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, Apple Intelligence, WaPo Covid Coverage, Prediction Dreaming, Climate Models, EU Food Labeling, FDA Food Labeling, Biden's Mental Decline, Shelitha Robertson, AOC Jail Fears, Theatre Kid Government, Governor Newsom, CA Shoplifting Vote, President Nixon Watergate, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Parenting, 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
That's why you come to see this show, to watch me fuss around with my technology.
Well, good morning, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time, but if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, smooth human brains, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shells, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
Here's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
I'll go.
I get to live out my little fantasy of being an auctioneer.
I remember when I was a little kid, my parents took us to auctions.
And I just love that.
I always wanted to talk like that.
All right, let's talk about what's going on.
If you subscribe to Dilber Reborn, either on X or scottadams.locals.com, you would know that Dilber's company is trying to hire an Elbonian engineer.
to meet their DEI diversity goal.
The problem is, as Dilbert explains, there are only three Elbonian engineers in the world, and they all work for Apple.
So, will they not meet their diversity goals, or will they lower their standards?
What will happen?
Well, only the people who subscribe will get to find out.
Meanwhile, my book, God's Debris, that's just out, That includes my original God's Debris and its sequel and a new short story, still has all five star reviews.
And I have to tell you, this wasn't written just because I thought you'd like it.
I wrote it, you know, it's over a 20 year span, the various parts of it, but it was written to change civilization.
I don't know if I've ever said that before.
It wasn't written for entertainment.
It was written to reprogram the world.
And I thought it would take about 20 years.
So the relaunch allows it to be relevant again at exactly the right time.
And let me tell you the hypnosis trick I was using.
The trick was that the middle book, The Religion War, is a prediction of what the world would look like in 20 years, which happens to be right now.
And my idea was if I hit the predictions just right, it would make you sort of, that's sort of a pacing and leading thing.
If I hit the predictions just right, it would make people look at the entire body of work differently.
And that that would be the activation point.
So it's basically been an inactive virus for 20 years that I just activated.
And that was my plan 20 years ago.
You don't have to believe it, but it's true.
This is the culmination of a over 20 year plan and it's right on schedule, which is weird to even me.
All right.
But it's number one in technology and on Amazon, number one in religious philosophy.
Elon Musk had an interesting concept.
When you've got your Optimus robot and you've got your Tesla self-driving car, Can you tell your Tesla to take your robot to go pick up some groceries?
Will Optimus be able to drive and pick up your kids?
Do you know what Elon says?
Oh yeah, definitely.
Just think of that.
He says it matter-of-factly and with total confidence, like it's not really, there's no if to it.
You will be sending your robot, you will be sending your robot to pick up your kids.
Now, I wonder if there's a part of my book, God's Debris, The Complete Works, in which a robot picks somebody up in their electric car.
Yes.
Yes, I did predict that the robot would be driving the car.
That's actually in the book.
Apple is going to have a big event that's happening right now, I think.
So even as we talk, they might be announcing some stuff.
And apparently they're going to reveal a new AI system called Apple Intelligence.
Oh, how funny.
It could be AI.
It doesn't have to be artificial intelligence.
It could be Apple Intelligence.
And, uh, wait, is that today or tomorrow?
Is that today?
I wrote down tomorrow, but I think the post was from yesterday.
But anyway, we'll find out if Apple's got, uh, Anything new?
This is going to be fascinating because we won't know from the announcement.
You have to use it to find out if it's useful.
But I feel that Apple might be taking the right approach and that's why they're going so slow.
You know, my worry was that Apple was, you know, they lost their mojo and they're just going to lose to AI and become irrelevant if they don't catch up.
But the other possibility, which was always a possibility, is that they saw all the trouble that the early entrants into AI were having and said, we can't have that on our phone.
Which I would agree with.
But the AI that I've used, I wouldn't want on a phone.
So if they needed to wait a while until they invented a useful one that did everything they did and stayed honest and all that, It was worth waiting for.
Maybe.
So let's fingers crossed.
Maybe Apple, the greatest, you know, maybe the greatest company that's not Tesla.
Let's see if they come through.
All right.
I love dunking on the Washington Post for being a ridiculous pretend news organization.
And apparently the Fauci testimony, where he finally said that the whole six foot distancing thing was just made up and not based on any science.
And then you look back at the Washington Post stories.
Oh, you better stay six feet away and otherwise you're destroying the world.
It's the people who don't social distance.
They're the problems.
Vaccinate them!
Hold them down and vaccinate them.
Well, this is all part of the larger point of today's show that all science is fake.
Let me tell you a little trick that I've been doing lately, just because I think it's funny.
When I think that something's mostly true, Or more true than not.
Lately, just to be an asshole, I've been saying it's completely true.
And the funny thing is, it weeds out the idiots.
Because all the smart people know I don't mean 100%.
So if I say, chicken is delicious, you don't have to tell me that if you prepare it wrong, it's not.
All the smart people know that.
They all know that.
Everyone.
It's only the dumb people who are going to weigh in.
Oh, I don't know.
What if that chicken was dead on the side of the road and had been rotting for a month?
I don't think that would be so delicious if he didn't cook it.
No, go away.
Go away.
So, with that in mind, all science is fake.
All right, there's a new study that says our brains try to predict the future when we sleep.
They study some rats.
And they say they can work this out, but I'm a little skeptical.
They say that the rats sleep and imagine the little obstacle thing that they were going through, the maze, and that they're better at it when they wake up the next morning because they've processed, you know, various options in their head and basically worked out better strategies during sleep.
That's one possibility.
I'm going to offer another possibility.
A well-rested rat can solve a maze better than a tired rat?
Or how about this one?
A rat that's been in the maze once does better than a rat that hasn't been in the maze once?
Maybe?
So, you know, obviously they would have the same questions when designing the study, and obviously they would control for those things.
Or did they?
It's not like we haven't seen a million science experiments that are literally backwards, the cause and effect.
Yeah, a million.
Not less.
A million.
See, I'm doing it again.
This is where I make ridiculous, exaggerated claims, which all the smart people know.
I don't mean exactly all of them or a million.
I just want to get dumb people all worked up.
Oh, I know one that's not like that.
All right, so your brains predict the future when you sleep.
Let's say it's true.
What this reminded me of is how AI can train itself.
So if a rat can go to sleep and work through maze options in its head somewhat automatically, it's learning from nothing.
It's learning from itself.
Can you learn from yourself?
Well, that's what AI is trying to figure out.
So AI sucked up all the data on the internet, practically, and then it ran out of things to train on, so now they're training on synthetic data.
That's a dream.
