All Episodes
July 2, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:22:54
Episode 2524 CWSA 07/02/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Amazon Robot Employees, Criminal Migrants, Science Narrative Control, Alzheimer's Research Censorship, 97% Scientific Agreement, Dissenting Science Censorship, Diversity Discrimination, SCOTUS Diversity, DEI Incompetence, David Axelrod, Dark Triad Personality Cult, Gaslighting Democrats, Mike Cernovich, Marxist Narcissists, Jake Tapper, Senator Chris Coons, Abby Phillip, Biden's Brain, President Biden, Presidential Immunity, Adam Schiff, AOC, SCOTUS, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Do do do do do do. Bum bum bum. Bum bum bum bum. Do do do do do. Do do do do. Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
You're looking at the picture of Orange Joe Biden as posted on Truth Social by Trump himself with no comment.
The funniest part about this is that Trump published it without any comment because you don't need any.
It's just Biden looking orange.
Does Trump know how to do a victory lap or does he know how to do a victory lap?
The fact that he didn't put any words on it, he just published it.
It's just brilliant.
I mean, it's trolling at the highest level.
But more about me.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, smooth human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, shells or stein, canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine at the end of the day, the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
So good.
My goodness, the day is starting off right.
Well, that assumes that my notes look good and they do.
They do.
Well, if you're subscribing to the Dilbert comic, You might be seeing, and you can only see that on X if you subscribe, or on this scottadams.locals.com network.
If you were watching it there, you would know that today is the naughtiest Dilbert comic of all time.
Now I've been naughty a little bit a few times, but today is the naughtiest comic I've ever created, but it comes with an explainer.
So you're going to learn something today.
I'll just give you a teaser.
Have you heard in the, if you follow AI at all, you know that there's a type of, a special kind of data file that's optimized for AI.
So if you wanted your AI to look at a specific file that you made to give you answers, that would sometimes be called a RAG, R-A-G.
Now that's, that stands for retrieval augmented generation.
If you didn't know that, the Dilbert comic wouldn't be funny at all.
But if you did know that, you would see Dilbert's boss telling Dilbert, hey, I'd like to use my AI to access my DNA data.
And so Dilbert gives him the following advice.
Put your DNA in a rag.
Well, I'm not going to tell you how it ends.
But it's the naughtiest Dilbert comic of all time.
It's not that naughty.
PG-13.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we got the show of shows today.
It might be a highlight of your life, actually.
I don't know if you've ever had more fun than what you're going to have today.
Let's start with ARK Investment.
It's a big... I think they're a venture capitalist.
Venture capitalist?
No.
Ark Investment, anyway, some big financial group, says that the cost of robots are already falling like crazy.
And here's a point in history that's pretty important.
This kind of blew me away.
I think it might blow you away.
Kathy Woods is the head of that.
But this comment came from somebody else at Ark, that Amazon is now adding more robots than human employees.
Amazon is adding more robots than humans.
Right now.
Right now.
That's happening.
So if you're wondering, hey, I wonder if there'll ever be some kind of a crossover.
Yep.
Yep.
Happening right now.
And I do not give financial advice, but I'd like to sort of draw a picture of what financial advice would look like in the modern world.
Some people say that almost all of the gains in the stock market are the top, you know, five big companies and especially NVIDIA and Microsoft and Google and Apple.
Companies that are going to benefit from AI or robotics.
And I'm not going to give you financial advice.
I'll just tell you what I'm doing and then you can make your own decisions.
So the way you should look at it is don't do what I'm doing.
Please, please do not do what I'm doing, but look at my explanation of why I'm doing it and then compare it to what you're doing.
Maybe talk to a professional, you know, get, get your own independent advice.
One of the things I've invested in is Tesla.
And it's not so much because of the cars.
It's because it's going to be a robot company really quickly.
I'm guessing Tesla would be better at manufacturing than other people because they're good at it and Elon especially.
And building the things efficiently seems like that's going to be the big challenge because the technological stuff is largely down to just engineering.
But I think there's a bigger play here that you haven't noticed, maybe.
Don't you think that your personal robot and your personal automobile need to work together?
Think about it.
Don't you want your robot to get into your Tesla and drive your ass around and, you know, have the robot brain and the, the car basically meld, you know, and become one.
I feel as though there are going to be a whole bunch of situations in which Having your robot and your car made by the same company are going to give you some advantage.
I don't know what that would be, but it's one of the things I'm looking at anyway.
So my investment in Tesla is entirely because of the upcoming robots.
Um, and then it made me wonder, is there a index fund yet for those people who don't want to pick specific companies?
Cause that's always a little more dangerous, uh, for AI and robotics.
And there are now, again, I'm not recommending these.
This is not a recommendation.
I'm simply telling you that if you're investing in the future, you need to at least have a theory about AI and robots.
That would be the number one thing you should be aware of and have your own theory about what's going to happen.
But there's, I'm going to name four different index funds.
An index fund would be a collection of stocks that are all in some specific area.
So there's two of them that are in the AI and robotics domain.
And again, I don't know that they're good.
I'm just saying that if you want to invest in a basket of stocks in AI and robotics, there's something called IRBO.
Um, don't know anything about them.
Just got this from chat GPT today.
There's one called bots, B as in boy, O T Z. And then I looked at the nuclear energy industry.
I wanted two index funds that have a variety of nuclear energy things, because that's going to be big.
NLR, they do N as in neighbor, LR.
Uranium and nuclear stuff.
Mostly, I think more uranium than other nuclear stuff, but it's a good broad basket.
And another one in the same domain would be URA.
So do what I did.
Um, you could ask AI or Google it, I guess, you know, what are some index funds in nuclear power and also in AI and robotics, and then just do your own research, right?
Talk to a professional.
Um, there's a new study that identifies the ideal number of sexual partners.
According to social norms.
So this is not based in science, it's based on what other people think would be appropriate.
Now, I think they peg this at sort of an age 25.
Uh, theoretically, if you were single for your entire life and you were sexually active, you'd probably have a bigger number.
But if you look at somebody who's looking to settle down someday and at age 25, what's their number?
The ideal number, According to research for men would be four to five sexual partners and for women two to three because we're a sexist place.
I guess people want somebody who is desirable enough that other people want to have them and maybe they got a little bit of experience so they know what they're doing but not too much.
Now I'd like to offer that they could have skipped this entire research and just asked me.
Because if they asked me, I would have said, I don't know, age 25?
I'd say, uh, well, from the perspective of other people, for men, it'd be about four or five.
And from the perspective of other people, you know, not my opinion specifically, probably women as few as possible, but maybe more than one.
So two or three.
So I think I could have saved them a lot of time by just ask me.
I think that one was kind of obvious.
Kind of obvious.
