All Episodes
July 5, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:35:53
Episode 2527 CWSA 07/05/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Banning School Cellphones, Time Blindness, Science Doubters, Tate Brothers, Tucker Carlson, 15 Minute Cities, Jobs Report Revisions, Michael Ian Black, President Biden Excuse List, Miranda Devine, Game Lying Stupid Crazy Weak, Brian Stelter, George Stephanopoulos, Joe Scarborough, Joy Reid, Rachael Maddow, MSNBC Mental Illness, Olivia Nuzzi, Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Watters, Climate Change Studies, Paycheck Narrative Motivation, VP Harris, Peter Hasson, Jeff Clark, Democrat Media Monopoly, Gell-Mann Amnesia, UK Labour Party, Nigel Farage, 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
I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time and today's going to be extra special because the news.
The news has got all kinds of stuff.
There's things happening all over the place.
We'll talk about them and they're all interesting, weirdly.
A super interesting day.
Comments are working.
Technology is working.
Allergy is not so bad.
We're in good shape.
Story number one.
You didn't even need to hear this because you already knew.
Yes, you are so far ahead of science that when you hear this, you're going to say, Scott, I knew that.
So there's a new study that says YouTubers can fulfill emotional needs better than casual friends.
So there's a new study that says if you're watching somebody on YouTube and you do it on a regular basis, That you can have your emotional needs fulfilled, even though it's sort of a one-way conversation.
That's what I'm doing.
Years ago, I wrote that I would be your invisible friend, but now I'm not invisible, thanks to technology.
Here I am!
So, if you haven't caught how Coffee with Scott Adams works, it's more than just the live stream.
The members on the locals Locals Community at scottm.locals.com are basically friends.
There just happen to be a lot of us.
So if you want to be part of it, I will be your non-invisible friend.
And it's way better than not having friends.
Some say it's better than having friends.
Yeah, some say.
But I think you should have friends too.
But if you don't, and you don't have enough, I will be your visible friend.
Apparently science agrees.
All right, I saw this great post from Fisher King, which is an anonymous name, about being a night owl.
He says, being a night owl isn't about staying up late for whatever reason, to drink or party.
It's about feeling a release of tension and ease in the dark that lets you do the work and study that makes you happy.
Something about broad daylight creates a pressure to be involved with things.
Move with the hustle and bustle of people in the streets.
When you really, you need solitude and silence.
Now, first of all, I agree with the statement that, you know, working when everybody else is asleep is the best time.
But, oh my God, is the writing this good?
The release of tension and ease in the dark.
I just love the choice of words.
And I would say also that working early in the morning cures my ADHD.
In the afternoon, my brain's all over the place.
I can't concentrate.
In the morning, when it's dark and everybody else is asleep, and it's too cold to be outdoors, and I wouldn't want to be outdoors anyway, my whole world shrinks to the size of my desk.
I even keep it dark.
Only my desk area is lighted.
Everything else is complete dark and silence.
Otherwise, I can't concentrate.
Now I recommend this.
In this case, Fisher King prefers the night hours.
I prefer the early morning hours.
But more generally, creative work is best done between midnight and 8 a.m.
I like the 4.30 to 8 a.m.
part.
Other people like the midnight to 4 a.m.
part, but it's the same part.
That's where you can really focus on who you are in your creative process. So, just think about that.
If you're having a problem concentrating on the things you need to move forward, think about experimenting either late at night, if you don't have to get up, or early in the morning.
It turns out people are very different.
You can't all be morning people.
I used to think you could, but now I think you can't make yourself be a morning person.
But you might be easy to be a You know, 12 to 2 person.
Axios is reporting there's a big movement to ban cell phones in schools, to which every single person here who has any experience with children in schools and cell phones said, wait a minute, they weren't already banned?
What?
Wait, what?
They weren't already banned in school?
Well, they were sort of banned in terms that you couldn't use it during the class, but everybody just used it under their desk.
So everybody was just sort of like this.
There's no way you could possibly concentrate on your class and do that at the same time.
However, I've got a provocative hypothesis.
We assume That the children will learn better and be better off if they don't have their distraction of their phones.
Because it's common sense.
Am I right?
What could be more obvious than you don't want people distracted when they're trying to learn?
Well, let me throw in a little bit of a thinker.
What are we preparing kids for?
Are we preparing them for a world that doesn't exist?
Or for a world that does exist?
And the world that does exist is full of distractions.
If you can't learn to do your classwork and use your phone in class, you're never going to make it in the real world.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
When I took an employment test for Pacific Bell when I was very young, part of the test was a distraction test.
Have you ever heard of this?
I think it was a common in the Bell system at some time.
They would literally give you a test and then they would distract you every, you know, whatever minute or something.
And the entire thing was to see if you could do ordinary tasks in the context of being distracted every few seconds.
And if you couldn't do it, they didn't want to hire you because the real world is about lots of distractions.
So it could be.
That while it's definitely true your kids aren't learning as much, that it's creating a filter that the people who can survive that kind of environment learn to do it better.
We might be surprised at which one of these we want.
Now, I don't think you can disturb the classroom situation with, you know, that's a different thing.
But we might find that you gotta teach kids to deal with distractions, because that's what the real world is.
Maybe.
I'm just putting it out there as a hypothesis.
I am not in favor of kids having cell phones in schools.
I'm not in favor of that.
Just hear that clearly.
But I'll just put out there as a hypothesis.
We're not entirely sure what's true.
We live in a world where you don't know.
I know.
I see what you're saying.
Did we forget something?
Something very important?
Called the Simultaneous Sip?
And you feel the lack, don't you?
Yeah?
You can feel it.
You're incomplete.
Well, if you'd like to be complete, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, some styrofoam, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine here today, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen now.
Go.
Now, this brings me perfectly to a topic that was upcoming.
Bye.
Did you feel the need for the Simultaneous Sip because you developed a habit and had a reward?
You felt it, right?
So you can feel that I have rewired your brains in a very specific way, intentionally, you know, with your permission, because you obviously knew what was happening.
And you now have a new habit or a new piece of circuitry.
This is something that hypnotists can do, right?
Not just hypnotists, of course, but hypnotists know how to add a little brain circuitry.
Where there wasn't one before.
We can connect two things that weren't connected and they'll stay connected because the circuitry is physically there once it's created.
Now take that thought and apply it to the next topic.
Coincidentally, I have a theory that time blindness So-called time blindness.
Do you know people who have time blindness?
They used to call it ADHD or it's an element of it.
Or maybe it's something else, but it's the idea that some people can't be on time because they're just, they're blind to time.
Now, how many times have we seen that I've cured a condition that was incurable?
If you're new to the stream, you just said, what?
This is for the new people.
This is just to give a shock to the system.
If you're new to the stream, I've cured more people than Jesus.
That's literally true.
Now, Jesus is better than me, you know, let me be clear.
Jesus is way better than me.
I'm not comparing myself to Jesus.
I'm just giving you a data point.
See, Jesus didn't have a social media.
So when he was doing his cures, he was doing one-off.
It's like, what'd you do today, Jesus?
Well, I cured three lepers and a blind guy.
Well, that's pretty impressive.
That's really impressive.
I can't do that.
But if I come up with a cure for something, I can tell a million people.
Right.
So I've cured probably thousands of people of pyoresis, that's shy bladder, just with hypnosis, essentially.
I've cured the common sneeze.
I wrote about that in my book, Reframe Your Brain.
Not every kind of sneeze, but I taught you a mental trick to make a sneeze go away by imagining you're sneezing instead of actually sneezing.
Now you didn't see that coming, did you?
I've also cured a number of people of an incurable speaking problem, the one I had.
And I've suggested people maybe looking for the surgery, and a number of people got the surgery and got cured.
So I've, you know, cured them just by information, in that case.
They didn't know there was a cure, I set them up, they got a cure.
Likewise, with the ReFrame Alcohol is Poison, Probably hundreds, maybe, maybe more, have told me they stopped drinking forever just from the words, alcohol is poison, because that allowed them to see it in a different frame and then it was easier to quit.