When the AI says they're training AI on synthetic data, they're actually training on the AI's dreams, effectively.
Because the AI will just think of all the things that could happen, and then it trains itself on its imagination.
And I'm skeptical that you can get anything good out of that process, but it sounds a lot like the mice.
And so every time I see AI doing something that a regular brain, an organic brain would do, I say to myself, well, we're one step closer to proving that humans are not more awesome than a large language model.
And one step closer to realizing that A artificial general intelligence, you know, the one that's supposedly the next phase, the one that's really smart.
I don't think it's possible.
I don't think it's possible.
I think the only thing we can build is something that's programmed with a bunch of rules, which just means it's not intelligent.
It's just doing what somebody told it to do.
No, I don't believe that there will be an artificial general intelligence.
There might just be dumber things that are more powerful.
Or just as dumb.
Here's a new study.
Apparently, that adding even a little bit of information to a decision makes us unable to make a decision.
So we very quickly get overwhelmed with too many variables if there's a decision, right?
So if the decision is, hey, do you want to eat?
And your only variable is, are you hungry?
You go, oh, yes.
But suppose you got lots of variables, like you got a weird diet, and the other person has a weird diet, and maybe you're not sure if you have money.
You know, it's a little expensive.
It's not your budget.
There's the driving.
You've got a little problem about, you know, if we do this, are we gonna have time to get home?
Do we need a reservation?
As soon as you add that stuff, we get paralyzed.
Like, uh, I'll just eat at home.
Right?
So I, this makes sense.
It makes intuitive sense that if you add too much, uh, complexity to any decision, people fall apart pretty quickly.
But I would like to connect this to something I've been saying for a long time that none of you believed, which is the most fun things for me to say is something that nobody believes.
Like I don't get the minority of people believing nobody believes.
All right, here it is.
Doing your own research is a bad idea.
That's what I've been saying.
It makes you dumber.
But the research just agreed with me.
So let's say you're looking into a topic and you know a few things about it and you've got an opinion.
But then you do your own research.
What happens when you do your own research?
Well, the whole point of it is you're adding variables.
You're not looking into the two variables that you're concerned about.
Suddenly, the world of variables opens up.
It's like, oh, how do we make this climate model and all the rest?
So, in general, it's a thing that the more you do your own research, the dumber you will get.
Now, what also happens is that confirmation bias kicks in.
And when you think you're doing your own research, you're actually just traveling down a little, you know, snail trail of things that you already thought were true.
So all you're doing is talking yourself into being brilliant.
You're not really researching because you're not looking at the other side.
You just say, ah, that's obvious BS.
I don't even need to look at that one.
So now doing your own research makes you dumber.
However, I know you're all squirming in your seat and you're saying, Scott, but that time I used it and it worked.
What about the pandemic?
We looked into it ourselves and it worked and we beat all the researchers.
Do not, do not judge yourself on binary questions.
The pandemic was a whole bunch of binaries.
This either works or it doesn't work, in which case it'd be a bad idea.
It's binary.
There's not much anything in between.
So whenever you have a big binary complicated thing, half of the public's going to say it's a terrible idea and then they're going to do their own research and what will they find?
Well, amazingly, the research will agree with their initial impression.
And then there are other people who might think it's a great idea and do the research.
And sure enough, everything they find supports the idea.
It's a great idea to do that social distancing or whatever it is they're looking for.
So you're basically going to just confirm your own biases.
Does that mean that nobody's ever done their own research and gone from the wrong answer to the right answer?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Do you think I'm saying that nobody has ever, ever done their own research and gone from a wrong opinion to a right opinion?
Only the dumb people think that.
All the smart people say, well, obviously sometimes it works.
But you know the problem?
You don't know when it worked.
That's the problem.
Is it true that it works?
Absolutely!
Absolutely, it's true that it works.
Is it true that you know when it works?
Nope!
Okay, you don't know when it worked.
You only know you got convinced.
That's all you know.
All right, I asked AI the following question, and this is why AI will someday be illegal, I think, or at least so crippled you can barely use it.
So I asked it, how many of the climate models that were existing in the 90s Are still being used today without modification?
Have you ever heard anybody ask that question?
In all of the conversations you've ever seen about climate models, because they're the things driving our policies, the models.
Have you ever seen anybody ask that question?
What about the models you had in the 90s?
They're still good, right?
And the answer is there are no models from the 90s that are still being used.
Now, there are models that, you know, there's some base part that they modified quite a bit.
Why would they modify it?
Why would 100% of the models from the 90s have to be modified?
Well, if you ask it that question, the follow-up question, it'll say, well, we figured out ways to incorporate new variables.
You know, we learned more, so we built it into the model.
Totally makes sense, right?
But wait a minute.
How far away was the original model then?
Was the original model, like, way off?
Was it way off?
Because if it wasn't way off, why did you have to modify it?
Why do you modify something that's accurate-ish in a world where nobody knows exactly what's going to happen?
And why are there hundreds of them?
There's only one answer.
Anybody who's lived in the real world long enough, and so basically anybody under 30 doesn't understand what I'm going to say at all.
This will be like, that's crazy talk, I don't even know what you're saying.
I don't know what the words are that are coming out of your mouth.
But if you're over 50, let's say, and you've got a lot of experience in the real world, what does it mean when not a single model from the 90s exists, they've all been modified, and there are hundreds of them?
It only means one thing, it's all bullshit.
There's no other interpretation.
You'd have to be really, really inexperienced to imagine that these are useful tools.
Very inexperienced.
Like, you would have to be seriously inexperienced to think this is real.
Anyway, so let me say it again.
If climate models were ever real, there would be at least one of them from the 90s, at least one, that got it right.
Without any modification.
There isn't.
Or for many other decades.
Now do you believe that the 70s, 80s and 90s models were all messed up so that they couldn't even keep them as is?
But finally we figured it out?
Why?
Because we did extra research and we added extra variables.
Does doing extra research and adding extra variables make you smarter or dumber?
Dumber.
So they took models that didn't work and they added dumbness, which is extra variables that they really don't know what it's doing and what it isn't doing.
Yeah.
They actually made them worse and sold them as better.
That's what happened.
They just sold them better.
In my opinion, Because I don't believe anybody can predict the future of the temperature of the Earth.
I don't believe that.
Which is not to say we don't have any kind of warming problem.
That's a separate question.
I just know we can't measure it.
Well, the FDA says they're going to put warning labels, at least maybe an abbreviated version of it, on the front of packages instead of, well, in addition to, being on the back.
Apparently, there are some European countries that already do this.
Uh, there's one country, I didn't write it down, where they just put a stop sign on the front of the package.
