was in bad shape.
All they have to do is send down Adam Schiff to say, no, he's not.
He's fine.
I listened to the same thing.
So they're going to skiff-schiff us.
The play is the skiff-schiff.
The skiff-schiff is you put it in the skiff, this highly secure place where nobody can take a picture of it or take a copy.
They can only experience it inside that room.
So all they have to do is send their best liars into the room and they'll come out and say, no, it was fine.
I listened to it too.
It's fine.
The play here is so obvious.
It's just so obvious that it's a Skiff Shiff play.
Yeah.
It's just a standard Skiff Shiff.
Well, my questions have been answered about the Soros organization, or at least why Alex Soros is going along with his dad's ideas that are terrible and destroying the world.
There's a clip of him at the WEF, um, just talking about a topic.
And, uh, I'll just give you one quote to show you that what we learned from watching him talk in public, he seems to be an idiot.
He just actually seems to be dumb and maybe really dumb based on the clip.
So he's talking to the public, goes, one man, Donald Trump, uh, literally came in and just Took that, uh, took that, uh, took that all the way.
Um, uh, you know, um, so, um, you know, um, you know, you know, um, you took that, um, um, um, away.
You took that, uh, checks and balances that, you know, we had these, uh, customs, these, uh, um, well, uh, the, you know, the, um, the, um, the, um, the, um, uh, the, uh, the customs and, um, um, he came in and he like, uh, Donald Trump, he, um, then he like, um, he took it all away from us.
Now I might be exaggerating a little bit on there, but you have to listen to it.
If you listen to him talking, you'll immediately understand why nobody asks him for interviews.
There's no way he's going to say yes to an interview because he's incompetent talking in public.
In fact, you would be hard pressed to find anybody who can't talk in public as much as he can't talk in public.
He's really, really bad at it.
So he probably just says no.
Because he can't talk in public.
I guess in that case he had to try, but it was just a train wreck.
Yeah.
Wow.
And he must be under the Trump is Hitler train, because he thinks not only is Trump stealing your democracy, but he's stealing your unwritten customs.
That's right.
Trump stole your unwritten rules.
That's what he said in public.
Also, Konstantin Kissin did a great thing for the world that didn't work out at all.
You know how I've been saying that we need to have, like, legitimate debates on topics where you've got plenty of time, but you've also got a strong host, a moderator, who can really keep you in line?
And don't do it in, like, this political way where you let the politicians lie.
You know, just get some experts.
Some people really know what they're talking about.
Put them together, put a strong moderator in the middle.
Boom!
Everybody gets better informed.
And maybe you can work something out.
That's what I thought until yesterday.
And then I watched Konstantin Kissin do, again, I'll say, you know, a great thing for the public, which is he tried to pull it, pull off the very thing we think we wanted.
And the topic was Gaza.
And what should have Israel done, and what should they do now, I guess.
And he had two sides.
And here's the model that I held in my head until that moment.
When two parties disagree on something, you know, they might want different things.
You know, some wants this, the other wants that.
Usually, unless the parties are, you know, just totally bad people, you can usually find a compromise.
You can find some way to, you know, find a negotiated settlement that everybody's not perfectly happy with, but happy enough.
And so we imagine that that model, which works all the time in business, right?
In business, you're always negotiating and usually you can work stuff out.
So why can't they?
Well, I found out why.
And I'm going to tell you a reframe here.
That it will explain a lot going forward.
It's one I hadn't noticed before.
It goes like this.
The people who were on the two sides of the Gaza debate did not disagree on what should be done per se, although that's what it looked like on the surface.
They disagreed on reality.
They disagreed on reality.
And they weren't even close.
And let me tell you, you can't negotiate a middle ground between two different versions of reality.
You can't get there from here.
So any thought that it could ever be negotiated while the two are living in completely different realities of how we got here and who's the bad guy and who's the good guy, you can't negotiate that.
