God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Dog Not Barking, Election Security, Climate Change, Dr. Birx, Drinking Bleach Hoax, Elon Musk, Twitter Ex-Employee Lawsuit, Election Certification, President Biden, Presidential Candidate Selection, Iran Election System, J6 Insurrection Process, Karine Jean-Pierre, Peter Doocy, Project 25, President Trump, All News is Fake, All Data is Fake, Health Spending Life Expectancy, Dr. Peter Attia, Sacramento Target Theft Fines, Feeble Biden Framing, VP Harris, Joy Reid, Hiring Discrimination, Governor Whitmer, China Produces US Weapons, 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
Here's a picture of two cats that watch my show every day.
Every morning I get a picture of these two cats as they get ready to watch the show with their owner, who shall remain anonymous.
All right.
Let me see if I can fix my comments here.
Try it one more time and then we'll have a show.
Today's show is going to be amazing.
I don't always say that, but today for sure.
You're gonna love it.
Do do do do do do do.
Ruff ruff ruff a moan.
La da da da da.
Clap clap clap.
Well good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you've showed up here, you're probably here at the best time that will ever happen to anybody ever.
If you'd like to take it up to levels that, well, you can't even understand with your tiny human smooth brains, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Pleasure?
I sound like Joe Biden.
The unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine to the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
You know, Joe Biden has given me an idea for a strategy for life.
I'm going to start looking stiff now so that later when He's always been like that.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to do my show like this.
Too early?
Too soon.
Too soon.
Well, I have a reframe for you.
Today I learned that there are people who think that the amount of time it takes you to do something Is based on how long it takes you to do the thing.
How many of you think that?
If I said to you, you need to do this thing, would you say to yourself, well, that's going to take, you know, one hour or whatever you estimate.
And then you would say to yourself, I guess I need one hour to do this.
How many think like that?
Now you're going to, some of you are saying, well, isn't that the normal way you think?
You think in terms of how long something would take.
And then you allocate that amount of time, right?
Well, years ago I learned a magic secret.
The length of time it takes to do any task is the amount of time you had to allocate to it.
I learned that when I was doing comics.
When I had a full-time job, I would get up in the morning and I'd have to draw a comic every day or else get behind schedule.
So I had You know, an hour and a half to draw a comic.
You know, from writing to drawing the first draft.
Sometimes, almost the entire time would be gone.
I'd have ten minutes left, and I'd have nothing.
And then I would write the entire comic in ten minutes.
So I'd give myself an hour and a half, but I could write it in ten minutes if I had to.
And then I realized that that was generalizable to just about everything.
No matter what you think it should take, if you don't have that much time, you'll just figure it out.
And it made me wonder if people who are late all the time think that things just take as much time as they take.
And I thought, if I'd never learned that you can make any schedule work, pretty much.
You pretty much, you know, there are physical constraints, you know, that you can't have a baby in one month, right?
That example.
But in terms of you organizing your own time, your schedule, just your normal life, you can kind of make anything fit.
I also noticed that when I was the busiest in my career, I could add the most to it, which is completely counterintuitive.
But the reason I could do that is that when I was super busy, I would make sure that any new thing I added would be in the smallest slice of time.
And then I would just look at that tiny little slice of time and I'd say, how in the world am I going to get two hours worth of work into that 10 minutes?
And then I would just do it.
And every time I did it, I'd think, oh, sure, that would take two hours.
So as a good general mindset reframe, tell yourself that you can make any task fit any time frame.
Now, that's not entirely true.
You cannot make every task fit every time frame.
It's not true.
It's a reframe.
A reframe doesn't have to be technically true.
It just has to be a better mindset than whatever you were in.
And the worst mindset you could have is that things are going to take as long as they're going to take.
Don't think that way.
Think that you could make anything work in any amount of time, and then just make it happen.
You'll be right 99% of the time.
Well, there's a new breakthrough in science, maybe.
Novo Nutrients.
It's a company that can turn CO2 into protein.
So they do a chemical reaction and they turn it into some kind of protein, which with a little more work, they might figure out how to make it a food source.
So, is this perfect or what?
You know, science sometimes will come up with solutions that are impractical.
Well, technically it'd work, but it's impractical.
But suppose, because food prices are so high, Thanks to inflation.