I get hundreds of people, maybe thousands, who told me that they dropped, you know, 50 and 60 pounds.
How much healthier are you if you drop 60 pounds?
Probably a lot.
So, I do have a track record.
Of literally curing people of and that's just a partial list of debilitating uncurable or hard to cure problems.
You have to know that because the next thing I'm going to say is so wildly improbable that if you didn't have the context you would say I'm not even going to listen to what you say because you're so wildly crazy.
But if you knew that I have in fact cured a number of major problems in public.
I do it in public and then people can see it.
You can see the comments.
You can see it yourself.
I'm going to cure time blindness now.
Now you're going to say to yourself, Scott, Scott, why?
Why don't you just listen to the experts?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Have you heard from the experts lately?
Apparently the experts are wrong about just about everything all the time.
That's not true, of course, but it feels like it lately.
So, I don't even blink when somebody says, I'm going to tell you something that's opposite of science now, and I think I'm right.
There was a time I would have said, come on, don't waste my time.
Don't waste my time saying that you know something that science got wrong.
But these days, I'm willing to listen.
I'll tell you, I'm a lot less cocky than I used to be about my science.
I used to be one of those assholes.
It's like, mm-hmm, yeah, I hear what you're saying, but do you know that all of science disagrees with you?
How about that?
I win.
Science is on my side.
Yeah, yeah, me.
It's me and science.
We're like bros.
Together, we can conquer everything.
And then I found out that my bro, science, was a big fucking liar.
Science is, I can't trust it at all.
All right, so with that set up, I give you the following.
I don't think that people have time blindness.
I think that a hypnotist with a little bit of work, it would take some A-B testing.
I don't think I could get it on the first try.
I think you could find a piece of circuitry that you can connect for the first time with people who say they have time blindness and you can cure it.
In other words, you can build a habit that would just be automatic As much as the simultaneous sip.
And I don't know exactly how to do it, but I'll give you some things I would try.
I have an observation, and I don't know if any of you can back this up, so this is not real data, this is just anecdotal.
I believe that people who have time blindness often were in a situation where they could spend lots of time alone.
In other words, they had their own bedroom when they were young, and maybe their own bathroom.
So that they could be time blind without any external thing affecting them.
And so it would never get fixed.
So their lateness is when you're not watching.
In other words, if somebody who has time blindness stood right next to me and I said, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to chop up these vegetables.
All right.
And I'll take a piece of broccoli.
I'll say, okay, you take a piece of broccoli.
All right.
Do it the same time I do.
Right now, let's see if we can finish at the same time.
We're just chopping broccoli.
I'm chopping, you're chopping.
Do you think that they couldn't do it?
Do you think that the person standing right next to you would be time blind and then they wouldn't be able to chop broccoli and be done about the same time you were?
No, they would.
Because you would be their external clock.
You would be the clock.
They wouldn't think of it that way, but they would just automatically match your pace.
Now suppose you put that person in a repeated bunch of situations where you create artificial situations where they just have to do things at the same way in the same time and the same exact sequence as a person who doesn't have time blindness.
Then secondly, you do a little test.
You say, hey, we're gonna do a little test.
Try to tell me when you think seven minutes is up.
And then you see how close they get.
Now, sometimes they'll forget to even answer.
It'll be like an hour later and you'll say, OK, do you remember that you were going to tell me when seven minutes was up?
And it might be wildly impossible at first, but I'll bet you that if you if you get people to feel physically what it's like to be next to somebody who knows what time is and feels it, that you would learn to feel it.
Much like, uh, I'm the worst drummer in the world.
You know, I try to try to do play the drums, but if I watch a good drummer on a YouTube, my drumming instantly gets better just from the exposure that doesn't last, but I can, I can pick up like a little extra funk or something just immediately.
So I believe that people might learn their sense of time from exposure to other people.
Here's another example.
This is my favorite one.
I use this example a lot.
The way you train a herding dog, like a sheepdog, to herd the sheep, is you just introduce a new dog.
That's it.
That's the training.
The new dog just watches the trained dog, and in a really short time, a few days, the new dog becomes a sheepdog.
Just from exposure to, oh, you do that?
I'll do that.
Looks like you're having fun.
I'll have fun.
Secondly, I also observe that people with time blindness do not get a dopamine hit from being on time.
But I do.
I get a dopamine hit from doing boring things efficiently.
People who have time blindness will tell you, if I'm doing a boring thing, like my brain just checks out, I can't concentrate on a boring thing.
But I say, how do you ever have a boring thing?
How do you ever have a boring thing?
I never have a boring thing.
I have challenges.
So if something's boring, I say, how's the fastest way I can make this finish the way nobody's ever done it so fast?
And then it's a challenge.
And then it's interesting.
And if I can do that thing that takes an hour and 45 minutes, the next day I say, I'll bet I can do it in 44 minutes.
So I never, I'm never bored.
I'm always creating a challenge.
Now these are habits.
Could you install these habits or something like them?
You know, I don't think I've necessarily hit the answer yet.
I just believe that the missing piece of circuitry is something that's completely fixable.
Because brains are programmable.
And that little free-floating thing that doesn't connect your sense of time to what you're doing at the moment, I could connect those.
I could connect those.
And I'll bet any hypnotist could.
You know, any really good hypnotist.
I don't think you can do it with a therapist.
Necessarily.
I don't think you can do it with a pill.
Necessarily.
I do think a hypnotist could do it with some people over time.
It might take a little experimenting.
So I just put that out there that I think we have a complete wrong understanding of time blindness and what to do about it.
The Tate brothers won their appeal.
So the appeal allows them to travel.
I guess they still have legal peril.
But at the moment, as long as they're free, they can now travel in Europe.
Now, I ask you, why couldn't they travel in Europe before?
What changed between the time they had to be in jail, to the time they were allowed to be out, but in Romania, to the time now that they could travel, obviously being flight risks?
Is this sort of the cats on the roof?
Is this the first step toward an admission that the charges were complete bullshit?
Because, you know, I'm no fan of Andrew Tate, just for personal reasons, not because of what he says.
I actually like what he says.
I like his act.
I don't like him personally as a human being.
That's just his personal interactions with him.
Everything about the legal peril that they're in just screamed not real.
It just screamed like somebody was out to get them and they were law-faring them in Romania, the worst possible thing that could happen to you.
So keep an eye on this.
If I had to predict, I'm gonna predict that they don't go to jail and that we someday learn the charges were complete bullshit and that they came from another country.
In other words, I'll bet Romania was doing a favor to some other country for some other reason.
Somebody didn't like him.
That's what I think.
Because there are just too many people who have a certain kind of view who have bad luck.
Have you noticed that?
Oh, Alex Jones.
Well, you know, that's a special case because it was the thing he said and, you know, the kind of bad luck.
And then Andrew Tate says, well, you know, Yeah, you have to understand he probably did some bad things, in addition to the things he was saying.
So, you know, the bad things catch up with you.
Maybe.
And, uh, you know, this cartoonist got cancelled for what he said, but, you know, you have to understand, it's what he said.
It's, you know, a special case.
Well, there certainly are a lot of special cases, aren't there?
Have you noticed how many special cases there are that all seem to go in one direction?
Because I don't see a lot of special cases on the left.
Just a lot of special cases on the right.
So watch out for the special cases.
They may not be as special as you think.
Tucker Carlson got fired from Fox News, but that was a special case because he said something about the elections, right?
Maybe there are no special cases.
Speaking of Tucker, he said that he's got an interview lined up and he's going to talk to Zelensky Zelensky's people said, nope, nothing like that happened.
There is nobody in Zelensky's office who believes that that's true.
He has a full schedule and his schedule is not involving Tucker and it's completely made up and maybe he shouldn't believe things that Russians tell him.
Do you think he got pranked?
Do you think that some Russian pretended to be a Zelensky person?
And yeah, how would you really know?