It's completely absurd.
I actually used to think, and by the way, this is something that one of the debate People said, uh, in effect, the, the pro-Palestinian, um, arguers said the Palestinians have a set of, um, demands that are somewhat reasonable.
Now this would be their view.
And if you were to, um, make some action toward addressing their demands, you could stop the terrorism.
So you could stop another October 7th by simply addressing the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians.
And once they saw the things are moving in the right direction, the reason for terrorism would go away and they say, oh, this is working.
So we'll just keep doing this peaceful negotiating because you know, we got a few things, we'll get some more. That can't work if you're living in different realities. That only works if you're in the same reality and you want different things and then you have something you can work with.
Because you don't want the same things.
The same things that are limited resources.
You can't make a deal if you want, if everybody wants the thing that there's only one of.
You can't solve that.
But in a normal situation, you want work, I want money, we can make a deal.
Because we don't want the same thing, and we live in the same reality.
The reality is you have a job, I have skills, you have money.
Same reality.
You can always make that work.
But here are some of the things I heard, and let me tell you who I sided with.
Both sides are completely fucked up.
So there's a pro-Israel side, everything they're doing is what you have to do on October 7th.
And then the other side was, well, maybe if you were nicer to the Palestinians, you wouldn't be in this situation.
Both crazy.
There are two realities that I don't recognize at all.
Let me give you an example.
The pro-Israel guy argued that all over the world there are examples of locals who got displaced and should have the right of return like the Palestinians.
But his point is, why are you only looking at Israel like the one place Where the people who got kicked out should have the right to come back, when all over the world there are people who have been kicked out of all kinds of places, and then nobody's saying write a return for them.
So why are you saying it for Israel?
Does that sound like a good argument to you?
What do all of the other places have to do with this?
Nothing.
Nothing.
It's not even on point.
Well, what do you think Israel and the Palestinians should do?
Well, there's this totally other situation.
No, that's just another situation.
To imagine that that's like a leading point, or you're winning your argument if you take that out, that's insane.
Let me tell you the only model that makes any sense whatsoever.
Whoever has the power to hold land, holds it.
Until somebody else has more power, and then they take it away from you.
That's all it is.
To imagine that there's some narrative that we should all accept, on either side or anything in the middle, is really absurd.
You can pick your narrative if you want, but it doesn't make any difference.
It's just power.
And now let me ask you this.
Imagine you're a Palestinian, and by the way, one of the participants, what was her name?
Forgot to write it down.
But Constantine later called her D.E.I.
Barbie.
Apparently things didn't go well toward the end of the debate.
He called her D.E.I.
Barbie after the fact they were arguing on X. But that's pretty gutsy to do that.
Anyway, one of the points she made is she said that There are Palestinians, I don't know if this is literally true or it just sounds good, who still have the key to the door where they used to live in Israel, and now there's somebody else living there, and they weren't compensated.
Now, what do you do about them?
And it's worse.
It wasn't even that Israel, you know, conquered the land and took it over.
Somebody else gave them their house.
So just imagine you're a Palestinian, and you wake up one day and it's like, hey, the UN decided that Israel owns this land.
But do they own my house?
Well, no.
But things are going to get really tough when they start moving in.
What do you mean?
Well, I mean, legally you could keep your house, but Things might get a little tense once you're outnumbered.
And next thing you know, if you're a Palestinian, it looks like, and I'm saying this is how it would feel, I try to put myself in the situation and say, how would I feel?
Here's what it feels like.
The UN gave your house to your enemies and never talked to you about it.
Wait a minute.
The UN gave my house to my enemies?
And I wasn't consulted.
Now you could go back and say, yes, but before that, you know, the Jews lived there forever.
And then the Arabs kicked them out.
And so really it's the Jews coming home and, you know, you could argue it forever.
But here's one of the things that Constantine helpfully tried to inject because both sides wanted to talk about the past, you know, the past grievances.