All right, we'll get to all the political stuff here.
Business Insider says there might be a deflationary spiral in cars.
People are delaying purchases.
So if they're not buying as many cars, the price might come down because of supply and demand.
But I don't know how many people are in my situation.
I'm sort of at that point where I'm looking at a new car, and I talk about it all the time because it's been over a year I've been doing it.
I can't make a move.
I'm frozen.
And the reason is, I think electric cars are the future.
I think a Tesla would be a solid thing to own.
I told you I invested some money in the company.
But I don't like how they look.
I can't get past it.
Anybody else have the same problem?
Like, you know, your next car probably ought to be an electric, but they all look the same.
They don't look bad.
But when I look at a, let's say a Ford Bronco, my, my whole mind and body go, there's just a design thing that just speaks to me like emotionally.
And I can't look at the Bronco and then spend some large amount of money On something that looks like an egg.
I don't know how to do that.
Again, I'm very pro Tesla, but their cars, you know, and, and I have to say from the perspective of a business decision, having all the Teslas have a certain design, you know, that's not too sexy, but a little bit, it's probably exactly the right sweet spot for business.
It's just, I need a little sexier or something.
So, I'm just sort of stuck.
Apparently, the number of criminals entering the U.S.
illegally set a new record, but we're talking about criminals, not just illegal aliens.
So, over, let's see, about 1,500 illegal aliens who are also criminals have been arrested.
If the trend continues, the record level of more than 17,000 criminals will have been caught crossing the border illegally.
17,000 criminals have been caught trying to enter the country.
And that's not just criminal because they're coming in the country.
That's criminal.
These are people who have been caught.
Now, as you know, Most crime is by people who have done some other crime.
Am I right?
You have a small number of people who do basically 95% of the crime, because they keep doing crimes.
If you brought in 17,000 criminals, and you take the theory that criminals keep doing crimes, how many actual crimes is that?
100,000?
And 17,000 is just the number of criminals who are caught.
What about the ones who got in without getting caught?
I don't know how big that number is.
But are we talking about a hundred thousand crimes per year that we just let into the country knowingly?
Over five years?
Is that half a million crimes?
Has anybody calculated the number of crimes this is going to work out to?
Because I don't know how you could take a half a million crimes over five years and assume none of that's going to touch you.
If I said there's going to be a half a million things happening to people in the next five years, would you think that half a million wouldn't hit your neighborhood?
Or somebody you know?
I mean, that's getting really personal.
It's really hard to imagine that immigration is somebody else's problem, isn't it?
I think we've crossed the point where it's very clearly, no matter where you are, it's your frickin' problem.
So yeah, these are big, scary numbers.
Here's a story that sounds familiar, except it's a different topic.
See if you can find the pattern.
Before I tell you the pattern, let's see if you can spot it.
There's some suggestion that the Alzheimer research, which has been going on for 30 years, for reasons that weren't obvious before, didn't have nearly as much progress as other areas of medicine.
For example, in 30 years, there's been really big progress in cardiovascular disease and cancers and all kinds of other diseases, but not so much Alzheimer's.
Anybody want to take a guess why the Alzheimer's has had less progress?
Well, see if this sounds familiar.
Every time a scientist wanted to study something that wasn't the approved narrative of how Alzheimer's is caused, They couldn't get published.
Do you know why?
Because they were outside the narrative.
Yep.
Sound familiar?
So think about that.
So that they couldn't even get published.
And people would say, I can't publish you because other people wouldn't publish you or haven't published you, or you're not part of the narrative.
Basically you're too outside the norm.
Now, how many times has this happened in science where science collectively had the wrong answer and couldn't adjust because people couldn't leave the norm?
There was the food pyramid when I was a kid.
Scientists all said, that's the truth, but it wasn't.
It was closer to the opposite of the truth.
There was a number of issues in the pandemic in which we saw the experts telling us something that wasn't true.
Fairly, fairly often there were several things which the experts told us with complete impunity and unanimity or something like it and it just wasn't true.
Then we see the Alzheimer's research may have been crippled for 30 years because science doesn't know how to deal with people who are outside the narrative.
You could argue that the same thing has happened with climate change that you can't argue outside the narrative.
So if there is a truth that's outside the narrative, we would be blind to it.
Likewise, string theory might turn out to be exactly the thing that unravels the nature of the universe.
It might, but it doesn't look like it.
And I would imagine if the narrative is string theory is the thing, what about the people who don't think it's a thing?
Do you think they're getting lots of play?
Do you think their papers are getting published?
You think they're getting a lot of funding?
I don't know, but my concern would be that we've reached a point where it's normal that most of the scientists will be wrong.
That's weird, because isn't that opposite of your intuition, that science is, you know, slowly crawling toward the truth?
And if you've got 97% of the scientists on one side, for example, You could feel confident.
Now it's feeling closer to the opposite because 97% agreeing on anything scientific triggers my, my pattern recognition.
Oh wait, if that many people are on the same side, that's an indication that there's no science going on.
Right?
If you tell me scientists agree 80 20, I'm going to say, Hmm, That sounds like they've got a pretty good handle on it, but you got a good solid 20% who are maybe looking in a different direction, and maybe they'll find something.
But 80% would be pretty convincing.
You know what's not convincing?
97%.
Do you know why?
Because that suggests there's no science going on.
Look for that pattern.
80% in one direction, maybe that's science.
97% in the same direction?
Means they're afraid to talk.
There's an analogy to that in the Dilbert comic world.
It used to be said that if you went into a company and you saw a lot of Dilbert comics on the cubicle walls, that that was a sign that the company might have some issues because the employees are kind of silently protesting by putting up, you know, anti-management Dilbert comics.
But then somebody noticed that there are some companies that have zero Dilbert comics.
Are they the good ones?
Probably not.
If your employees are simply not able to even put a mildly, you know, mildly disagreeable comic on their cubicle wall, that's probably a terrible place to work.
That means that dissent is not tolerated.
Even a little bit of humorous dissent, not tolerated.
So when you see something as extreme as 97% of scientists, it could be because something's so true that nobody could argue with it.
But it is a big red flag that no science is happening if it's something more controversial.
Rasmussen did a poll, Breitbart News is reporting this, where nearly half of Americans believe corporate diversity programs discriminate against white men.
You fucking idiots!
Half of the country, are you kidding me?
Half of the fucking country doesn't know that DEI, by its design, discriminates against white men?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Are you lying?
Half the fucking people in the country don't know that DEI is straight out discrimination against white men.
How the fuck don't you know that by now?
Right?
You're an idiot if you don't know that or you're lying.
I mean, this is not a matter of opinion in 2024 to imagine that that's an opinion.
Good Lord.