Just literally one of those stop signs with like the, I think, well, I don't know what it looks like.
It's a stop sign, basically.
It's basically saying this food is unhealthy.
Don't we need that in the United States?
Just imagine that in the United States.
That's right on the, on the shelf.
It's labeled like cigarettes.
They're labeling their food like cigarettes, correctly.
Correctly labeling.
And, you know, if they have too much sugar and whatever.
So as soon as I saw this, that the FDA, who I consider a captured regulatory group, is doing something that you'd think that the food industry would not like, because they don't want you to be focusing on the negative part of their food, I said to myself, huh, It would be non-standard if the FDA did something that's good for the public and bad for the food industry.
In my view of the world, that would be non-standard.
So the first thing I thought is that it's a fake.
Not fake news, but that the FDA is running an op here.
And the op would be, we'll put something on the front of the box, but it won't be the stuff you need.
For example, do you think the box will say, This has, I don't know, um, what's the, not overly processed, but very processed foods.
Do you think it'll say it's, um, that it's overly processed?
I'll bet they leave that out.
Do you think it will say that it has a wheat that was made in America with the, the weed killer technique that they use now?
Or do you think they'll say, well, weed is fine.
Why would anybody complain about wheat?
Unless you have a gluten allergy.
What do you think?
I think this is bullshit.
I think the FDA is working with the food company to hide the ball, not show you the ball.
So here's what I expect.
It will accurately tell you there's a lot of sugar in it.
It will accurately tell you if maybe there's a protein in it that you like.
It's going to accurately tell you things that you know to be true and you don't have any question about.
I predict it will not tell you that it has chemicals on it like fertilizers.
It will not say anything about wheat.
It will not tell you that you should just stay away from this kind of food in general.
I think it's going to be a weak warning which helps the food companies as much as it hurts them.
And that they're playing for a tie.
That's what I think.
Because I don't trust any regulatory agency to be uncorrupted at this point in history.
The Rasmussen polling company did a poll on what people think of Biden's mental decline.
57% of likely voters said, yes, Biden's getting less mentally sharp.
33% disagree.
33% of the country is looking at Biden today and saying, yeah, that looks about, that's how I remember him.
Yeah, he looks about the same as when he ran for the first Do you even believe that?
Do you believe that really there are 33% who think, yeah, he's fine?
No, I would say that's a political answer to a question.
That's, that's like a wishful thinking answer.
Hey, what do you think of Biden?
Oh, he's, uh, how do I answer this?
I don't want to make it sound like he's not viable.
Cause I really hate Trump.
He's obviously declining in mental health, but I think I can sell this.
Yeah, it looks fine to me.
Yeah, I thought he looked fine.
Well, I don't even know what you're seeing.
What are you even looking at?
Don't understand.
Totally confused.
Yeah, I wouldn't trust the 33% who don't see it.
I would like to express some anger and disappointment with myself, but all of you, I think, share in this.
So during the time that Biden was in Normandy, and he allegedly, but only in the fake way, it didn't really happen, and the fun was that it looked like he crapped his pants in front of the audience.
Now, I don't think there's any chance that that's what was happening, and the video was selectively edited to make it look more like that.
However, can we agree it was a lot of fun?
Everybody on the same page?
It was a lot of fun.
It was like a A luxury entertainment belief.
You know, we didn't really believe it, but it was kind of fun to believe it for a while.
All right.
Now, having said that.
I want you to feel the disappointment that I'm feeling right now, that that entire story kind of came and went, you know, it's sort of too late to bring it up again.
And not as not a single person and not me.
And I take full responsibility for this.
I got to fall on my sword.
I never once thought to call him the shitting president.
Now, am I losing it?
I think we need a Rasmussen Poll to find out if my mental acuity is going down.
How in the world did I not once think of calling him the shitting president?
Seriously, Scott?
I mean, I am disappointed in myself.
And none of you helped.
None of you helped.
You're supposed to be my backup.
You should have been screaming, call him the shooting president, it's hilarious!
Well, next time, let's get our game up, alright?
I've heard that Viagra makes your memory better, so I'm going to take some of that.
I'm going to not do my own research, because that makes you dumber.
I'm going to ignore the food labels, because I know they're fake, and I don't want to ruin my brain with bad food.
But we're not going to make this mistake again, people.
No.
Next time, there's a pun that's accessible, and it's just like this big Juicy, low-hanging fruit, and I ignore it?
Well, you should let me know.
We can't live like this.
Kyle Becker is giving us an update on the whole Biden crime family.
And guess who we now have?
We, meaning the country, has subpoenaed bank records that show over $35 million was received by Biden family members or companies and business associates.
What exactly was the product they were selling for $35 million?
Oh yeah, it was Access.
Now is any of that illegal?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
Is it illegal to have hundreds of different bank accounts?
I don't know.
No idea.
But I do know that if you thought that they were self-dealing, that is answered.
Yeah, it's a self-dealing company, but it might not be illegal.
So, if you don't have a crime, I'm a lot less interested.
If there is a crime, or even if, you know, Biden was just lying for political reasons, those are important things.
But, I don't know, selling access might be so common that I'm not entirely sure how to process that story.
All right, but did they sell us out to foreign interests?
Well, maybe.
But that's not necessarily a crime if you're not in office.
So I don't know where that, I don't know where crime and their activities, you know, do those Venn diagrams touch?
I actually don't know.
Well, there's an Atlanta prosecutor, um, who on a podcast was bragging about, uh, how she's, you know, very ethical and would never do anything unethical just to make some dirty money.
God, no.
But it looks like she's going to jail for seven years for stealing $15 million in COVID relief.
But at least it went to good causes.
For example, the Rolls-Royce she bought with it.
Yes, actually, she bought a Rolls-Royce with stolen COVID money.
Now, because I'm cancelled, I get to say the things that you could never say.
You ready for this?
Here's something you would get canceled so fast if you said what I'm going to say.
Why is it?
Why are there so many black female prosecutors that are dirty?
Is that a coincidence?
I don't think it's a coincidence, but I don't think it's necessarily, you know, genes or culture.
I think it's a DEI problem.
And the DEI problem is, if you really, really need to guess somebody... Well, let me put it this way.
It's a Soros plus DEI problem.
Here's what I think.
I think if you're Soros and you're trying to back somebody who's not normally gonna win, but you're trying to find somebody that you could get to win, aren't you gonna pick a female in today's world?
Of course.
And aren't you gonna pick black?
Of course you are.
Because that's the most likely to win in any city environment at the moment.