Now, your instinct says, if you're locked in the past, you'll never make progress.
So Constantine is trying to say, all right, all right, you know, we could talk about the past, but what should we do today?
Like, what are you going to do?
Like, what should Israel have done differently?
And it turns out that neither side was willing to forget the past.
Because they say you're not really going to understand the present without the past, you know, separating them doesn't make sense.
But when they say the past, what they mean is their narrative of the past, which is fiction.
Both the narratives are fiction.
There's not a true one and a fake one.
You knew that, right?
In this kind of stuff, there's no real one.
There's always just the two narratives, you know, and each will leave out the inconvenient things for the other ones.
So, just to clarify, I'm pro-Israel being a country, and they're our ally, and I'm glad that we're supporting them, etc.
But there's no truth.
If you think any of it has to do with truth, I think you're lost.
It's power.
The Israelis have the power to hold the country.
They're going to build it.
They're doing lots of good things.
And that's the end of the story.
I could have an opinion about it, but it wouldn't change the fact that they have the power to hold it.
That's kind of the whole story.
But I don't believe in the, if you give the Palestinians what they're asking for, everything will be good.
Because anybody who's pro-Palestinian likes to do the thing where they ignore the, we want to kill every Jew and take all your land, which they would say used to be their land.
So you can't really negotiate if part of the negotiators want you dead and that's their final offer.
So to imagine this is negotiable is just kind of crazy.
Kind of crazy.
So I'm going to give Constantine big props for holding the event.
I think PBD did a similar thing with Chris Cuomo and comic Dave Smith.
And that certainly produced some good entertainment.
And I'd like to see more of it.
But I would say that there's no point in having a debate where if you're starting from different realities and that's not going to change.
So.
Meanwhile, there's some confusion over this so-called ceasefire peace plan roadmap thing that Biden says is Israel's idea, but Israel says, no, we just tweaked a few things.
And then somebody else says, somebody else says, what'd they say?
I've confused two things here.
Oh, it's strange that they say it's an Israeli proposal, and at the same time they say Israel needs to agree to it.
So I guess the Biden administration has said, oh yeah, this is Israel's idea, as soon as they agree to it.
Wait, if it's their idea, didn't they start with agreeing with their own idea?
Or did they have an idea they didn't agree with, and they've got to be convinced to agree with their own idea?
Or is it possible that Biden has been lying to us the entire time?
I'm going to go with lying to us the entire time.
And I like the getting back to Constantine's debate here.
One of the guys on the pro-Israel side said that all Hamas has to do is stop fighting and losing wars and everything will be fine.
I used to believe that too.
I used to believe that if just the Palestinians would just stop losing wars, they could negotiate with the rest of the world and get what they wanted.
I don't think there's any chance of that.
Because there's a hardcore faction that will never stop doing it, and it doesn't matter if half of them want peace.
If the other half doesn't, there's nothing you can do with that.
No.
So it seems that, you know, there's enough people who want to destroy all of Israel that there's nothing you can do.
It's just power.
They will keep coming, and Israel will keep beating back as long as they can.
Anyway, then it looked like one of the things that Constantine was complaining about Is that the woman who is the woman he called the DEI Barbie, after the event, not during the event, but that she wouldn't answer a question.
But I didn't see that exactly.
I know what he was talking about, but that she wouldn't answer the question of what Israel should have done or should do.
And it sounded like she was just talking about the past, but she did kind of meander back to it.
And here was her answer.
That Israel should be more like the United States, more of a melting pot.
And although people acknowledge that there are already, you know, Islamic people living within Israel happily, and there are no Jewish people living in Gaza happily.
But here's the thing.
Oh, I had some good point I was going to make there that I just lost while I was talking about the other stuff.
All right, well, I don't think that just stopping fighting is going to fix anything, because there seems to be some permanent difference in reality.
I guess that's the bottom line.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you on today's news.