Well, if it were true that corporate diversity is discriminating against white men, you'd expect that that would cause some kind of a quality degradation in the output, not because white men have all the skills, no, but because if you artificially constrain any group which you need a resource from, the artificial constraint should, very soon, work its way into the overall workings of the system.
So we should be able to see it In actual reality.
If there's any real degradation in quality from it, we'd be able to see it.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court.
Let me just say what many of you are thinking.
The problem with some of the, well, most of the rulings from the Supreme Court is that the batshit crazy women on the Supreme Court got all the wrong shit because they're fucking stupid.
Why are they on the court?
Why is Sotomayor on the court?
Obviously it's not because she's smart.
Like, I'm not even a Supreme Court justice.
Even I can tell she's a fucking idiot.
Now, there's no way that she's on the court because of her high quality of decisions.
I mean, you just have to look at it.
It's just stupid from top to bottom.
Now, you shouldn't have Supreme Court justices who are obviously stupid.
This is just another Joe Biden problem that we're all ignoring.
Oh, let's pretend Joe Biden is fine.
Until it's too fucking late.
Like now.
Same thing with the Supreme Court.
You've got a fucking idiot on there just because of some DEI-ish requirement, and I'm supposed to ignore that.
It's like the last defense of the whole fucking country, and I'm supposed to ignore that you're putting idiots on it because they meet some category.
No, I'm not going to ignore that anymore.
It's a DEI problem with Supreme Court.
That's it.
That's a whole fucking problem.
Now, of course, there's politics.
People do take their sides.
But I don't mind when people take sides with good arguments.
You know, if there's a good argument on both sides, and people, you know, tend to lean toward their political bias, I'd say that's kind of normal.
But just to be stupid, Just so you can side with your side.
That's not cool.
And let's look at Biden.
Do you think that Biden is in the situation he is with the advice he has for any other reason than DEI?
To me, this is just a massive DEI problem that he's getting bad advice.
People want to keep their jobs, whatever it is.
He's not, let's put it this way.
Biden is not getting David Axelrod quality advice.
Now I'm not saying because David Axelrod is an old white guy.
That's not why his advice is good.
His advice is good because I've been watching him for decades and he gives good advice.
That's why his advice is good.
Um, but I think the smart people have been frozen out by the DEI hires.
And that's the whole story of why Biden's situation is what it is.
And then why is the news?
Why are they unable to report on the obvious?
Because of DEI.
The DEI in the news is crippling the news business, plus other stuff, plus other stuff.
But DEI is totally crippling the news business so that they can't even tell us what the truth is.
So yes, DEI has destroyed everything that's important about America, and it's really obvious.
It's really obvious.
Now, I'm not going to say it's the whole problem.
Because when I get double canceled for saying this sometime tomorrow, the part that they're going to leave out is, it's not the only problem, but I think it's a definitive problem that tipped us into the ridiculous, right?
There's plenty of incompetence of, you know, old white guys have lots of problems, right?
It's not like old white guys don't have a shit ton of problems and their own defects.
I'm just saying that what we're seeing is exactly what you would expect with DEI as a system.
It has nothing to do with the people, if you're new to me.
It only has to do with a system design in which you artificially constrain one of the important variables.
That's it.
That's the whole argument.
All right.
The New York Times, according to Michael Schellenberger, I think he said the Times with a capital T. I think that means the New York Times in this context.
Um, thinks that DEI is what's going to take down Biden.
Yeah, so you thought I was a little bit out on a limb, didn't you?
You're thinking, oh my goodness, you've stretched that argument a little too far.
No, that's what the New York Times is saying about the Biden administration.
It's a DEI problem.
And the way they describe it is, DEI is what got them a black woman vice president who's incompetent.
They're saying it pretty directly now.
And that once you have an incompetent vice president, but also black and female, you can't pass over her and you can't get rid of her.
So you're stuck with the old white guy with no brain.
That's where we're at.
Now, by the way, that's exactly your impression and my impression.
What's interesting is that the New York Times agrees with you that it's a DEI problem.
Now, you're seeing it everywhere.
You're seeing it everywhere.
All right.
So, also Michael Schellenberger's post today on X, which was referring to a larger article of his publication.
He points out that progressives have condemned Republicans As on being on the grip of right-wing authoritarianism.
So the progressives have this narrative that the people on the right are a bunch of right-wing authoritarian people, you know, practically Nazis.
By contrast, there's a psychologist in 1980 who argued that left-wing authoritarianism was a myth, but that turned out to be wrong.
So, as Shellenberger points out, Swiss psychologists recently found an almost exact overlap between dark personality traits and social justice commitment.
Do you know what a dark personality trait is?
Narcissism would be, you know, part of the dark triad.
So basically, mental illness.
And the dark part is that it's not harmless mental illness.
It's specifically the kind of mental illness that you try to harm other people for your own benefit.
A narcissist, right?
There are a few flavors of that, but they're all in that same category of they're just evil.
Um, yeah, the evil might be because of mental illness, but they're evil and they're going to screw you over as hard as they can and gaslight you, um, in order to get what they want.
So there's a perfect overlap between those mental conditions and social justice commitment.
And they're entitled and narcissistic, etc.
Now, how could it be that the Democratic Party, the Democrats, became controlled by the dark triad personalities?
Well, most of it is women.
It's concentrated in the women.
Why is it that the mentally insane women have become the dominant part of the Democrats, and it's still there, and scientists can point it out, we can all see it.
How does that persist?
Well, I have a hypothesis.
The reason that the Democrat men can't call bullshit on their own situation is because they're too weak and they're not enough of them.
They're too weak, meaning that if they argue with the women it's not going to go well, and there aren't enough of them.
Do you know what they need?
Do you know what the poor men in the Democratic Party need to escape from their dark triad overlords?
Republicans.
They need some Republicans.
Do you know why there are no Republicans helping him?
Because there's no, no conversation between Republicans and Democrats anymore.
So the Democrats have made it impossible to have even a conversation with somebody who is a Republican.
If you're a Democrat, you can't even have a social interaction.
So there, so the poor Democrat men are completely stranded on the Island of crazy women.
They're too weak to get off on their own, to get off the island.
And they don't have help from stronger men and stronger women who are Republican.
So they cut themselves off from any possibility of escape or help or being outvoted, you know, so that they can outvote the bad people.
So it's sort of like the prisoners took over the Democrat island and the people who were there are just totally trapped.
And they don't have access to information or even allies who could help them out.
They've completely separated themselves.
That's how I see it.
And specifically, narcissists are gaslighters.
You see, and we all see, that the entire Democratic Party is actually just a gaslighting party at this point.
At this point, it isn't anything else.
Everything that they believe that's important to them is literally made up.
So they've gone from, you know, the Find People hoax and the Injecting Bleach hoax and the Losers and Suckers hoax to this hoax.