I mean, if somebody called me and said, Beryl, is this Scott Adams?
I'd be, yes.
This is Zelensky's office.
This is my Ukrainian accent.
You recognize it.
Ukrainian accent.
This is Ukrainian office of Zelensky.
We very much like to do interview with you.
How would I know it's not Zelensky?
You know, I suppose you could ask the government.
But if you're Tucker, you know, the government's not even going to return your call, it would be pretty easy to get pranked.
And I'd like to give you the extra, extra, extra caution.
You have to stop believing every audio source for everything, even if it's live.
You have to learn to not trust any audio source, even live.
Even if you're having a conversation live, you don't know if you're even talking to a person anymore.
You really don't.
Remember, AI has passed the Turing test.
That means that literally, scientifically, a human can't tell they're talking to an AI.
All the time.
Sometimes you can.
So don't trust anything.
Could be a prank, could be an AI, could be an op.
There's just nothing you can trust.
Anyway.
Meanwhile, Up in Canada, the woke Canadians are having an experiment with their first 15-minute city.
So the city of Edmonton is going to divide itself into 15 little parts, and then all of them will be places that if you live in one of those little parts, you'll be able to get whatever you want within 15 minutes.
And it'll be mostly mass transit, so everything would be more convenient and closer.
Don't need as much climate change, don't need to spend as much money.
We'll talk about climate change later.
And of course, my audience is concerned that this would be Klaus Schwab's dream of globalizing everything and taking away your freedoms.
So you don't want your city to be convenient, because it'll take away your freedoms.
I, of course, have given you a little pushback on the idea that living in a city that's well-designed for your convenience is really a plot to control you.
Maybe, it's just good for everybody.
But, I do acknowledge that this change would give people an easier way to control you.
Would you agree?
That the 15-Minute City would give the people in charge Yet another way to control you.
And of course they would.
Because every time you give them control, they use it.
Can we all agree that it does create a situation where maybe you don't have a car.
It just feels like they would be able to control you better if you're in your little 15 minute city.
It's not that you can't leave, but you won't have a car.
So you'll have to work at it a little bit harder if you want to leave.
Well, here's my context.
Um, when the automobile was first introduced into America, did it give you freedom or take it away?
Well, it gave you freedom, right?
Because you got to drive around.
Well, did it?
Did it?
Because it came with all kinds of rules.
What you could do, what you couldn't do.
And then you got to the point where you had to have a car.
Like you didn't even have an option.
So cars started out as, well, isn't that cool?
They're mandatory, really.
How could you live a modern life without one, you know, at some point?
So, then he had phones.
When telephones were introduced, the government got a way to spy on all of you, because they could tap your phones with any good reason.
So was the telephone a good idea or a bad idea?
Because it guaranteed you lost your privacy.
You know, the government could listen to anything they wanted.
But the telephone was useful, you know, sort of like a 15-minute city.
It's just that you gave up your privacy.
But then you had a computer.
Wow, computers were great.
You could do so many things.
But it gave the government a way not to just spy on one phone call, but they could learn everything you've ever done, everything you care about, everybody you've talked to, everything you've said.
You gave up all of your freedom.
Because computers are really cool, and they're useful, and they're great.
Sorry, were computers a bad idea?
Well, they gave up all of your freedom.
It depends.
Do you like freedom?
Because you lost it.
But the computers are cool, too.
Games, and you can do things.
They have apps.
How about security cameras?
You know what's great?
That you could have a security camera to feel safe.
You know, it keeps the bad guys away.
Easier to catch them.
But then that meant you were on security cameras everywhere you went.
So you gave up all of your physical freedom in the sense of people not knowing where you are at any given time.
Because they also added facial recognition.
So security cameras are great.
Wouldn't you agree?
Keeps you safe.
Also, took away all your freedom.
So now you don't have the ability to travel without being spotted.
How about facial recognition?
Great stuff!
The convenience of it.
You could tell if somebody is a real person.
We don't do this yet, but we will.
If you go to the store, You don't have your ID?
Wouldn't it be great if they just used facial recognition?
I mean, I use it on my phone all the time.
I hated putting in my password on my phone.
Now I just, you know, phone just looks at my face.
My God, that's great.
That is a great, great thing that took away all my privacy.
I've got one of those digital devices from Amazon whose name I dare not say.
It's amazing.
I can't tell you how much better my life is because I can just talk to that thing all day long.
I'm talking to it.
I've got one in all my major rooms.
I talk to it all day long.
I'm asking it questions and checking things.
It's great.
It also listens to everything I do or could.
And if the government wanted to listen to me in every room, they could, but it's really cool.
I really enjoy it.
So, I would argue that the most common thing for us, and we'll see with AI as well, AI is really useful.
It's great.
Do you think AI will take away some of your freedoms?
Of course it will.
Do you think AI will take away your jobs?
Of course it will.
Do you think that your ability to even experience the feeling of free will will be diminished greatly by AI?
Yes.
Yes, it will.
How about the robots that are going to be in your house?
You could actually have a robot connected to the internet with eyes and a brain watching everything you do.
But it's going to be so cool.
I'm going to get one.
I'm going to get one.
Yeah, and it's going to be watching me just like a spy.
And the government could probably take over that robot's brain anytime it wanted, watch everything that I do, and even tell the robot to look around.
I think that at some point, the government, if it has a warrant, We'll be able to listen to this.
The government will be able to order your robot to search your house while you're at work.
Yeah.
Your robot will be ordered to watch your passwords as you type them into your computer.
Oh, yeah, that's coming.
But are you not going to get a robot?
You will get a robot.
We're all going to have a robot.
We're all going to have robots and you're going to give away whatever's left.
The last shred of your independence from the government.
So when you tell me, Scott, you fucking idiot, don't you understand that the 15-minute cities are part of the global conspiracy to take away your freedoms?
I say, of course I understand that.
I understood it about the phone, the car, the computer.
I understand it about my digital devices.
I understand it about security cameras.
I understand it about AI.
I understand it about robots.
It's gonna happen anyway.
And I, for one, am in favor of designing cities to be more efficient.
And if you're concerned about taking your freedom, I would say you're completely right, and it probably doesn't matter.
Because you've given away your freedom so many times, there's no freedom left.
And what the hell are they going to do, do you think, that they can't already do?
I mean, really?
You're afraid of the digital money?
Because then they'll know exactly what you're doing with your money?
If you're using a credit card, they already know what you're doing with your money.
It's only cash that matters.
And cash is mostly used for sketchy reasons right now.
It's to avoid taxes, basically.
Or buy drugs, I guess.
Anyway, here's a new report.
I'm going to test your bias.
The RNC reports, RNC Research Account on X reports, that the official jobs number from the last two months has been revised downward.
Wow!
By 111,000.
So, surprise, right?
The jobs report looked really good.
And then, just like you knew, it got revised down quite a bit.
Quite a bit, that's a big number.
Now, here's a test of your knowledge of the news.
True or false?
Here's a true or false test.
True or false?
In the election year, when Biden is in charge, and therefore the government is sort of pro-Biden, one assumes, that they are going to lie about the jobs numbers consistently while he's in office, and then there'll be like a little correction later that they hope you don't notice.
True or false?
The news consistently says the jobs are good, and then quietly correct it later where you don't notice.
True or false?
I'll read your answers.
True, true, true.
True, true, true, true.
You've all seen it.
You've seen it with your own eyes, so therefore it's true.
Yep.
It's not true.
Do you know how I know it's not true?
Because in my ongoing conversation with Michael Ian Black, who represents, let's say, almost the polar opposite of my political views, I mentioned that to him.
I said, you know, conservatives see this, but you probably don't, that those job numbers that look good, they always, you know, maybe not 100% of the time, but pretty much you can depend, usually, they're going to get revised down, and then you won't notice the revision.
And he said, Well, that's not true.
And I said, come on.
This is the most obviously true thing in the news.
How do you not know that?
It's like almost every month, it seems.
They say the numbers were good, and then a month later, they're not so good.