If you're black and female, you get, you know, two groups are sort of automatically on your side, and that's probably enough to push you over the top if you also have a lot of funding.
So does it make sense that Soros would sort of intentionally target a demographic that is more likely to get votes, so long as they have funding and, you know, some good advisors and stuff?
And what would happen if you're focusing on one Narrow demographic, which is you got to be female, you got to be black, you got to be a certain age, you can't be too young or too old, and you got to be a lawyer, and you got to be in that field of work.
That's a lot of filters.
A lot of filters.
So what you should, what you should, what should you expect from a system that's designed to operate that way?
Looking for a very narrow group and trying to get as many as possible.
Well, the guaranteed effect of that is you're going to go lower and lower into the capability of candidates in order to get the one that can win.
Because the person sitting at the top might be some boring, experienced white guy.
That's a bad bet.
They might not even agree with the things you agree with.
So the system, remember, design is destiny.
So without saying anything negative about women, or black women, or black people, nothing.
This has nothing to do with genes, nothing to do with gender.
That design of a system, Soros trying to promote specific kinds of people because they'll win elections, should guarantee massive incompetence and criminal behavior in those positions.
And that's what we observe.
Now the question I'm going to ask, because I'm not Insane.
How much of this is because the accounts that I follow tend to be, you know, surfacing these cases because they know it's like red meat to the base sort of thing?
How much of it is, if I really did a survey, would I find out that there's no difference whatsoever by, you know, gender or race and that certain number of prosecutors are dirty, but it's just like the rest of the world?
Would I find out that there's no difference?
I don't know.
I don't have access to any data like that.
But you have to ask yourself, am I being fed just a bunch of red meat because I'm in a certain silo?
So I am worried that this is not a true observation.
And you should be worried about that too.
So be a little careful if you're being fed a continuous diet of black people doing violent or illegal things.
I think we're not serving ourselves well if that's all we're seeing, you know, because people think people are going to click it a lot.
So there's definitely a little bit of too much of selective news in my bubble, and I'm very aware of it.
But there's another explanation, which is the design of the system should give you incompetence in a certain specific way.
It looks like we're seeing it.
I just don't know if what I look at is accurate.
All right, Jen, by the way, nobody else could have said that.
Think of anybody else you know in the world who could have said what I just said.
Nobody.
I have free speech in a way you simply don't.
I can actually say that.
And I think it's useful, that's why I say it.
I don't say it to hurt anybody.
I say it because if you don't understand, you've designed a system that's guaranteed to fail by design on paper.
Just look at it on paper.
It's designed to fail.
It can't possibly work.
That's my point.
All right.
I am increasingly convinced of my own hypothesis.
Hypothesis meaning I don't have proof of it.
And the hypothesis is this.
And it comes after I saw the AOC says she's worried about Trump throwing her in jail if he's elected president.
And, of course, all of us say the same thing.
It's like, AOC?
What crime did she commit?
Is she even accused of any crimes?
I'm not aware of any crimes.
Why would she even be worried?
Sounds a little guilty, doesn't she?
Now, one way you can look at it is that she's been, you know, hypnotized into thinking Trump is Hitler.
That could be.
That's a good hypothesis, backed by a lot of observation.
But the other possibility that I don't rule out is that there's a little bit of guilt on the Democrat side.
And I think that Nancy Pelosi, again, this is just speculative and it's just my hypothesis, I think that when she saw the election results in 2020, being the experienced politician she is, she knew it was rigged.
And thought it was too obvious and was scared to death that she would be hung by the end of the day.
Actually hung.
Like literally hung.
Now, I don't think there was any risk of that.
You know, once we, you know, in the, let's say the aftermath, when you look at what was and wasn't going to happen and you look at the level of security she had, et cetera, she wasn't, I don't think there was much risk she was going to get hung.
But I think that the way she acted, And the aggressiveness with which he created the counter-narrative.
The counter-narrative is it was an insurrection, when we can all say it wasn't.
I think all the, at least the Republicans can say it was no insurrection.
If you ever, if we ever do, we, if Republicans ever do an insurrection, I guarantee it's not going to look like that.
There would be little planning involved.
There'd be guns.
They'd look for a weak spot that they could conquer.
Here's what they wouldn't do.
I think we can occupy a building and take over the country with some paperwork.
I don't think so.
I don't think they'd try paperwork insurrection and trespassing to take over the world.
So it's a ridiculous narrative, and it reeks of desperation.
Because one of the things they could have done is just say, all right, calm down everybody, now let's just get back to work.
But they didn't.
They turned it into this whole January 6 bullshit narrative and a fake committee to find him guilty of a fake impeachment.
And they really, really worked hard on it, like somebody who's trying to cover up their own crime.
Now, am I reading too much into it?
Maybe.
Maybe.
That's why it's a hypothesis.
But to me, it looks like the entire thing is them covering up for the fact that it was obviously rigged, and they can see it too.
See, here's the thing.
Why would we ever assume that the Republicans can all see that it was a non-standard result?
So non-standard bellwethers didn't go the way they were, the counting didn't go right, the number of mail-in ballots that went to Biden seemed like ridiculously unlikely, you know, stuff like that.
So I think that Pelosi was in the rare situation where she knew it was rigged.
She may not have, you know, been greenlighting the rigging.
She probably wasn't directly involved.
But I think she looked at the results just like the rest of us did and said, oh, shit.
They know it's rigged.
And there's a crowd outside the Capitol.
And if they know it's rigged, they're going to know I'm behind it or at least supporting the rigging.
And I'm going to get hung as a traitor.
Now, I do not ever recommend violence.
But if it had been rigged, and if she had been behind it, and if they hung her... Not sure how I would feel about that.
Because I wouldn't trust that the legal system could fix it.
Right?
The legal system had no power.
So what are you gonna do?
What are you gonna do if it's really rigged?
Well, I don't think that the people in the insurrection thought it was a lost cause.
They didn't seem to be...
You know, they seem to be like, hey, let's just take a pause and it should be easy to find the irregularity.
You know, just give us a moment, do a little rechecking in Georgia.
I think they just thought it was a paperwork, you know, maybe a little bad mischief going on there and they could just find it easily and reverse it.
I don't think anybody thought anybody needed to be hung per se.
I mean, they were talking about hanging Mike Pence, but that was hyperbole.
Well, it might not have been hyperbole from 1% of the people.
So, I will acknowledge that 1% of the attendees were violent and crazy.
So, there's definitely that.
But yeah, I think Pelosi knows that everybody could see that it was rigged.
But not all the Democrats have the same vision, she has.
You know, she would be tapped in enough to say, oh shoot, we shouldn't make all the bellwethers go our way.