And now they're on the He's Stealing Democracy, the January 6th Insurrection hoax.
Every one of these are the same hoax.
It's all gaslighting.
And they didn't really realize it until the Biden situation happened.
And then a lot of Democrats said, wait a minute, you all knew, you all knew, the press knew, everybody around Biden knew, you all knew the truth.
And you told us he was fine.
That's where you, that's the sort of the, uh, the key that unlocks the door.
So if you thought, I thought I was in a party with normal people, that's not normal.
There's none of that going on on the Republican side, none.
And let me be clear, Republicans are fucked up.
Okay.
Republicans are really fucked up in a whole bunch of different ways.
You know, they, they believe conspiracy theories.
They, they have terrible strategies.
Sometimes they have, uh, they basically ignore their own, you know, benefit for principle in some ways that are crazy to me.
But here's what they don't do.
There's not a lot of gaslighting going on.
When Republicans tell you they think something's true, it's because they think it's true.
Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right, but they think it's true.
I don't know if that's what's happening on the other side.
It looks to me like the things that they tell us they believe are so ridiculous they couldn't possibly believe it.
So it looks like gaslighting.
And when they do it to us, it feels like being gaslighted.
We're gaslit?
I'm not sure how to say that.
But do we have to keep ignoring that there's basically a mental illness gaslighting problem that we're treating like it's some fucking political thing and it's not?
We don't have two political parties competing for their preferred political outcomes.
Nothing like that's happening.
We have a bunch of mentally sick fucks who got control of one political party and the people who are going along for the ride don't have the power to get off.
And you got one who thinks it's just in regular politics and doesn't know what the fuck's going on because nothing makes sense.
Everything is just a lie or a gaslight.
These are not normal political differences.
This is not even some people don't have the right facts.
This is pure, pure gaslighting.
This is all new.
You know, it's always been, it's always been that politics involved lying.
This is not lying.
Gaslighting is not lying.
If I teach you one thing, this is important.
Lying is normal.
Republicans lie.
Independents lie.
Democrats lie.
Completely normal.
Don't pass the fact check.
Totally normal.
But telling you something that you saw with your own eyes didn't happen.
That's new.
It happened with the fine people hoax.
It happens with most of them, right?
This is new.
And it gives you mental illness when it happens to you.
A narcissist can make you mentally ill.
Literally.
That's the main thing they do.
Narcissists make you mentally ill.
So the whole country is getting this infection of mental illness from a fairly small group of dark triad personality narcissists who got way too much power.
That's what's really happening.
It's definitely not two political parties.
It's batshit crazy women who managed to take control of one party.
And here we are.
Um, Sertovich says, Trump has spent over a hundred million dollars fighting false charges, not including the judgments he has to pay from the cases themselves.
Bannon's in prison, Navarro is jailed, and freedom isn't free, and we are occupied by communists.
That's one way to frame it, but I think it misses the bigger story.
I think we're occupied by Marxists Who are pretending to be Marxists, but are actually narcissists.
I think narcissists found a way to rebrand themselves to make themselves part of the political process.
No, I don't have a dark triad personality.
I'm more of a socialist Marxist.
So they found a place to hide, but I don't like them hiding there.
So I don't want to call them communists or Marxists when mental illness is clearly the larger variable.
Meanwhile, CNN's got an interesting situation.
Some of you laughed when I said, don't be surprised if Jake Tapper goes hard at Biden for his mental and cognitive abilities.
Now it did not happen during the debate, which is the context I was talking about.
So by my prediction that Jake Tapper might go hard at Biden, Uh, wasn't true.
Got that wrong.
And indeed, I think most people, including me, complimented, um, Tapper and Bash for a good, good job, um, hosting a debate.
However, having done a very professional job in the debate, then they go back to the regular jobs and, you know, it's more, a little bit more opinion comes out as it should.
That would be natural.
And, uh, I've noticed that Jake Tapper is going really hard at Biden's brain.
Now, that was the part I did predict.
I predicted that Jake wouldn't be able to ignore it anymore, and he would just take Biden out.
And he is!
So, he had on the show Chris Coons, and he basically just called Coons a liar to his face.
Thank you, because Chris Coons is a liar on this topic, which is weird, because I actually respect him as a Democrat Who, in my opinion, has far more often been one of the reasonable ones.
He's not one of the crazy liars.
He's not a Schiff, a Swalwell.
You know, usually when he comes out, it's because they have a real argument, but not this time.
This time, Chris Goons went to the dark side and he's pretending on TV, right in front of Jake Tapper, that he has no problem with these little glitches that Biden's having.
Now that's a lie.
It's a transparent lie.
And, uh, I revised, because of it, I revised my opinion of Chris Coons.
Uh, I used to think he was actually, he's one of the, he would have been in the top three Democrats I would have ever mentioned as, you know, you got some reasonable ones over there.
They disagree with me, maybe on policy, but reasonable people.
Nope.
No, he's not being a reasonable person.
He's being a fucking asshole.
Because if you can sit in front of the American people and lie to our faces, and gaslight us like that, now I don't think he's a narcissist, but I think he's under the thrall of them.
He's got to do their bidding.
So he's spreading their gaslighting.
This is gaslighting.
This is not lying.
You have to know the difference.
When Jake Tapper shows him a video of Biden glitching, and then he gets that weird smile, criss-cross, wheel spot, I don't see any problem with it.
Look at my weird smile.
My eyes are practically closed.
My face can't even control the lie.
I can't even control my face while I'm lying.
It was painful to watch.
When he lies in front of you, obviously, that's not lying.
That's something else.
And it's dangerous, whatever that is.
So, to Jake Tapper's credit, he hammered him pretty hard, and he said to his face, it is not honest.
Good job, Jake.
That is what I, as a viewer, wanted to see.
I wanted you to look at his face while he sat next to you.
He wasn't even on video.
Sitting right next to him.
Looked right at him and said, that's not honest.
Exactly.
Now that's, that's what I want to see.
Now, am I complimenting CNN?
Nope.
Because his coworker, Abby Phillip, I noticed it has gone full Sean Hannity and has completely lost any sense of objectivity and almost every word out of her mouth was Baghdad Bob propaganda bullshit.
So you've got this interesting situation in CNN.
I don't know how management is handling it because you've got one completely honest, reasonable person who's trying to help his viewers understand what's real, that Chris Goons is lying to you right now.
That's real.
And Abby Phillip?
Completely different page.
Absolutely pure brainwashing propaganda.
How does management handle that?
They should get rid of her if they're trying to fight in the middle.
Advice to CNN?
Get rid of Abby Phillip.
She's one of the fine people hoaxers.
Yeah, she's not helping you.
She's not helping.
At all.
Alright.
Here's my favorite story of the day.