And he said, But I remember them being revised in both directions, not just one way.
Sometimes they go up, sometimes they don't.
And I said to myself, well, that can't be true.
Because I only see them revised down.
And so I checked.
Turns out that they're revised up sometimes and down sometimes.
And that a Republican entity will tell me when they've been revised down.
And they won't tell me when they've been revised up.
So, Michael Ian Black for the win.
His version of the news was accurate.
My version of the news was fucking bullshit.
100% win.
Which I told him, by the way.
100%.
His news was accurate, mine was bullshit.
And it wasn't wrong, in terms of, you know, the accuracy.
It was just what I saw.
So I don't see anybody posting, well, those numbers are way better than we thought.
But today I saw the RNC research number telling me, and here's what Zero Hedge said, something like, you know, here it comes, here it goes again, or something like that.
So Zero Hedge presented it as, here it is again, here's what they always do.
But they don't.
They don't always do that.
What is true is that when they do it, you see it.
Because Republicans are more likely to send that around social media.
So if that, if that tricked you the way it tricked me, do your own research.
Just, you know, check.
You'll see.
All right, here's another fake news.
There was some news that there were some documents suggesting that Mike Flynn would be the VP choice.
He says that it's not true and that The filing, he debunked it.
So basically, Flynn says there's no filing.
That's not a real thing.
Now, that doesn't mean that he's not going to be the choice for vice president.
I don't think he will be.
But it's just that this document is fake.
So if you believe that document was real, check yourself, because it was fake.
Now, I didn't really have I guess I suspected it was fake because I heard this story and yet I didn't think it was important enough to talk about.
I think I mentioned it was new, but it never seemed important to me.
And it would have been important if I thought it was true.
So I guess I'd never believed it enough to make it a big deal.
So I guess I can take a partial victory in that I wasn't convinced of this one.
But I could have made a bigger, I could have said more directly that I was skeptical.
So I think I'll correct myself on that.
All right.
So, uh, I saw Tucker saying this the other day, uh, on a video that you have, you really have to restate in your mind, everything that you think you believed about history, because we're living through history that will someday be in history books.
And we can see with our own eyes and our own ears that what will be written in the history books will not be real.
And yet we can be sure that children will be taught it as if it's real.
The fact that the media tried to tell us that Biden's problem was a cold and a stutter.
Well, let's say they were not lying as obviously as they are.
If you had to revise your understanding of history, you might say to yourself, You know, all right, I got to take this under consideration.
There was a time I was told from the historians that Stalin was a bad dude.
And he killed a bunch of people that, you know, is considered one of the greatest evils in the history of the world.
But now I'm wondering if he didn't just have a cold and a stutter.
No?
Well, they're telling us that a cold and a stutter can make you act in a way that no person normally acts.
People don't normally want to kill 20 million of their own people.
That's not normal.
So how do we know he didn't just... maybe it's just a passing thing.
Just a cold and a stutter.
Alright, I'm kidding.
But how ridiculous is it that they're still trying to tell us it might be a cold and a stutter, and, oh by the way, he was also jet-lagged.
And by the way, it's just normal aging.
Here's a little trick I learned from who I call my smartest Democrat friend.
I mention him all the time.
But one of the things he taught me years ago was if somebody has one reason, one explanation for something, it might be true and it might be false.
You don't know.
Just one explanation.
But if somebody offers you three competing explanations, it's always bullshit.
Uh, why were you late?
Oh, traffic was bad.
And I had a flat tire.
Okay.
If it was only traffic was bad, maybe, but if traffic was bad and you had a flat tire, suddenly it doesn't sound as true.
He had a problem because he had a cold and a stutter.
And international travel 12 days ago.
And it's just normal.
As soon as you get that second or third excuse, all doubt should be removed about whether it's true.
Nope!
You get to that third one, and that's pretty confirming that it's not real.
All right, now the latest is that Biden is telling Democratic governors That he's going to go to sleep by 8 p.m.
because he needs more sleep.
No, nothing wrong with that.
Totally normal.
You know, you want him to be sharp at 3 a.m.
when he gets that call about the nuclear attack.
And we'll say, he's in good shape.
Went to bed at 8.
Yeah, that would sound like yet another, maybe a fourth excuse.
Not just jet lag, but in general, not enough sleep.
But he also has a cold and a stutter.
And Trump's old, too.
Trump's old, too.
In case I didn't mention that.
Trump's old, too.
So that would be like five things.
All right.
I would recommend that whenever you hear somebody in the news tell you that the problem is he had a cold, that you translate it into your head into Monty Python talk.
Because here's what's not funny.
Jean, Corinne Jean-Pierre saying, but people, uh, it's a very clear, um, I've been very clear, very, very clear.
He had a cold.
He had a cold.
I've been very clear.
Have I told you I've been clear?
I don't know if I mentioned I've been clear, very clear.
It was just a cold.
People.
Now that's not funny.
Here's funny.
It's just a cold.
Well, they look like he couldn't even talk.
It's just a cold.
He's, he's fine.
He's just got a cold.
Now you're probably realizing right now, he can't do a Monty Python accent to save his ass.
It sounded exactly like his Ukrainian accent and that wasn't good to begin with.
Okay.
That's true.
So you have to do your own Monty Python in your head.
You don't do mine.
Mine's, mine's not good.
Well, Miranda Devine Devine tells us.
Is it Devine or Devine?
Probably Devine.
Miranda Devine, right?
Is it Devine or Devine?
It's so hard, the names that don't tell you how to pronounce them by looking at them.
Anyway, Miranda, who's great.
She was saying on a report recently on TV that every reporter on the campaign trail in 2020 could see with their own eyes that Joe Biden was in cognitive decline.
He was very low energy, he had to have teleprompters for the smallest things, and his basic stump speeches, blah, blah, blah.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that everybody could see it, and the entire left-leaning news covered it up?
That's funny.
Let's play Lying, Stupid, or Crazy, or Weak.
I added weak.
Because we're going to look at some people on the left and what they say about Biden, and you get to decide, are they lying?
Are they stupid?
Are they crazy?
Or are they just weak?
Brian Stelter Now that he knows that Biden has these problems, and he was one of the ones saying there was no problem at all right up until the debate, He wrote, he said, the record of how Biden's health was covered is complicated, just as aging is a complicated process.
Is he lying, stupid, crazy or weak?
Lying, crazy, stupid or weak?
He's acting like maybe it wasn't so obvious.
Yeah, maybe you couldn't really see it, you know, because of the complicated stuff.
It's complicated.
How could anybody see it when it's so complicated?
I'm going to say lying and weak.
Lying either because he's weak or he's weak and lying and it's a coincidence.
I don't think he's crazy and I don't think he's stupid.
I mean, not that stupid.
Let's do another one.
George Slopinopoulos.
So he's going to do the conversation with Biden.
I guess we'll see it today.
And he is presumably going to give a lifeline to Biden if he can.
As I think Ari Fleischer was pointing out, he says, it's amazing to think Joe Biden's fate is in the hands of Bill Clinton's former communications director, George Stephanopoulos.
In 1992, George helped save Clinton from a bimbo eruption.
What will he do now for Biden?
Save him or end him?
It's possible.
That Stepanopoulos is being sent to end him.
Because if the people who were really in power on the Democrat side need to end him, they would send their best.
And he would do it.
Now, is George Stenopoulos lying, stupid, crazy, or weak?
Lying, stupid, crazy, or weak?
Because I think he was one of the people saying, Biden's fine.
What do you think?
I'm gonna say lying.
Definitely not stupid.
Definitely not crazy.
Definitely not weak.
Just lying.
Yeah, that one's easy.
How about mourning Joe?
So apparently Joe came back to work after his scheduled vacation that apparently did not involve his wife.
Okay, that's normal.
And he took that scheduled vacation, somebody pointed out, soon after he disagreed with his wife on air and told her to calm down.
I guess that's what gets you, that'll get you a vacation without your wife.
If you'd like a vacation without your wife, just tell her to calm down.