Or we shouldn't make all the bellwethers.
All right, let's put it this way.
All the bellwether things favored Trump winning, but then he didn't.
So he probably thought they overreached.
They probably thought that they were trying to not make the mistake they made in 2016, which is not be ready to cheat, and that they over cheated.
It was too obvious.
That's what I think.
All right.
I also think that I saw a viral video of a woman, young woman, who was saying that the anti-Trump people are the people who were bullied in high school and that they're driving the wokeness stuff so that they can become the bullies.
That wokeness is how the people who were abused and traumatized by bullying are getting revenge.
Because it's really about, wokeness is really empowering the powerless.
And they would have felt quite powerless if they'd been bullied.
So, and she said, no wonder you see people like, uh, you know, the actors, uh, kind of lining up against Trump.
What do you think the theater kids experienced in high school?
Oh, there's a theater kid.
Hmm.
Probably a little bullying.
Uh, right.
So, um, I would be amazed if this is the case.
If somebody did, if somebody did a survey, You'd have to ask the first question first.
Do you consider that you were bullied in high school?
Now, almost everybody says yes to that, unless they were the bullies.
But there's a level of bullying, right?
I would say yes to it, but I also solved my bullying with violence.
I don't recommend it, but it worked in that case.
So I don't think of myself as someone bullied, because I I got my revenge and then it stopped.
So I don't have a problem when I see Trump because I have no bully trigger in me.
I didn't experience it.
So, but I asked myself if I had experienced it, let's say it had been a dominant theme of my youth.
I'd been bullied.
I feel like I might get triggered by him just as well.
I feel like I might.
So I could kind of understand that point.
It makes sense.
And I've been saying it for a while, that I think Trump's real problem is that he triggers people who have been bullied, because he has a bully persona, but it's just not aimed at citizens.
And that's the part that they're having trouble processing.
It's not aimed at them.
He's literally running to be our bully.
That's how I see it.
He's running to be the bully for the country and bully other countries when it makes sense to bully them.
And so to me, it just looks functional, but I can see how it would be traumatizing.
Scott Presley says that he's got a friend who got into jail recently and said all the people in jail are pro-Trump.
So he wants to go start signing people up to vote in jail.
Because it's pretty much a target-rich environment.
You get most of the people in jail.
But here's the thing missing.
It's a male jail.
It's men.
It's men.
The UFC is not a story about Republicans.
It's men.
And then there was another interview on the street in Compton.
So Compton, heavy black population, some white guy Went down there and just started talking to random people.
And all the people that he showed were black male Compton guys who were like, oh, yeah, Trump.
Yeah, we're all Trump.
But he didn't interview any women.
So don't get fooled by the jail and don't get fooled by the interviews on the streets.
You got to see more women.
To make sure this is real.
Otherwise, it's just dividing by gender.
That's what I see.
But when the citizens who were being interviewed, the black American citizens, when they talked about it, like what it was, what was it that bothered them?
It was partly that Biden's falling apart and partly the border situation.
So the border situation really seems to have hit black Americans hard.
And here's how I would talk about it if I were Trump, that Biden demoted black Americans.
Because he did.
He put the importance of people outside the country higher than black Americans.
Did he put their interests higher than rich white Americans?
Yeah, you could argue that, but not really.
I haven't lost my job to an immigrant.
So to me, it's still somewhat conceptual because it hasn't reached my neighborhood.
So anyway, I think we should make sure that the messaging is that Biden seems to have demoted black Americans in favor of immigrants.
I think that's true and also impactful.
Nobody wants to feel demoted.
I've told you before that losing something you had Is more of a motivating thing than maybe I can get something I don't have.
Right.
People are not as motivated by, Oh, I'll go get that thing as they are.
I have a thing.
Why are you taking my thing?
Don't take my thing.
And what they had as a thing was a little special attention that seems to be shifted into a different category now.
So it feels like they lost something.
Federman was, uh, talking to Bill Maher.
And he said that his near-death experience did actually free him, and that's why he's so outspoken.
I totally get that.
He said, it's freeing in a way, and I think after beating all of that, I just really want to be able to say the things that I have really believed in and not afraid of it, even if there's a kind of a blowback.
Totally get it.
Here's a good reframe for you.
Have you ever been, like, embarrassed or hesitant to do something?
You know you needed to do it.
Maybe it's make a friend or ask somebody on a date or something.
And you're worried about embarrassment or blowback or failure.
Here's a reframe.
What would you do if you knew you only had a week to live?
How would you act differently?
Everything would be different.
I was in that situation once where I had a fake cancer diagnosis that for a while it looked like I was going to die when I was much younger.
Turned out to be nothing.
It was literally nothing.
Just a little bump from maybe a cat scratch or something.
But for a while, I got to experience what it was like that my life was almost over.
So for about a week, I lived in the Schrodinger's cat, half dead, half alive.
And when I finally got, you know, a definite confirmed, this is nothing, you're fine.
They literally drained down to fluid and put a band-aid on it and sent me home.
It was a band-aid, like literally.
I took it off later that day, that night.
It wasn't even a whole day band-aid and that, you know, but I thought I was going to die.
So, and, and by the way, the cancer doctor who looked at the x-rays, Pretty much indicated I was fucked.
You know, he said, you know, I said, could it be anything else?
He goes, it's possible.
But, but he really suggested based on his experience is probably throat cancer.
And, you know, at the very least you're going to lose your throat.
So, you know, that's what it looked like.
So when it was done and I realized that I had zero problems and not the biggest problem in the world, everything looked different.
Everything looked different.
And it freed me.
Because I started to say, well, why would I live differently if I had a week to live than if I had less to live?
And, you know, there's a reason you could talk yourself into, oh, well, you know, the long term, blah, blah, blah.
But things like embarrassing yourself and speaking your real views, you know, damaging your reputation, those don't really hurt you as much as you think they might.
So if you just tell yourself, what would I do if I had a week to live?
You could walk up to any stranger.
That's the thing.
You could walk up to any stranger and talk to them if you had a week to live, because you wouldn't care.
And then when you walked up to them, you would look like you're relaxed and you're just having a good time, because you've already discounted all the bad that could happen.
Then you're just going to be this friendly person that walked up to you, and the other person's going to be like, hey, you're cool.
Let's be friends.
So yes, I do believe that Fetterman's near-death experience changed him, just like he says.
In California, there's this thing, Proposition 47, that made crime legal, meaning that you could shoplift up to a certain amount, and $950, and you wouldn't, you would not be aggressively prosecuted, you'd get a misdemeanor, if they even did anything about it.