There's a scientist who's suggesting that the problem with Biden's brain, wait for it, this is a good one, that the real problem with Biden's brain is not dementia.
It could be damage from Russia's secret sonic weapon that they've been using on the embassies, he says, which of course is not true and has never happened.
But I was so impressed That there was somebody in the news who could find a way to blame Biden's brain deterioration on Putin.
There's actually somebody who made it Russia's problem.
Do you notice any pattern?
Have you seen the pattern?
Oh, I've got a hangnail.
Putin!
Looks like it's cloudy today.
Russia!
Russia!
Yeah, we noticed.
We noticed the pattern.
Well, let's talk about presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court rule, we'll talk about that a little bit.
But Biden gave a four minute, I don't know what you'd call it, a clever wag on the locals platform.
Called it the cuckoo clock press briefing.
See, now a cuckoo clock works.
The little doors open and the cuckoo clock, and then the little cuckoo bird comes out, goes, cuckoo, cuckoo, and then goes right back in and the little doors close.
That's what Biden did.
There are two big brown doors and they open.
Biden comes out by himself, spends four minutes talking cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, and then goes right back with answering no questions.
It's the cuckoo clock.
We got a cuckoo clock president.
Can't answer questions.
Can't talk for more than four minutes unless he's reading it.
And that's normal.
Let's pretend that's normal.
That's not normal.
All right.
But here's the funniest part that I mentioned if you joined the show at the beginning.
Uh, that Biden was apparently way makeup to more than normal, probably in response to the fact that he looked pale and deathly at the debate.
So they gave him a good few layers of makeup that, uh, turned him orange, turned him orange.
So, uh, uh, and then Trump, Trump posted on true social, just a picture of his big face looking orange and stupid.
I just love the fact that he didn't need any words to sell that meme.
Oh my God, that's funny.
All right, over on MSNBC, they had a legal analyst on who told them what they certainly didn't want to hear.
He thought that the decision from the Supreme Court that basically says that if the president's doing official president business, that he's got lots of immunity from criminal prosecution.
But if it's not in the, if it's not an official act, then he'd be as exposed as anybody else.
Now that seems to be a strengthening of what would say historical situation.
We always thought presidents had a little more, you know, a little more wiggle room than other people.
Obama using a drone to kill an American overseas, for example.
You know, so we've always just assumed they had extra wiggle room or as I like to say, Above the law.
Now, when I thought that Obama was acting like he was above the law, did I mind?
No, not much.
No, because to me, it looked like he was doing something in his official capacity.
Maybe you could argue he shouldn't have done it, but it looked like he was doing it for the benefit of, you know, the country, the military.
So I didn't have a problem with it at all.
So just to be clear, do I think some Americans are above the law?
Yes.
And do I think it's always bad?
Depends.
I think the presidency, and that includes Biden, by the way, not just Trump, but I think the president should have a little extra, little extra leeway.
I'm totally good with that.
Now, is that an example of no one being above the law?
No, not really.
That's a case of the office being above the law.
That's how I see it.
It's not a case of Obama was above the law.
It was a case that the office was, and I was okay with that.
As long as it was directed in my benefit, or even allegedly in my benefit, that'd be fine.
But now it's, let's say, a little bit more legitimized by the court.
With more clarity.
So one of MSNBC's legal analysts told them what they didn't want to hear.
That the decision was logical and makes sense.
And that we should avoid rejecting that decision just because it's about Trump.
He says, don't look at it through a Trump lens.
If you just look at it in a non-Trump lens, it actually made sense.
It was a good, clean decision.
That cleared up a lot, apparently.
Some say.
I'm no expert here.
But Eric Holder had a different opinion.
Now he would be ex-Attorney General, right?
So he said, our democracy has been gravely wounded.
Huh.
He said the Trump immunity decision says the president can violate a criminal law if he acts within his broadly defined constitutional authority.
This is absurd and dangerous.
And there's, there's no basis in the constitution for this court constructed monstrosity.
So I guess Democrats don't like activist courts.
That seems like the opposite of what they always said before.
Um, so of course I'm no expert.
And when I hear a lot of the people like Sotomayor say stuff like, well, I guess the president can order seal team six to kill his opponent.
Do you think that's true?
Um, based on what the news told you, okay, based on the news or your own opinions, do you think that a president could order SEAL Team Six to kill a candidate who was running against him and that, uh, that would work out and he would just retire in peace and people would say, man, I wish he hadn't killed that guy.
But you know, the office of the president, it's above the law, we're good with it.
Now, I.
Bye.
I didn't have to be a legal scholar to know that wasn't true.
No, I didn't need to be.
Did you?
You know, most of you are not legal scholars.
Did you need a legal scholar to tell you, you know, that's probably not true that if a president killed somebody that the Supreme Court says they can just, you know, as long as they're sort of semi-official, it's okay.
No, that's not true.
So I asked chat GPT to clarify.
What sort of things would a president still be in big trouble for and not have immunity for even under this new Supreme Court interpretation?
And the answer is long.
So there, first of all, the president can be impeached, right?
So you're going to be impeached.
So, but still even impeachment would not make you criminally liable.
If you could argue that during the presidency, it was part of your job.
Even with impeachment.
But impeachment exists.
It's not a nothing.
But here are the examples where the president could be prosecuted in just any normal way, even if he argued that it was in the course of doing his job.
So if the president obstructed justice, there would be no immunity.
So for example, If there was some legal process going on and the president closed it down for just, you know, naked political reasons, nobody's going to say, well, presidents can do that.
So I guess you can obstruct justice.
No, the president isn't allowed to obstruct justice.
Not allowed to.
But other things, according to ChatGPT, you should do a fact check on this, by the way.
So I'm not saying ChatGPT is correct.
But just as a reference point.
So things that a president would still be in big trouble for would be obstruction of justice, bribery, perjury, financial or other fraud, embezzlement, espionage, witness tampering, conspiracy, monitoring, laundering, obstruction of Congress, murder of an opponent, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, abuse of power, Um, so basically there is no scenario in which a president can kill his opponent just to kill his opponent.
Now you might say to me, but Scott, they're going to find a clever way around it.
Well, sure.
But it's going to be kind of transparent.
So I don't know if they get away with it.
What, what would be the argument that, that, um, the Biden could kill Trump?
What would be the argument for that?
Like how in the world would he get away with that?
Crazy stuff.
Anyway, so a lot of lying going on there.
And I would call it gaslighting.
If the Supreme Court and the experts who can understand the Supreme Court say, no, it is not true that the president can murder his opponent.
But then somebody, Who's a prominent member of the Democratic Party says, it's true.
The court says he can murder his opponent.
That's gaslighting.
Cause it's not a normal lie.
It's a lie where you can see right in front of you that that's not true.