That'll get you a vacation without a wife.
Maybe forever.
So anyway, Morning Joe comes back, and you probably saw his rant about FU if you don't know that Biden is the best Biden there's ever been.
And a few days later, the best Biden decomposed in front of us.
That was the best Biden.
Now, Morning Joe.
Lying, stupid, crazy, or weak?
Lying, stupid, crazy, or weak?
For Morning Joe.
Morning Joe, what do you say?
I'm gonna vote... Obviously lying, but it looks like there's some mental health problems there.
Yeah.
So I would go with lying and crazy.
He doesn't seem weak.
I mean, if you're weak, you don't tell your wife to calm down on national TV.
You might pay for it, but it wasn't weak.
You know, his...
I mean, he's not weak.
And he's not stupid.
He's not stupid.
Not even a little bit.
So I'm going to go with lying and crazy.
All right, here's another one.
Joy Reid did a video in which she said that it looks like Hitler is going to be elected.
And it wasn't a joke.
She was saying that in a real way, Trump is Hitler.
Is she lying, stupid, crazy, or weak?
I'm going to say crazy, because she represented herself crazy.
In other words, she looked crazy.
She had crazy eyes, crazy thoughts.
There might be some lying mixed in, but she's not stupid, and she's not weak.
She's definitely not weak.
And there's no evidence she's stupid.
There's plenty of evidence that she has a mental health problem and that she's lying.
What about Rachel Maddow?
Lying, stupid, crazy, or weak?
She's not stupid.
She's smarter than all of us put together.
She's super smart.
She's not weak.
Because, you know, she's pushed through a lot of things to be on TV.
But she does admit to some mental health issues.
Depression.
But you can see more of that in her face.
Like, I don't know what the problem is, and I do actually have some empathy for it.
She looks like she's tortured.
I would say mental health.
I don't want to say crazy because that's, you know, crazy is what you say to somebody who's not under therapy.
I'm pretty sure she's getting professional help.
So I'm gonna, I'm gonna be more kind and not say crazy.
I will say there's a mental health issue that's genuine and it's serious.
And I think we're all being sort of influenced by a mental health issue more than the news.
All right, that's my take.
Now, you can't know, but keep in mind, we're not mind readers, so we can't know that our conclusions are right here.
We're just saying what it looks like.
All right, and I would say, I think that the MSNBC has a duty to disclose their mental health situation.
I mean that literally.
And I'm not saying this about CNN.
CNN has a bunch of people who say things I don't like.
Sometimes.
They're a lot better.
They're moving toward the middle.
But I don't see them looking crazy.
Do you?
I don't see them having mental health problems.
I see Jake Tapper doing Jake Tapper.
I see Wolf Blitzer doing Wolf Blitzer.
John King doing John King.
None of them look crazy.
Not even a little bit.
But as soon as I turn on MSNBC, it's not that they're more strident about Trump.
It's not really that.
They actually, honestly, without any spin or anything, to me they represent as really obviously mentally ill.
Now, here's where I'm going to get a little mad at the media.
You can see it too.
Everybody can see it.
You could see it years ago with Biden.
And here it is.
Are you going to tell me you don't see it?
Are you going to tell me you watch Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid and Joe Scarborough and you don't see really, really obvious mental illness?
You don't see it?
Can you actually say that?
To me it's screamingly obvious.
And here's how I check myself.
The CNN.
I don't see it in other places.
It's very unique to their situation.
And I think they need to disclose whether they're under the care of a professional.
I would like to know if the person who's telling me what my reality is, is capable of understanding reality.
Isn't that fair?
I think they should tell us if they're under the care of a professional.
You know, do you go to therapy and why?
Wouldn't you like to know that?
Because if they're telling you what is real, don't you want to know if they've got a grasp on what's real?
And I think they don't.
To me, it looks like they have legitimate mental health problems, which, by the way, if they were to cop to them, I would immediately change my tone and I would just go to empathy.
And I would say, God, I hope you take care of that, because it sounds terrible.
I mean, a mental health problem is just like being in hell.
So I have full empathy.
For whatever is going on.
It's just we need a little transparency here.
I think it would be good for the country.
All right.
Olivia Nuzzi, I don't know how to say her name either.
She talks about the conspiracy of silence to protect the president.
She said in January, I began hearing similar stories from Democratic officials, activists and donors who came away from interactions with Biden disturbed by what they had seen.
And she said she'd been writing about it for a while.
And it made me wonder, I don't remember her talking about it, but, you know, maybe I don't see all the news, so that's not a surprise.
And I wonder, should you revise your entire understanding of who to listen to in the future?
I would say yes.
I would say anybody who looked at Biden, so obviously declining, and told you with a straight face, he's fine.
You should never listen to them again.
I would go further and say that anybody who is an anti-Biden person who didn't also say, and he's obviously declining mentally, if they didn't tell you that directly, you should maybe not take them too seriously in the future.
But I'd like to call out a couple of people who for years have been saying Biden's brain is fried.
Right?
Now, you know, you know, some of them, and this is not a complete list, but Greg Gottfeld, How long has Greg Gutfeld been telling you loudly in public on his shows, Biden's brain is not there?
It's obvious.
So the next time he tells you, I'm looking at something and they're lying to you and I'll tell you what the truth is, maybe you should listen to him.
Maybe you should.
Because he got that right.
Right?
How about Jesse Watters?
Now, Jesse's one of my favorite TV personalities, because he knows when to be tongue-in-cheek and when to present a character just for fun.
But he also has lots of good, serious takes on stuff that are some of the best.
You sometimes don't notice that his takes are among the best in the business, because he does the comedy thing that overshadows it.
But he, too, could see the decline right from the start.
Dana Perino, I'm sure, same thing, right?
So just take a mental note.
Who was calling this out years ago?
And obviously I was as well.
And who was telling you there's no problem?
That's not fixable.
You can't fix that.
If somebody lied to you about something so obvious for years, you should never believe anything they say again.
Never.
That's not like being wrong.
Being wrong is forgivable.
We all do it.
But that wasn't being wrong.
That was lying to you about something you could see with your own eyes.
Four years!
So just make a mental note of who got it right.
All right, so now you watch 98% of journalists tell you that Biden was fine, even though obviously it wasn't true.
Will that have any impact on the people who say, but 98% of scientists say climate change is real.
It's a big problem.
Do you think it'll have any impact?
Do you think people will begin to doubt at all what everybody tells them?
I think they're going to say, oh, but you're talking about journalists.
Yeah, of course journalists can be wrong, but not scientists?
Not scientists?
No.
One of the things we've learned is that you can't trust anybody who gets a paycheck that depends on their opinion.
That's the one thing we've learned.
The journalist Couldn't get paid if they said Biden was declining because they were part of a entity that wanted, you know, a Democrat spin on their news.
So the, the reporters were not dumb and stupid.
They knew exactly what they were doing and they lied to the country while we could see the truth right in front of us.
And they never stopped until they had to, you know, when he fell apart on the debate.
Now, like I say, scientists are not journalists.
Very different people.
But the journalists knew the truth.
So in that way, it would be more like scientists.
They weren't wrong.
They knew the truth.
And they decided that their paycheck depended, and maybe their personal politics, depended on them not telling you the truth.
So they lied.
Almost all of them, on the left.
Almost all of them.
What do you think is different about scientists?
If a scientist depends on agreeing with a narrative in order to get a grant, in order to get a job, in order to please their boss, what would you predict would happen?
It's exactly the same as what happened with journalists.
The science doesn't help them.
Are you going to say, but, but Scott, they're scientists and they care about the truth.
That's exactly what your fucking journalists would say.
We're journalists.
Our job is to tell you the truth with no spin, just like the scientists, unless our paycheck and our lifestyle depends on it.
And then we're going to say what the narrative tells us.
Well, it turns out that there are three papers recently, Wide Awake Media is reporting on this on X, and there are three new papers that are peer-reviewed that collectively they say that 40% of what we observe as a heat increase is really the heat island effect from thermometers being too near cities that are building out in the direction of where the thermometers were in the first place.