Well, in California we have these ballot measures, and one of the ballot measures is to reverse that, and make it illegal again to do crime.
See, I'm doing that thing again, where I talk like it's an absolute, but I'm only doing it to trigger dumb people.
Because I know that you know that when I say, it made crime legal, you know I don't mean that in a literal sense, right?
But the dumb people don't know that.
They're going to be like, Scott, it's still illegal.
It's still illegal to steal from a store.
So anyway, the exciting part about it is that Newsom is fighting hard to not get that on the ballot.
He doesn't even want the state to vote for it.
Do you know why he doesn't want the state to vote for it?
Because they don't fucking want it.
That's why.
Do you know why you don't want it to be up to the people?
The people know exactly what it is.
They completely understand it.
They don't need to do their own research.
See, that's the beauty.
Hey voter, it's now legal to sell, not legal, but almost legal, because it's just a misdemeanor, to sell up to almost a thousand, to steal almost a thousand dollars.
What do you think will happen?
Well, that's the worst idea I've ever heard.
Let's make that more illegal.
Who does Newsom work for?
How in the world Does he sell this as anything but evil?
What's his argument for why we should put up with massive crime and lose all our stores?
I don't even know the argument.
I've got to reboot this to get my comments working again.
There we go.
So we'll see.
So I don't mind You know, it's one thing when the legislature that's been legally elected makes a rule I don't like.
I can live with that.
But we have this ballot initiative thing, so that if our government is totally useless, the voters can just bypass them and say what we want.
That's what we want to do.
All you have to do is let us give our opinion.
Just let us vote.
How in the world does he defend this?
Letting the people not vote?
It's exactly what it looks like.
It's just some fucking evil.
I don't know what it is, but there's no way to defend it.
There's an old video of Nixon talking about the CIA, and he was asked, did he think that the CIA was behind the Watergate break-in thing?
In other words, was the CIA running an op to get Nixon out of office?
What do you think Nixon said?
When he was asked if the CIA tried to get him out of office and it was all fake.
Well, he said this.
He said that he was publicly, and everybody knew, he was very dissatisfied with the CIA.
He said that they did fear him because he said he was going to cut a third of the CIA and still do a better job, he thought.
And he was at the very least going to totally shake up the CIA.
Okay, so they had a motive.
So Nixon says himself very clearly, they had a motive.
And then he says, he didn't know at the time that two members of the break-in were connected to the CIA.
Are you ready for the real shoe to drop?
Okay, here's the good part.
And then Nixon said, the CIA knew in advance about the Watergate break-in and didn't tell Nixon, their boss.
The CIA knew in advance about the Watergate break-in, and they didn't tell Nixon.
Do you have any questions?
All of my questions are answered.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And by the way, it's fairly new news that people are saying, given everything we know about everything, it seems obviously that the CIA
Not only killed Kennedy but took Nixon out of office and both for the same reason They were both gonna cut the CIA Yep, and then we saw the CIA and the intelligence people try to take Trump out They tried to do it with the laptop story They tried to do it with the well that succeeded and they tried to do it with the Russia collusion and
The CIA has now taken out three presidents that we know of.
Three that we know of.
I don't know what else they did, but they took out Kennedy, they took out Nixon, and they took out Trump, at least in an election sense.
They took out three presidents.
I'm pretty sure this is real.
Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure it is.
Here's a story that I just would love to know more about.
So Rasmussen account is always talking about how Maricopa in the 2020 election, there's good evidence that they use 10 different paper types and that they're only allowed to use one.
Now, if you threw out the ones that seem to be different paper types, apparently that would be way more than enough to change the election.
So the question is, is the different paper types only because some people didn't have access to the good paper?
Is it because some places didn't have enough?
Just didn't have enough, so they just used what they had?
Could it be that some people didn't get the memo that only certain paper is allowed, and they just ordered the other stuff and it worked fine?
Because they ran it through the machine and it worked, so they said, okay, well the official paper has to be this, but I can't get the official paper or it costs more.
Maybe it costs more.
And they just say, oh, you save some money.
We'll just change the paper.
We'll test it.
They test a few, test a few racks of paper.
It all works.
So they go, all right, well, it's just different paper.
Nobody, nobody cares.
And then later people say, Hey, different paper.
It's illegal.
Is that what's going on?
So I can't tell.
If this is a huge smoking gun of obvious fraud, did they just ship in fake paper and fake ballots and there were 10 different types of paper because it was all fake so they weren't that coordinated?
Maybe.
But here's the thing that some of the legacy media is saying in Arizona, according to Rasmussen, they say things like the compilers can't change the marks on paper.
So they say, if you count the ballots, and you count the ballots again, and you get the same number, that's the vote.
You don't need to know much more than that.
But what if all the ones on the non-standard paper were fake?
Seems at least likely.
Were they on non-standard paper?
There are two claims, and I don't know if they're the same claim.
One claim is the non-standard paper, but separately I've heard People saw massive amounts of ballots that were filled out by the same person.
Some were obviously filled out by the same person.
So, is that the same issue?
Or are the ones that are filled out obviously fraudulently, are they on real paper?
And then separately there's a problem that some paper is bad?
Because if those are combined, which I don't know, if it's different paper, and those are the ones that have all the fake, obviously fake ballots on them, I don't know.
That would mean a lot.
So I never can tell how much is real and what's missing context.
But let's talk about Jordan Peterson.
He saw a story that said that people without children tend to be the happiest.
Do you believe that?
That people who don't have children tend to be the happiest?
So there was some secondary quality article that says something like that.
Anyway, Jordan Peterson was all over that, and he said, here are just 11 problems he has.
Here are 11 problems he has with it.
Number one, says who?
Who's the source?
Measured how?
Over what time span?
Compared to who and when?
Happier or more hedonistic and immature?
Who funded the, quote, research?
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Meaning statistics can give you whatever you want.
One phrase.
Replication crisis.
Can it be replicated?
Meaning and happiness are not the same thing, but the former trumps the latter.
You'd rather have meaning than happiness anyway, so... Doesn't matter.
Responsibility and happiness are not the same thing.
Adventure and happiness are not the same thing, etc.
All right.
And he says, if social and educational psychologists conducted the study, ignore it.
If people who hate children or do not have them conducted the study, dismiss it.
Are those fair observations?
I'd say so.
I think those are fair observations.
Meaning that science today is so crappy that, you know, if you have 10 questions when it comes out, if you're as smart as Peterson, that seems normal.
But I've got to weigh in on this.
I think, um, first of all, I don't believe that the science can suss this out.
And the reason it can't is this simple factor from employee satisfaction.