Cause you could turn on the TV and have a Supreme Court scholar say, no, that's not true.
They didn't rule that.
And they probably all will say that, but then you're going to turn to Joy Reed and she's going to tell you, Well, now the president can murder his opponent.
That's gaslighting.
Because you can see with your own eyes that the experts are saying, no, you can't do that.
And then you turn the channel and she'll say, oh, you could totally do that.
Even when you know you can't.
Well, you should know it.
All right.
Here's a case of know the players.
Remember, I tell you that if the only thing you did is watch the news, you wouldn't know what's going on.
You have to know who is in the news, and who they're connected to, and what their pattern is, and then you know.
Let me give you some examples.
Haven't heard from Adam Schiff lately, have you?
Do you know why he comes out?
Adam Schiff comes out when you need to tell a big lie.
He's not the little lie guy.
Because the regular people can take care of that, the small lies, you know, the little exaggerations, the hyperbole, the, you know, arguing about what the inflation rate is.
That's the little stuff.
So the regular, normal politicians and pundits do the little stuff.
But when they need a big one, like a big lie, like a really good gaslighting big lie, they bring out Adam Schiff every time.
Here he is, right on schedule.
And he's saying that, uh, uh, well, basically he's saying that the, uh, presidential immunity lets the president do everything.
And it's a, it's a violation of the constitution and basically everything that's untrue.
If you just took the opposite of everything that Schiff says about this, you would find the truth.
Now, if you didn't know that, and you were just a casual viewer, you turn on the news and you see this guy who's been elected a number of times.
Saying that the Supreme Court got it wrong and, you know, people will be murdering their opponents.
You would find that convincing, wouldn't you?
The only thing that makes it not convincing, if you were to see it out of context of other people's opinions, is that, you know, it's Adam Schiff.
They only bring him out for the big lies.
Otherwise, you never see him.
Have you ever seen him say anything that was true?
You know, just come out and talk about the news.
Oh, the thing happened today.
No, no, he doesn't do normal hyperbole.
He only comes out when they got a big one.
Here it is.
So this is signaling that this is the big hoax.
This could be, I think they're still searching for the big summer hoax, but this might be it.
The summer hoax.
They will actually convince their public, the Democrats, that because they've already convinced them that Trump is Hiller, And now they're going to convince them that we've given Hitler total power to murder people.
That's actually the gaslighting that they're planning to do to their voters.
The Trump is Hitler and he just got full power because the Supreme Court that he, he appointed the majority, uh, they just gave it to him.
So basically he gave it to himself by appointing that majority.
Wow.
So that's the world.
So I feel sorry for the Democrats because the Democrats are living in, what year was it?
1939 Germany or something, where their actual experience is that Hitler just rose to power and took complete power.
That's actually what they wake up to.
Nothing like that's happening.
In fact, it's, you know, it's literally the opposite, but that's what, that's the world they're going to live in.
How do you think you would ever penetrate that world?
How could you ever talk anybody out of any of that?
Because they have no contact with Republicans.
Here's the thing.
I said this before, but let me say it in a stickier way.
In the old days, Republicans and Democrats would go to the same party.
I don't even think that happens.
The same dinner party.
Because the host would say, I can't have these people sitting at the same table.
It's going to, it's going to be a fight.
But in the old days it didn't even come up.
I don't think anybody really much talked politics.
You know, it's hard to avoid now.
But if you had lots of casual contact with normal people who thought that Trump was normal, don't you think that'd help?
Just seeing normal people who are not afraid of him.
But imagine if every person you talk to about Trump, Was shaking with fear.
How could you not be affected by that?
If you thought everybody was literally shaking.
The first time I saw this was 2016.
I was at a restaurant.
And there was a table near me where I could hear what they were saying.
And there was a woman who was talking about Trump and the fear she had.
And her body was shaking.
Her body was shaking.
In a public place, just talking about him, because she was so, so afraid.
And I thought, you look like somebody who doesn't have contact with any Republicans.
Because your sympathetic nervous system, you know, the way that we're influenced by our contacts with other people, would certainly be calmed down if you spend a few minutes with people who know that Hitler did not rise.
And that Hitler did not take over the country.
And by the way, the first four years were pretty ordinary.
So I think the social contact between Republicans and Democrats strands Democrats in a poor mental health situation because they can't escape the gaslighting.
AOC, being her AOC self, thinks that if things don't go her way, she needs to Impeach the entire Supreme Court.
So that's her plan.
Does that sound like a normal political opinion or something closer to a dark triad personality trait?
Cause she's this new young member of Congress and she thinks it's her job to get rid of the Supreme Court.
Does that sound like normal politics or some kind of mental illness?
I don't know.
That's a gray area, but you, you decide.
All right.
Uh, I guess Trump's using the new ruling about immunity to try to overturn what some are calling the Manhattan case or the Stormy Daniels case.
Um, now here's the thing, the, the activities that were the subject of the trial, Happened when he was not president.
So that stuff is not covered by immunity.
But here's the interesting part.
Some of the evidence that was presented in the case about something that happened before he was president included some facts that were apparently important to the case that happened while he was president.
So there must've been some communication or something.
Well, he was president that may have confirmed what they thought about before he was president.
Now you might say to yourself, well, that seems fine because it's just adding information to what you know before he was president.
So why, why would that even be relevant?
But apparently the Supreme court was specific that you can't even use evidence from when a person was president.
Which even I would say feels a little bit extreme.
I think if Democrats found that part sketchy, I'd have to say, I'm going to listen to that argument.
That you can't even use evidence from when they were president to confirm that they committed a crime when they weren't president and had never been elected yet.
I don't know.
Does that feel right to you?
I guess I like that it's so clear.
But I don't know that that doesn't feel right to me.
So if if Democrats wanted to complain about that, I'd say, well, I'll listen to that complaint.
That doesn't seem crazy.
But I can also see why if I were a lawyer, I would have a much more nuanced and smart opinion about it.
And I feel like if I were a lawyer, I'd be saying, yeah, you have to do that.
You know, oh, well, actually, here's an argument.
Maybe you have to do it so that the president isn't always being forced to testify.
Yeah, you could pack a president to death, making him give up information about what happened before he was president, he or she.
So, okay.
All right.
I suppose that would be the argument.
Something like that.
I'm just guessing.
I don't know, but it feels like that might be the argument.
All right.
So I don't know that Trump will prevail in that.
I would guess he won't, but it might delay it.
So it might delay sentencing until it all goes away after he's president.
And then there's the January obstruction case.
That's when we think that case will keep going.
And Jeffrey Toobin was on CNN saying that he thinks that case might get yanked.
Okay, you knew I was going to do it.
Don't act surprised.
Don't act surprised.
You heard me say Toobin.