60% seems to match perfectly solar activity.
Ouch.
Ouch.
Yikes.
Now, you're going to say to yourself, but, but it's just three studies.
There's still tons of studies that would say climate change is real.
Um, and So I wonder if the people who believe the journalists, whose job it is to tell you the truth without the spin, will maybe come to doubt the scientists, whose job it is to tell you the truth without the spin.
Do you see the pattern yet?
All that matters is who gives them the paycheck.
That's the truth they will tell you.
Doesn't matter what their job is.
Doesn't matter if you're a journalist.
Doesn't matter if you're a scientist.
Doesn't matter if you're a politician.
You're going to tell the truth that your paycheck tells you to tell.
And we see it.
How about the pandemic?
The pandemic was the clearest case you've ever seen.
The experts just caved.
They just caved.
What's the narrative?
How do I get a paycheck?
Okay, that's the truth.
I think climate change is getting ready to crumble, and that would be the ultimate third act for Trump.
The ultimate third act, climate change is a hoax.
Yeah, that's the ultimate.
And it's coming.
Apparently it's coming.
Now, again, I would like to remind you, I'm not a climate expert, and I don't know if the climate is getting warmer or not, and if humans make a difference.
I'm just telling you what the science is saying, and there's some modern, recent papers that debunk the whole thing.
Are they right?
Why would I say that the new ones are right, when I'm saying all the old ones are wrong?
Because it agrees with me, right?
Do your bias check on me.
Use the tools I tell you to use on me.
Is it credible that there are three new papers who agree with me, so I talk about them?
No, you shouldn't take them as true because I'm talking about them, or because they agree with me, or because they agree with you.
If you didn't believe the 10,000 papers that said climate change was real, are you just going to automatically believe the three that say they're not?
That it's not?
It's a little too early to celebrate, if that's the way it's going, but I do observe that we didn't see three papers debunking climate change that were peer-reviewed, and there's no major pushback.
In other words, what you're not seeing, the dog not barking, is people saying, look at the terrible quality of these three papers.
How could you believe this?
Look at the mistakes they made.
Look at the bad data.
It might happen.
And if you see that pushback, you should take it seriously.
All right.
You got to see both sides.
Don't do the documentary effect where you see a documentary and then you think you know everything.
You got to see the documentary that says that one's wrong.
And then maybe you can triangulate in the truth, but don't get too cocky just because some papers agreed with you.
All right.
Um, Peter Hassan, Uh, has a good take on what Kamala is going to have to answer.
She's going to, if she becomes the top of the ticket, which I believe she is already essentially.
So, uh, she's going to have to answer the question when she knew the president wasn't up to the job, what she did about it and why she repeatedly told us that he was fine.
Yes, Peter Hasan, those are exactly the right questions.
If she can't answer those questions, could you trust her with the nuclear codes?
Those are really, really good questions.
I've often thought that the public should be more involved in coming up with good questions.
Often you see the media doing their interviews and you say, oh, you didn't ask the right question.
There should be some kind of like website or something, where people, you know, compete for the best question.
And then if you're a journalist, you know, you check it in the morning, say, all right, what do people want to know?
Oh, shoot, they're all asking, why didn't Kamala tell us earlier?
That's a good question.
I'll ask that question.
So I think the media actually could use a boost.
And you've seen me do it a bunch of times, you know, on my live streams, I'll say, here's the question that should be asked.
Usually it doesn't get asked, but you can see that if you could help the media ask the right question, I feel like that would drive us a little bit closer to the truth.
All right, as Jeff Clark, who's a great follow on Axe, he was one of the Trump-related attorneys who got in trouble, and now he's just gone nuclear with his opinions in a real productive way, because he has excellent opinions and insights on stuff.
But he says, here's how you know we have a controlled media.
So he says there's NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, PBS, I could go on.
All of these ostensibly, ostensible competitors, emphasis on the word ostensible, he says, for a truly competitive market, one or more of them would have said Joe Biden has dementia.
If they were competing, and they all knew what the truth was, and their business is to tell you the truth, One of them would try to make money by telling you the truth.
Because that's their business model, isn't it?
It isn't telling you accurate, truthful things that turn out to check out later.
That's what makes you money if you're in the news business.
Well, clearly, they do not operate like a news business.
They operate like a cartel.
And that's no longer in doubt.
It is pure cartel behavior.
There's nothing like a competitive environment.
Now, that's why Roger Ailes was so brilliant when he said, all we need to do is show a show that's not part of the cartel, and you're going to have like half of the country watching.
Because it's so obvious that the cartel is not giving you news.
And sure enough, that's why Fox News is the number one entity.
It's not because most people agree with it.
It's because they even get more Democrats watching Fox News than a lot of the, you know, left-leaning news.
Because it's the only place you can see an alternate story.
You know, true or false, it's the alternative story.
All right.
So, Mark Levin sums it up on X. He said, the same media that told us Biden didn't have dementia now tell us Harris isn't stupid.
You couldn't sum it up better than that.
By the way, I tell you all the time that the difference between humor and an accurate summary is very small.
Here's a perfect example.
So Levin is giving you an accurate summary.
There's nothing to lie about.
There's nothing to question.
The media did tell us Biden didn't have dementia.
And they are, in fact, telling us that Harris isn't stupid.
And we can clearly see that neither of those are true.
So he's simply summarizing the existing situation with nothing added.
And it makes you laugh.
You see what I mean?
An accurate summary is what a joke is.
Humor is an accurate summary of reality.
And Mark Levin obviously knows that.
So, I would like to add one more thing to the obvious level.
People.
It's not obvious that she's drunk in public.
I'm not the only one noticing that.
Are we gonna just have a repeat in four years?
Where the press is gonna say, you know, we saw her drinking her lunch all the time.
We saw her acting like she doesn't act when she's not drunk in public.
Yeah, she was drunk as hell.
Am I supposed to not notice that she acts exactly like a drunk person, but not all the time?
Which is exactly the tell for a drunk person.
If she act like this all the time, Then I'd say, oh, that's maybe just how she acts.
Because she probably wouldn't be drunk all the time.
But you see those laughing things and the weird things she says every now and then?
Those are clearly drunk.
Do you agree?
Now, you could say it's some other form of inebriation, but I'll just use drunk to handle the other forms as well.
Probably alcohol.
My guess is alcohol.
It looks like alcohol.
So, how many of you would agree?
Because to me, it's screamingly obvious that she's drunk in public on a regular basis.
Do you disagree?
I'm looking at the comments because I don't know if you do.
Do you agree?
That, you know, some of it is just who she is.
A lot of it is just obviously drunk.
And they're just not telling us.
You think the press doesn't know that she's drinking her lunch?
Of course they know.
Of course they know.
They're doing it to you again.
And as much as I love Mark Levin's summary, I think he buried the lead.
The lead is drunk.
That's the lead.
If you don't deal with that question and deal with it seriously, you're going to have a drunk president.
And that's a pretty big contrast to somebody who has never had a sip of alcohol running against you.
And that's a big contrast.
Now, I don't think that Trump can say she's drunk.
Maybe he can say she looks drunk.
But that would be a little too far beyond what is a proven thing.
It's not proven.
I just think it's obvious.
Anyway, I guess we'll keep ignoring that.
Here's what I think.
I think America is now experiencing a form of massive Gelman amnesia.
I talk about this a lot because if you don't understand what this is, the whole world is confusing.
So, Gell-Mann was the name of a famous physicist, most of you have heard this before, who noticed that when he read a story about physics, his own expertise, he knew it was bullshit.
But when he read the very next story about anything else, he just assumed it was true.
Then one day, after seeing this pattern reoccur, that the physics stories were always wrong, but he thought everything else was right, being the smart physicist that he was, he said, wait a minute, isn't it slightly more likely that all of the news is wrong all the time, and I only notice it when it's my own area of expertise?
And that's exactly what's happening.
The news is pretty much fake all the time.