If you were to say to people, Hey, are you, uh, are you happy with what happened at work today?
People will say, Oh God, that was a terrible day.
I just worked too hard.
The commute was bad.
My boss a jerk.
My coworkers didn't deliver.
Blah, blah, blah.
But then you said, well, why don't you quit?
And the person will say, quit?
I love my job.
Okay, I'll ask you tomorrow how it went.
And you ask every day, and every day the person will say, oh, it's a nightmare.
It's like, I can't, the stress, it's killing me.
I would rather work anywhere but here.
Why don't you change jobs?
Well, I like my job.
So people could have this weird Separation where they were completely aware that every day was bad and they convinced themselves that overall it was good.
Do you know what that's called?
It's called cognitive dissonance.
If you do something that doesn't make sense, you will explain it away as if it did make sense because you don't want to look stupid.
Even if you were.
So yes, the reason people complain all day long but say they like their job is that they have to explain why they haven't quit.
And the only explanation is you must like your job.
Because you know you have options.
So what happens when people have children?
Have you ever met anybody who's with young children?
Do they look like they're having a great day?
Every now and then, yes.
Like, especially when they're really little.
You know, if you see a mom or dad, you know, playing with toddlers or just Hugging him and laughing and giggling and maybe the dog's part of it.
Yeah, it's amazing.
Best thing ever.
I've often said that the, uh, when my life flashes before my eyes, I'm going to remember sitting on the couch in a condo with my first wife, uh, and two young stepkids watching Disney movies.
Like, that's the part I think is my life.
Everything else is fluff.
So I totally get, you know, the meaning and the deep satisfaction.
But the truth is that parenting is one shitty day after another.
And when you're done, you say, that was the greatest experience.
I'm sure glad I did that.
Now, here's the problem.
Is it like work, where it's clearly cognitive dissonance?
And people say, oh yes, if I did this thing that was just painful and terrible for 20 years, I must have liked it.
But if you check every day, they're having a terrible day.
So how many people, if you check them like later in life and say, are you happy you had children?
Almost universally, people say yes.
Very rare that anybody would say, no, I wish I'd skipped the whole thing.
They all turned out bad.
Very rare.
But I would also use, here's my pushback on Dr. Peterson's view about the positivity of marriage.
It's definitely good for some people in some situations.
And one of the people would be good for would be somebody who's a famous psychologist who has the benefit of knowing how his child turned out.
So most of you have seen Michaela, Jordan Peterson's daughter.
She's got her own podcast and she's got a big social media presence.
Well, if your kid turned out like that, what would you be saying about marriage and having kids?
You'd be for it.
You'd be for it.
Right?
Well, what if your kid had an overdose and died of fentanyl at 19?
Would you be saying, I'm sure glad I did that?
Probably not.
Now, how much of that is parenting and how much of that is, you know, good luck and genes and stuff like that?
I think if you're rich and you got lucky, and your kid turned out well, you would think that was the best thing you ever did.
But don't recommend it to other people.
You got lucky.
You were rich enough that you could handle anything.
Anything.
Eventually.
I mean, he started out struggling, I know.
But eventually he made money, and now he can look at it with the benefit of hindsight.
In hindsight, it looks all brilliant.
And I agree.
If you put me into his body in this situation, I would say children are the greatest thing ever.
Now what about Elon Musk?
He's also pro-children.
So he's got billions of dollars, a whole bunch of baby mamas, 11 kids.
I don't know how often he sees them.
But I would enjoy that if I could just go impregnate people who are happy to be impregnated.
You know, give them millions of dollars so everybody's happy.
Visit my kids once in a while.
That would be totally cool.
I'd be in favor of that.
Not really an option.
So, here's what I think.
I don't think that either Peterson or Elon are qualified to talk about this topic.
For the same reason that Jordan Peterson says, if you did this study and you don't have kids, we should not take you seriously.
That's a good comment.
Yeah, because they're biased.
But so is he.
It's just the bias in the other direction.
This is who should not be involved in a study.
Somebody who was happily married forever, and their kids turned out great.
What do you think they think about marriage?
Oh, it's the best thing.
You just have to do it smart, the way I did.
No, you got lucky.
You got lucky.
That's it.
You just got lucky.
All right.
I will tell you that in my case, the only reason I ever got married was after I could afford to get divorced.
Does that make sense to you?
I had no interest in marriage until I knew I could get divorced if I had to, without it breaking me.
As I managed to do it twice, actually, without breaking me.
So I budgeted for it.
I budgeted for both success and failure.
And so I was ready for all possibilities.
So nothing surprising in this case.
Generally, when you have a wealthy person with a younger woman, you can kind of set the timer on that.
Those tend not to last forever.
And I was aware of that.
So my view is that one size does not fit all anymore, and I'm going to go further on it.
I believe the conditions in America that made having children and being married the best thing you could do, no longer exist.
No longer exist.
So even if you talk people into it, it'd be a bad idea, because the reasons for doing it no longer exist.
And I don't think the pro-marriage people have caught up to that, or maybe they're just Maybe they know that, and they still want to promote what they want to promote.
Because it would be good if people are biased toward marriage.
I would agree with that.
It's just that people are too different, and I don't think we can get to the point where it's good for everybody to have a kid.
All right, here's... I said everything I was taught when I was young was wrong, and I gave some examples.
Everything about history, everything in the news is fake.
The science is really just to follow the money process.
It's not about a way of finding truth.
And I would say that the people who are having the biggest mental problems are the people who don't realize that everything's fake.
If you thought the science was true, and then you saw a bunch of MAGA people, as you call them, who didn't want a vaccination, what would you think of them?
You'd think, God, they're killing us all!
Because you think science is real.
If you thought history was real, you would be making decisions based on the history.
Which would be absurd, because no history is real.
And it doesn't repeat.
That's ridiculous.
It can't repeat, because the situation it's starting at is always different.
So, I think that the left is going insane, Because they don't yet know that their news, their history, their science, and certainly all their politics are completely fake.
Completely fake.
Suppose you knew that the elections probably have never been real, at least in my lifetime.
I suspect, maybe starting with Kennedy, we've never really had real elections.
I think that somebody controls them one way or the other.
I think Trump might have been the only real election.
Because it surprised them.
They didn't know he'd do so well because the polling wasn't warning them.
So imagine living in a world where you thought that the news, history, and science were all real things.
Everything you saw on the other side The group that knows those things are fake.
The group that knows the news is fake.
They know that the science is, at least scientific studies, are fake at least 50% of the time.
And that all of it is funded by somebody who has some reason to fund it.
So there's bias built in.