You knew I wasn't going to let it alone, so to speak.
So, it looks like, as Tubin says, a big victory for Trump, and at minimum, everything will be delayed.
So, it looks like Trump's going to have something like a clean sweep, meaning that nothing in the lawfare will prevent him from being president.
I don't know how much it will linger, but it looks like it's not going to stop him from being president.
Something else might, but not that.
Biden says that they've got some polls that are circulating showing that his polling didn't change after the debate.
Really?
Really?
His approval didn't change after they saw he didn't have a brain.
Apparently the brain was optional.
No, I don't believe that.
That sounds like a fake poll to me.
And now countering that, there's a New Hampshire poll that shows that Trump ended up ahead of Biden by, there was a 12 point swing in New Hampshire in favor of Trump.
So he's now ahead where I think he would normally be expected to be behind.
All right, here's another know the players.
Know the players.
When was the last time you saw one of those Watergate guys on TV?
Uh, Bernstein and I can never remember the other ones.
Who's the other one?
Bernstein.
And anyway, they, they drag those guys out when, uh, you know, when, when there's something important.
So there, there's sort of like the, uh, pundits under glass.
You bring them out just to say that something that Trump did is worse than the Watergate.
But in this case, Carl Bernstein went on CNN and said, That based on his reporting and talking to people close to the presidency, that there have been 15 to 20 occasions where Biden has glitched out and looked like he just wasn't there, sort of like the debate, 15 to 20 times, and that there's been an ongoing
A lot of people noticing, donors, insiders, well understood by the entire, every insider knew it.
A lot of people who saw him in person knew it.
And the 15 to 20 observations are just the ones in public.
Well, I guess some of them saw him behind.
But imagine how many there were that we didn't hear about.
If reporting can kick up 15 to 20 over, let's say, the course of the last year or six months, How many were there?
Probably every night.
Probably every night he was, you know, completely out of it.
So even Carl Bernstein and even CNN are completely throwing Biden under the bus because they're not buying at all.
It was a one-off bad night.
If CNN were trying to back Biden, they would be backing the narrative that, well, it could be just one night.
Maybe he'll be fine.
But they're not.
They're definitely not backing the narrative.
And now imagine if observers saw 15 to 20 occasions of Biden's brain breaking, how many has Jill seen?
Imagine what Jill has seen and keeps him in the race.
Now you say it's elder abuse, and I could certainly see that argument, but I wonder if it's narcissism.
I wonder if it's the dark triad.
Because it feels to me that what's missing here is empathy.
And what's here is gaslighting.
What does that signal?
So see, you've got a woman, so that's your first hint.
She's gaslighting the world about something that we can all see.
Who does that?
Who gaslights you on something you can see with your own eyes, as Jake Tapper says, hear with your own ears, and still tells you it's not happening while you're looking right at it?
Only narcissists.
That's not political.
Only narcissists do that.
And so, so, and also the other symbol, the other signal for narcissists is a lack of empathy.
What are all of us saying about how Jill is treating her husband?
It looks like just a crazy lack of empathy.
It doesn't seem like spouse behavior at all.
It looks crazy, the lack of empathy.
Because somebody with empathy would have shot him down and try to preserve what's left of his legacy, if anything.
So no.
So if you have no empathy, you're gaslighting us right in front of us.
Why not just say it's the obvious?
Why are we saying that's political or she likes the limelight?
Well, people say she likes the limelight, but that would also be a narcissist, wouldn't it?
So basically every hint we're getting is some kind of narcissist dark triad personality problem that we're calling politics.
Again, every time you call this politics, you're on the wrong page.
This isn't politics.
This is gaslighting and it's dark triad behavior and we're the victims.
That's what's happening.
Carl Bernstein even said that at one point, Biden was giving a talk, and rigor mortis set in.
He got so stiff that they had to bring a chair and have him finish in a chair.
And Bernstein is telling Anderson Cooper this stuff, and Anderson Cooper had to pretend he didn't know all along.
Now, I would like to nominate Anderson Cooper for an Academy Award.
For the best act on television of pretending you didn't know for fucking five years, Anderson Cooper, you lying piece of shit.
Now, Anderson Cooper, I don't think is being driven by narcissism in this situation.
I don't know, probably just political or lying, you know, something ordinary because he obviously knew they all knew.
Simone Sanders, political advisor, she says that the way to fix things is Biden should go to town halls and answer more questions.
Okay, so she thinks the answer here is Biden should go out more and do more town halls and spontaneously answer questions.
So, how stupid is that?
I can't even tell if she's running a prank.
Is that a prank?
It doesn't sound like it's even real.
Do you know what it is when somebody says something that looks like it could be a lie, but it's so absurd because you can see the truth right in front of you?
Gaslighting.
It's gaslighting.
You know that's not the right answer.
You know that putting it in front of the public more is definitely the wrong answer.
But why is this political expert saying it's the right answer?
Besides gaslighting?
Do you remember... I want you to think back.
Put your historical hat on.
Can you remember a time when I would be mocked mercilessly in public for acting like I knew more than an expert in some field or another?
Anybody have a memory of that?
I've done it a lot.
It's kind of a cocky thing to do.
Maybe, uh, maybe it's cause I'm a narcissist myself, but on a number of occasions I've told you, yeah, the experts are saying this, but I'm telling you the experts are wrong.
And you all said the same thing.
Oh God, that is so cringy.
He has no expertise.
He's a cartoonist and he thinks he knows more than the scientists.
More than the political experts?
More than the lawyers?
I mean, that's just insane!
Feels like a long time ago, doesn't it?
Let me give you a little update of Scott versus the experts.
And you can play too.
You can play you versus the experts.
Let's see how you did.
Let's see.
Did you spot Biden's mental decline before the White House doctor?
I'll bet you did.
I'll bet you did.
Isn't the White House doctor the ultimate expert?
Went to medical school, must have been a good one to be the White House doctor.
White House doctor is the closest to the information, best information, and also the most expertise.
And you, you narcissist, you thought you knew more than the White House doctor?
Why do you think you know more than the experts?
It's because you did.
Now, we don't know why the White House doctor had the wrong answer and every one of you had the right answer.
We don't know why.
He might be incompetent.
He might be stupid.
He might be gas lit, maybe bribed, blackmailed.
I don't know.
No idea.
All I know for sure is you got the right fucking answer.
You know you did, but the expert didn't.
And then you looked at Simone Sanders, political expert, very experienced, you know, one of the top rated, uh, political experts on the Democrat side.
And you just watched her give the worst advice, maybe in the history of political advice.
Did you say to yourself, I know that's the wrong answer?
You did, didn't you?
Every one of you said, I know that's the wrong answer.
You don't want to put Biden out there answering questions.
Did you or did you not beat the expert?