When it's the big geopolitical stuff, it's not fake when it says there's a hurricane, right?
Hurricane's real.
It's not fake when it says somebody died.
They died.
But it's fake when they put this spin on it, the narrative, that sort of stuff.
So here's what's happening to the entire country.
So We have a situation where Democrats now know completely, with certainty, regular Democrat voters, they know with certainty, that the entire media lied to them about a critical, critical thing.
And they know it wasn't a mistake.
That's important.
They know it wasn't a mistake.
They know they were lied to for years by their trusted media.
Will the Gell-Mann approach kick in and make all the Democrats think, well, that was just that one story?
Because that's what Gell-Mann amnesia would be.
It's like, well, okay, I guess they got that one thing wrong, but this other story is real.
Will it?
Or will it cure them?
Will it cure them like Gell-Mann cured himself, which is noticing the pattern?
Wait.
Whenever I can know for sure what the truth is, such as watching the debate, then you can know for sure what the truth was.
It doesn't match what I was told.
How often is that going to happen?
How often am I going to notice that I can see with my own eyes That what they're telling me is not real.
How many times do you notice that before you realize that's the normal?
It's not the exception.
That's everything all the time, if it's important.
If it's important, there's somebody with money who's going to make you lie about it.
Might be your boss.
Might be your advertisers.
But if it's important, somebody with a lot of money is going to force you to lie about it.
That's the reality that we live in.
And tomorrow they're going to wake up and they're going to see their story about 97% of scientists saying climate change is real, and they're going to fucking say that's probably true.
Look at all those people on the same side.
Gelman amnesia.
In the biggest possible sense.
Well, let's see.
Molly Hemingway is pointing us at Peter Baker, who is the New York Times chief White House correspondent.
And Peter Baker said this, he said, one party has a candidate who is really old and showing it.
The other has a candidate who is a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, a business fraudster, and self-described aspiring dictator for a day, and also really old.
One party wants to replace this candidate, the other does not.
Molly Hemingway had this comment about that comment.
She said, I wonder what the New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker's personal politics are.
There's simply no way you can tell from his reporting or tweeting.
Oh wait, it's all propaganda all the way down.
Is it?
Well, let's look at his claims.
Do you think he would make any claims That are obviously a lie.
Like, just obviously.
Well, let's see.
He said, uh, one is a convicted felon.
That's not true.
Because until the judge certifies it, it's not a convicted felon.
And given recent changes, it's unlikely, or at least it's a coin flip, whether it will ever happen.
He's not a convicted felon.
And you're the chief.
And, but the, uh, chief White House correspondent, For the paper of record just said he was.
And yet it's factually easily determined to be not true.
You don't have to be a news person or a scientist.
Just Google it.
Is he technically a felon?
Or does something else have to happen before he would be?
You can find out for yourself.
It's just not true.
How about he's an educated sexual abuser?
Huh, adjudicated.
Why would you say he's an adjudicated?
Sexual abuser.
Why wouldn't you say sexual abuser?
why because the case was a civil trial not a not a criminal and The claimant is not credible in my opinion and lots of other people's opinions So we don't actually know if he sexually abused anybody and honestly, it sounds pretty unlikely to me the the specific claim So he has to say it's adjudicated Which means that a was it a New York jury?
Found him guilty.
So in other words people who don't like Trump in the unfriendliest Trump place Decided it was slightly more true that this woman was telling the truth and therefore he had to pay some money So the New York Times instead of saying it's a it's a he said she said situation They say he's a adjudicated sexual abuser because if you don't know the story you'd say oh I I guess the evidence showed in a criminal case that he's a criminal abuser.
Nope.
Nope.
It's a claim with a very low level of credibility.
Doesn't mean it's fake, but if you're a journalist and you act like it's credible, that's not true.
And remember, credible doesn't mean true or not true.
It just means on the surface, is this something you would trust?
They say he's a business fraudster.
Was that because of the belief that he exaggerated his assets exactly the way everybody does in that business?
And the bank didn't care?
And they knew it was an exaggeration because everybody exaggerates?
So they checked themselves as they always do?
So there was no fraud whatsoever and they'd be happy to work with him?
Or was he talking about Trump University?
Which was definitely a sketchy situation.
Where's the reporting on how much Trump knew?
Do you think Trump was getting into the details of Trump University?
Do you think he looked at the documents and talked to the people who took the course?
I doubt it.
The only thing we know for sure is that he owned something that went bad.
He didn't manage it.
He wasn't in charge.
That was somebody he worked with.
So, yes, he has to take the hit for getting into business with somebody who didn't do a good job.
He has about 400 businesses.
Some of them go bad.
But you wouldn't see that context.
And the chief White House correspondent for the New York Times says that he's a self-described aspiring dictator for a day.
You don't think that you have some responsibility to your readers to say that the self-described aspiring dictator for a day Was not at all serious, and no serious person could think it was serious.
But here it is in the New York Times-ish.
I mean, it's coming from a New York Times person.
That's the sort of thing that people who read the New York Times think is true.
Imagine!
Just imagine if the New York Times were your main source of news.
Just imagine how confused you'd be about everything.
Anyway.
So over in Great Britain, I think the Labour Party had a big win in their election.
That's still correct, right?
I saw the early reporting last night.
So the Labour Party got the big win.
And I said to myself, oh, so you mean that Great Britain actually voted to destroy itself?
Because I couldn't understand how the Labour Party that I thought was left-leaning Would be an upgrade to the problems that are destroying their country.
To me it looked like it would accelerate the destruction of the country.
I don't know, because I don't follow politics at all in Great Britain, so I don't really know what's going on.
So I, you know, posted, did Great Britain just vote on July 4th, ironically, to destroy their country?
I think it had a couple of million views because people were weighing in.
And some people who live there were trying to explain to me how this works.
I don't understand it.
But apparently the conservative party was not doing the job.
So they voted in the party that has the opposite opinions of what they want.
Because they think that will somehow destroy it.
And then everything will be destroyed, and then they'd have some chance of building back something that works.
Now that sounds batshit crazy to me, or poorly explained so that maybe the problem's on my end.
But is something like that happening?
Is there some kind of weird thing where Britain is trying to destroy their own system, the voters are, because it's all broken?
Is that a real thing that's happening?
They're literally trying to vote for the wrong team to destroy the system?
I don't know.
Don't believe anything I said about this.
Because none of it makes sense to me.
I guess Nigel Farage got a seat.
Yeah.
Now, does it have something to do with, you know, who gets to team up with who?
I'm lost.
I mean, I have no idea what they're doing over there.
But if somebody can explain it to me in simple terms, I'd love it.
Rasmussen says that 48% of Democrat voters, or at least somewhat agree that Biden should step aside.
So almost half of Democrats think he should step aside.
And of course, you know, 62% of Republicans 62% of Republicans.
If you ever wondered, do Republicans lie to pollsters?
You don't have to wonder anymore.
You really think that 38% of Republicans think that Biden is capable of doing the job?
No!
No, they lied because they want to keep him in because he's easy to beat.
They want the polls to say, oh yeah, oh yeah, you should probably keep him in.
He looks pretty strong.
I don't see a problem.
What problem?
Cognitive decline.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
I don't see a cognitive decline.
Keep him in there.
Keep him in there.
He's gonna, he's the only one who ever beat Trump.
So he's really your best bet.
He's the only one who ever beat Trump.
That makes perfect sense.
It's logical.
It's logical.
You know, just because he doesn't have a brain anymore doesn't mean he can't beat Trump again.
Be logical!
All right, so I love the fact that Republicans are so devious.
They just frickin' lie to pollsters.
Whenever it's a strategic benefit, they just lie, which to me is funny.
All right, here's a test.
How many people polled think Biden won the debate?
How many people polled think Biden won the debate?
You know.
Oh, you know.
You know.
22%.
Yeah, 22%.
Boy, I'd hate to meet that 22%.
Yeah, 22%.
Boy, I'd hate to meet that 22%.