So if you thought that Orange Hitler was going to steal your democracy, that's a hard way to live.
And I could understand why they would actually be having mental problems.
Do you know why none of this gives me a mental problem?
Because it all makes sense.
Of course money is driving big pharma, and of course the news is fake.
There's not a way it could not be fake, because they can only make money with the fake stuff.
If you understand anything about economics, and you've lived in the real world, you see it's all fake.
All right, and what about the election?
Come on.
All right, here's a TDS update from MSNBC.
The Lincoln Project, you know them.
Here's what one of their crazies was saying.
They were interviewing.
He said it broke down the roadmap to autocracy.
So it begins with the Republican Party's unwillingness to lose.
Unwillingness to lose?
Trump's not in office.
He's not in office.
He left on the day he was supposed to leave.
But they're hallucinating that they're unwilling to lose.
They did lose.
They didn't like it.
All right.
And it said, uh, and then, uh, they cannot accept defeat.
So they attack.
That is not what happened.
It is not a problem of accepting defeat.
I think we saw the same thing that Nancy Pelosi saw on January 6th or before then.
She saw it looked fake.
All right.
That's what I'm guessing.
And it said, uh, they cannot accept defeat.
So they attack every institution in America created to hold them accountable so they can elect a strongman.
All right.
Uh, which, uh, which of you is doing that?
Um, it turns out that the, uh, my audience, probably you're all out there attacking institutions for the express purpose that they would stop holding Trump accountable so that we can, uh, get a dictator strongman in office.
Are you do, are you breaking down the institutions to get Trump elected?
Is that what you're doing?
Or, or, is it really obvious that all of our institutions are corrupt?
I'm going to go with it's really obvious science is corrupt.
It's really obvious history is fake.
And it's really obvious the news isn't real.
So yes, I am going to criticize those things.
And how about our election system?
Pure bullshit, in my opinion.
Here's a Mark Milley TDS update.
Julie Kelly was reporting this and it's still just blowing my mind the more I hear about it.
That apparently one of the Department of Defense witnesses that talked to the Oversight Committee described Milley as having a quote, irrational fear among a clique of senior military's officers about the potential misuse of the National Guard by the president.
They were actually afraid that the President would use the National Guard to what?
Take over the country?
So that's the reason, almost certainly, that they were not allowed to guard the Capitol.
In retrospect, that was a gigantic miscalculation, wasn't it?
If what they wanted was to avoid trouble.
Some of you are going to say they didn't want to avoid trouble, they wanted to cause trouble so that they could make sure Trump didn't rise again.
And apparently Milley often made disparaging marks about the president and regularly referred to his potential for a Reichstag moment.
So he thought Trump might start a war to stay in office, like Zelensky, or he would What was he going to do?
He was going to use the National Guard to stage a revolution.
Now here's the funny part.
Do you remember when Don Jr.' 's messages were uncovered about January 6th?
And it became super clear That he was not part of any kind of insurrection.
And he was just saying, Hey, no violence, it's bad.
Tell everybody to calm down.
Right?
Who in the world, including Mark Milley, still believes that Trump was planning an insurrection, but he was planning to do it without telling his son.
Now, if he didn't tell Eric, well, okay, that'd be less surprising.
Because Eric's a little less, you know, involved in the political part.
But Don Jr.
is right in the middle of the fight.
You think he wouldn't mention, hey, Don Jr., would you back me if I tried to take over the country?
Here's something that I think Democrats could never understand.
If Trump Sr.
did try to become a dictator, and to the point where we could all see it, his biggest threat would be Don Jr.
killing him.
That would be the biggest threat.
Democrats don't really understand that, do they?
Yeah.
Yeah, well, we will shoot Old Yeller if we need to.
Old Yeller has to go down sometimes.
We're not happy about it.
Nobody's happy about it.
But if you have to kill Old Yeller, because that just has to happen, they will do it.
So, the fear among Democrats, I think, is based on their internal feeling that everybody be on the same side.
I don't know even one person who would be okay with Trump becoming a dictator.
None.
I've never even heard of it.
It's the opposite of what all of his supporters are.
His supporters are, give us the Constitution, please, and then leave us alone.
They're not the dictator people.
And if they were, they wouldn't want an 80-year-old dictator.
It'd be crazy.
Anyway.
And so Milley apparently stayed in office to fight Trump.
His own words.
So we had a head of the military who thought that his enemy was his boss.
And he kept his job.
Do you remember when Trump said he's a fucking idiot?
He doesn't say that about everybody, but I've listened to Millie talk in person, and he does seem like an idiot.
And when I see that he was afraid of this totally imaginary situation of a Reichstag event, he was really dumb, but also gullible.
How could we ever have won a war if he was in charge?
Think about how unprotected we were.
This is somebody so dumb, he thought the news was real.
They thought that Trump was Hitler.
And he was in charge of the biggest military in the history of civilization.
Oh my God!
There should be a way bigger story.
That he got brainwashed by the Democrats, the corporate media basically.
He got brainwashed into thinking that the news was real.
You can't have a general who thinks that.
That he doesn't understand even the basic nature of our civilization.
How in the world is he going to win on strategy if we ever get in a real fight?
What a terrible general.
He had these nightmare scenarios.
Oh God, forget about him.
Anyway, that's a real thing that happened.
A real thing that happened was that the corporate media Brainwashed the head of our military into thinking he was living in 1939 Germany.
Just, just hold that in your head.
Our corporate media brainwashed the head of our military to believe he was in 1939 Germany and there was going to be a Reichstag fire any minute.
Now I know that he meant, you know, modern Trump would do it, but he basically was sort of living in some weird hallucination.
And he was in charge of all the bombs and shit.
Alright, I'm looking at some comments here.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you today.
I'm gonna go do some other things.
find out what Apple's up to.
Yeah, you know what?
I wonder if MSNBC should be legal.
I feel like MSNBC should have a warning label.
Oh, here's an idea.
We put warning labels on cigarettes.
Now we're putting them on the front of packages of food.
Shouldn't we have a warning label on the news?
That some news might be completely made up for political purposes.
Yes, we should.
The news should come with a warning.
That some news, especially political, is completely made up.
And that should be the law.
The law should say, you have to say this when you come on.
As soon as there's a change of show, you know, like Jake Tapper comes on and replaces whoever, you have to run it again on the chyron.
Remember, news is often made up, especially the political stuff.
Because that's true.
We all know it's true.
So the public needs to be warned, especially about MSNBC.
All right.
I'm going to say goodbye to the people on YouTube and Rumble and X. I'm going to talk to the subscribers and locals a little bit privately.