You did.
You're two for two.
You beat the White House doctor and you beat one of the top Democrat political analysts.
So good for you.
Two for two.
When Eric Holder did his legal analysis and some of the other experts and told you that the president, and maybe Sotomayor too, told you that the president would be able to order SEAL Team Six to kill his opponent, what did you say?
Did you say, huh?
A Supreme Court justice, Sotomayor, saying that he could kill his political opponent and get away with it.
Now, did you say that's probably true?
Or did you say, well, I don't know much about the law, but I know that's not true.
I did.
I said that.
I'm no legal expert.
But did I beat a Supreme Court justice?
Yes, I did.
Unambiguously, my opinion on this one question was better than a Supreme Court justice, and I will die on that hill.
It was better.
Because of course he would be prosecuted for murdering his opponent, even if Justice Sotomayor says no.
Now, I think that most of you got that one right.
Am I right?
So are you three for three?
You beat the expert White House doctor, You beat the best political analyst the Democrats have, and now you've beat a Supreme Court justice.
You are amazing.
Have I ever told you how proud I am of you?
I'm so proud of you.
And how about the professional press?
You know, they're not like you.
You unwashed masses.
No, these are people who studied journalism, They've been practicing it for years and only the best of the best, you know, reach these good jobs in the New York times and CNN.
So you wouldn't want to be such a narcissist that you think like you could report better, you know, understand the news better than the professionals, right?
Except that all of these professionals, at least on the left, didn't notice the fine people hoax.
And they didn't notice that Biden's mental health was declining.
But you got both of them, didn't you?
Telling you, come on, don't be modest.
Don't be modest.
Don't be modest.
You knew the five people hoax was fake news, didn't you?
You did.
You knew that.
And you knew that Biden's brain had been shot for a long time.
So good for you!
So you beat the White House doctor, a Supreme Court justice, you beat the scientists, you beat... Oh, we haven't gotten to the scientists yet.
When the scientists told you to wear masks to beat the pandemic, told you horse dewormer would be bad for you, Told you that those vaccines would stop you from getting it, and that they were totally safe?
What did you say?
Well, we won't get into all the details, but I'm going to say, because I trust you, I'll bet you got those answers right more often than the experts.
Am I right?
Does anybody want to raise their hand and say, yeah, you know, honestly, all things considered, I beat the experts.
Did you?
I'll bet you did.
Because you're a smart and wise and spunky group.
I think you beat the experts.
How about climate change?
Well, we don't have a final judgment on climate change, do we?
Because 97% of the experts say it's real.
What do you say?
Do you say something like, I don't think they can measure the temperature of the Earth.
Especially with the heat island problem and I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as predicting the future with multivariable models That's what I say, and if I say that the models are really transparently obvious bullshit even if even if the planet's getting warmer, and it's somewhat caused by people I It still means that that's unrelated to the question of whether the models are bullshit.
They're complete bullshit.
Of course they are.
We can't do that.
You can't measure the temperature of the earth everywhere to the precision that you need.
Their predictions have all been bullshit so far.
So, did you beat science when it came to climate change?
In your opinion, did you beat the experts?
Yes.
You beat the political experts, the medical experts, you beat the press, You beat the Supreme Court Justice, and science all over the place.
You beat it like crazy.
Now, can we make an agreement that the next time I doubt the experts, just call it a tie?
Your starting assumption should be, well, before I know more, at least it's possible.
He's beating the experts because you do it every day.
You, you individually are beating the experts on a regular basis.
We all are.
It's now so common that it's nothing to brag about.
It's become easy.
So yeah, experts are bullshit.
Well, there's a new story that, uh, um, Trump had some phone calls to Epstein.
We don't know what the subject of the phone calls were.
He was single at the time.
So people are saying, you know, something there, but I don't know if this is any new news because we were already aware that, um, there was a brief time when they knew each other and Epstein had been at Mar-a-Lago, but then something happened where Trump figured out what was going on and excommunicated him.
So you can make something out of it, but there's not any real new information because we knew they had some contacts during that time.
Nothing new.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my prepared comments.
I hope that didn't distress you too much.
And I'll remind you, if you want to see the naughtiest Dilbert comic of all time, it's the one today, but you'd have to be a subscriber on X or Locals to see it.
And thanks for joining YouTube and Rumble and X platforms.
I'm going to say bye to you guys and I'm going to stick with the locals, my beloved local subscribers for a little bit.
And thanks for joining.
I enjoy it every morning.
I really do.
You know, this is the only thing I've ever done that you could argue is work that I just look so forward to doing every day.
It's a pretty good deal.
Bye for now.
All right, let's hit the right button.
Uh-oh, I think I hit the wrong button.
Now it won't work.
Maybe it will.
Nope.
Oh, no.
All right, I found a bug in the Rumble Studio that I thought I saw before.
So here's the problem.
It's part of human error.
I hit the wrong button, but then I backed out, so it didn't take any effect, and then I hit the right button.
When you hit the right button, you can't do it anymore after you've hit the wrong button and backed out.
So even though the wrong button didn't execute anything, it put me in some kind of mode that created a bug in the Rumble Studio.
So I don't have the option.
I thought I'd seen that pattern before.
It's a weird pattern that's hard to check.
If you're checking your own software, one of the things you don't do is click a totally wrong button.
And then back out and then go over and click the right button like it wouldn't occur to you to even test that because they're different buttons.
Like why would you even test that?
But I've seen the pattern now.
So if you're a Rumble developer, do this.
Hit the end stream button.
But then don't confirm.
You know, back out.
Don't actually confirm the end.
And then hit the button that will subtract everything but the Rumble and Locals people.
If you do it in that order, it bugs and then you can't actually limit it to the Locals people.
Anyway, um, but let me say that the Rumble Studio is a marvel of technical brilliance.
And, um, you know, it's new, so you're going to get a little bugs, but my God, is it great.
Um, I it's the product I've been waiting for, for five or 10 years.
It does everything I want it to do.
A couple of bugs fixed and it will be amazing.
So pretty normal stuff.
Anyway, I'm going to say bye to everybody.
Because those are my only options now with where the interface is.
So bye to everybody.
I think I have to wait 20 seconds so that the locals people don't get cut off.
So now I'm just stalling, and you should probably just say goodbye if you can hear me.
But in theory, this part will get cut off, so nobody should hear it.
but maybe some people hear it and some won't.
And the stream won't end.
All right, so that didn't work either.
So the stream won't end, which means that I have to delete all the live streams on their destinations.
So if you didn't see the show, you probably won't, because this particular bug will keep the other shows live forever.
I can't cut them out.
So I'll try to kill them, but they'll either run forever or I'll have to delete them.
Yeah, the end stream just doesn't work.
Export Selection