Anyway, so there's a other polling, New York Times poll, that says that Trump got a big bump from men.
So, likely male voters, at least the young men, especially the young men with no college, big increase moving toward, almost doubled, moving toward Trump.
Now, who's the first person in the public domain who told you that Democrats Are the party of women and that there would be a mass exodus of men away from it.
I think it was me.
I think I'm the first person to tell you.
And I started saying it in maybe 2016 that the Hillary Clinton effect, you know, I, it looked to me permanent.
And to me, it looked like it would just drive men away until it was nothing but women and, and weak men, which is basically what's happened.
So here's my take.
I agree with James Carville, the party of preachy women, that's what he says, preachy women, James Carville says, is driving men toward Trump and record numbers.
But I think that what's happening is that politics and logic have failed at every level.
In a normal world, you make decisions by politics and argument and logic, in a perfect world.
But that world doesn't exist.
We've seen that politics has completely failed.
Because the entire media was lying to us about the most basic thing.
Does his brain work?
If the media is lying to you about the most basic things, and you depend on a well-informed voters to make the system work, you can conclude that politics is completely broken.
And I don't see a quick fix.
So if politics is completely broken, you know, where you get information and make good decisions, and Logic and reason have been thrown out the door, because we're just being gaslighted about what we see isn't real.
What do you do?
If you were going to see that on paper, like if somebody described that to you, and you were just an alien trying to decide what would happen next, you'd probably say, if you knew what humans are, that we would revert to a biological truth.
So if you take away our, let's say, our higher level thinking, All right, we're going to use some logic.
We're going to do a little A-B testing.
If you take that all away, you get down to just biological urge.
And that's where we are.
And that's the basis for my prediction.
That once politics is completely debunked, as it is now, that people would act biologically.
And men have a biological instinct to seek what I call the fortress personality.
That's Trump.
He's like a fortress as a personality.
Meaning that he's the strongest male player in a situation that looks perilous.
The strongest male player in a situation that looks perilous will be a magnet for strong men.
Because strong men will sense the fight.
You can feel it.
There's a fight coming.
Might be physical.
Hope it isn't.
But you can feel the fight.
And when you feel the fight, you put down your video games, you put down your toys, and you find the strongest leader, because it's time to fight.
Men are leaving the Democrat Party because they need a champion.
And there's only one.
There's only one strong male who says, here are our problems, I'm going to go like hell, Adam.
I'm going to attack the border problem.
I'm going to solve your war with Ukraine.
I'm going to save you economically.
And biologically, men can't resist that.
We are pack animals, and we like leaders.
And by the way, if there is no leader, one of us will step up.
We like it when there's a better leader than us, most of the time.
But if there is none, we step up.
We'll do it, right?
It's just biological.
So, women are in their own world.
They've got their own concerns.
I can't say that I understand them completely.
I can see why they're, you know, afraid of Trump if they've listened to their own news.
I mean, if they believe their own news, you can see why women would be afraid of Trump, right?
But the problem is they believe their own news.
Now that the news is completely debunked, in my opinion, I think young men and non-college educated men, and the numbers are backing it up, are just going to start flocking to what is real and what is strong and what could potentially save us from complete destruction.
I don't know that women have the same instincts.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I think women are built for empathy and, you know, doing the things that women are uniquely qualified to do.
And I think men are built to fight.
We're built to defend.
We're built to kill stuff when it needs to be killed.
So you're seeing a complete abandonment of that higher level thinking among young men, and they're just moving toward power.
Just moving toward power.
You don't have to be afraid of it.
Because it's a good force.
It's a force against bullshit.
It's a force against evil.
It's a force against everything stupid.
And it's happening.
And I'm going to go further into the provocative, and I don't think America can recover until men stop giving a fuck about the opinions of batshit crazy women.
You should definitely care about the opinions of women who are not crazy.
There are a lot of Republican women, for example, perfectly normal people.
You should listen to them.
They're on your side.
They're siding with the men.
So of course you should listen to them.
So it's not about women.
It's about batshit crazy women.
Now, of course, because we live in a terrible, terrible world, if I'm quoted on this, it will be quoted as, I'm talking batshit about women, right?
Because the idiots, the fucking idiots, will say, ah, he hates all women.
Don't listen to that guy.
But I think you know how this is played now, right?
You can't tell the truth without getting canceled.
But too bad, fuckers, you already canceled me.
I can tell the truth.
The problem in the United States is batshit fucking crazy women and men who won't tell them they're batshit crazy.
Rachel Maddow, you're fucking crazy.
You're batshit crazy.
I don't want to listen to you.
Joy Reid, you're fucking crazy.
You're batshit crazy.
I don't want to listen to you.
Molly Hemingway, you're awesome.
One of the smartest people I know.
If you got something that sounds like a good idea, I'm listening to you.
Listening to you big time.
Absolutely.
Dana Perino, you got some good ideas?
I can listen to you.
Totally listen to you.
It's not about women.
It's about bat-shit crazy women.
And if you can't make that distinction, and you can't say it out loud, you're fucked.
The whole country's fucked.
You gotta call out the bat-shit crazy women.
Now, I know what you're gonna say.
You're gonna say, but, but, but what about the men?
Because there are lots of Democrat men.
Not really.
Not really.
All these smart Democrat men have already capitulated.
They've already said, we don't have a candidate.
It's only the weak, feminine men who are still siding with the batshit crazy people because they're too weak.
They don't know how to break free.
And it will take the young men, who don't give a fuck, to break free until the Republican Party is just so dominant that they can get what they want.
So, Bashia Crazy Women, you're giving all of your power away.
You just don't know it because you've jumped the shark.
Everybody can see it now.
It's completely transparent.
The entire media landscape and the Democrats were all lying to you about everything, and it's all out there now.
But here's the thing we should all try to avoid, and I'm going to try to avoid this in my ongoing conversations with Michael Ian Black, Who I'm finding amazingly brave and flexible in his thinking.
If you don't agree with that, I'll make you agree.
Well, I'll work on you.
There's something amazingly productive happening about my conversation with him, both public and private.
He's, you know, very firmly in the Democrat preference camp, but not crazy, not stupid, not crazy, and not lying.
None of those things.
He actually has just been getting different news than you are.
And as he shares his news with me and I find out, holy shit, I've been lied to.
These revisions of the employment numbers, they go both ways.
I didn't know that.
I thought they almost always went one way.
He corrected me.
Now, as long as I'm willing to be corrected and do it publicly, you know, take my take my shame.
He did it too.
Actually, he led this.
He was more the leader.
So during the debate, when the Fine People hoax came up, he debunked it, because I'd provided and you had provided some new information that you just hadn't seen.
And with the new information, he modified his opinion, didn't change his preference for who was president, but he understood that the major hoax was a hoax, and he called it out publicly to his credit.
So somebody asked me earlier, why do I keep saying he's brave?
You couldn't do that.
Try publicly saying that something that you'd believed for a long time was completely wrong.
That's not easy.
That's not easy.
Do you know how much mocking he got for saying, I just figured that out?
Well, it should be the same amount you should give me for just figuring out that those employment numbers can go both ways in the adjustments.
Yeah, we deserve your a little bit of mocking, but we can take it, apparently.
Apparently, we're both able to take it.
So then it could be productive, because we can take the embarrassment.
Props to Michael.
But here's something that he and I both need to be better at, which is Assuming that the worst 5% on each side represent the rest of them.
The worst 5% of Republicans and Conservatives are terrible people.
The worst 5% of Democrats are terrible people.
Can we agree on that?
In fact, I see the worst 5% of both sides as basically the same people.
Like the words are a little different, but they're the same people.
Right?
They're not, they're not the people you should be listening to, whether it's left or right.
But we both, he and I both have a little bit too much habit of feeling the generalization from the worst 5%.
So I'm going to try to break that.
Might be hard.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to tell you about the news today.
What a day!
Tons of stuff happening.
I ran really long, and I apologize for that, but it was worth it.
It was so good.
Export Selection