And we're the fattest country in the world, America.
I don't know if that's true, but let's say it is.
If they find a way that we can eat our way out of climate change, they have figured out the smartest solution.
Well, they're not going to drive less, but could we make them eat more?
I think we could.
We'll never get them to drive less.
We can sure as hell get them to eat more.
So maybe if this works, you'll eat your way to climate happiness.
And you could eat some bugs too, I hear.
No, don't worry about this.
And I know what you're going to say.
I know what you're going to say.
But Scott, the CO2 is already plant food.
It makes the plants grow.
We eat the plants.
We don't need this.
I know.
I hear you.
And you're also going to say, Scott, we have a solution for CO2.
It's called trees.
Have you heard of them?
They're called trees.
That's for the NPCs.
I do a separate show for the NPCs who just have to say the obvious things.
So that's for them.
All right, here's a little lesson on how to know what's true and what's not true.
Now, like most of these lessons on knowing what's true and what's not true, they're not 100%.
They're just directionally, statistically likely to help you out.
Let me give you an example.
I call this one the dog not barking, and you've heard this one before, but the more examples you hear, the more you can recognize it.
So the dog not barking is the thing that should be happening If your current understanding of the world is correct, there should be something happening that's not happening.
And if it's not happening, you should say, huh, maybe my worldview is incorrect.
Because if it were correct, there's definitely a thing that would be happening.
I'll give you two examples.
You would agree, I think, that there is a fairly widespread doubt in the United States about election security.
We know that when Trump won in 2016, The Democrat leaders like Hillary Clinton said, it's rigged, or something's rigged.
They didn't say the vote was rigged.
They thought Russia rigged it somehow.
But maybe they thought Russia rigged the vote.
I don't know.
Whatever they thought, they weren't so sure the election gave us the right result.
And then, of course, Trump famously thought he got the wrong result when he lost.
Probably, I don't know, 40% of the public thinks that the elections are completely artificial, and then somebody decides who the president is, and then there's just some theater called an election.
So that's pretty widespread doubt about the election.
Now, would you agree with the premise that there is widespread Doubt about the integrity of the elections.
I'll say widespread 30 to 40 percent of the public.
Would that be fair?
Now, what would you expect if the government knew that the integrity of elections are just fundamentally important to the country, just baseline fundamental necessity that we have to trust the elections?
What would it what would you expect?
What dog would be barking?
Well, I'll tell you.
The dog you would expect would be the government would say, whoa, that's a lot of people not trusting our elections.
That's existential threat.
So what we'll do is we'll educate the public on how the election systems can be audited easily and how we know that they're secure.
How hard would that be?
It'd be one video, maybe one document, and it would just describe, oh, you public, the thing you don't know is that our elections are way more secure than you think.
And here's how we always know that your vote got to the final destination.
And here's how we can tell if there's any irregularity.
And here's how we can easily audit if anybody has a question.
Therefore, by the design of the system, you can see that you should trust the election.
Isn't that the most obvious thing you'd see?
If the government knows that 30 or 40% of the public, roughly, doesn't trust the process, and it wouldn't be hard to tell them why it works.
You just say, here's the process, you can see how perfect it is.
See how well designed it is?
There's no room for any error here.
But we don't see that, do we?
We don't see that.
Wouldn't that be easy to produce?
Somebody who understood the election system well enough to know it was secure.
If it were me, for example, let's say I were the expert.
I could write that up in, I don't know, two hours, and it would change the whole country.
Because people would look at my document, they'd say, oh, well, you know, I didn't know this.
I didn't know that they could so easily audit and catch mistakes.
So I guess it's secure.
Where's that?
Where is it?
Two hours of work for one person to just describe how the election is secure.
Never seen it, have you?
Don't you think that given the size of the problem, that people don't trust the elections, given the size of the problem, it may have caused something like a protest slash insurrection, according to the Democrats.
The size of that problem, nobody would write a two-page document explaining why you don't have to worry about the results.
That's pretty obviously missing, wouldn't you say?
Did I go too far?
Has anybody ever seen anybody describe to you why it is, in fact, a secure election?
No, you'll never see that.
You know why?
Because it's obviously not secure.
I don't think it could be more obvious.
That's the most obvious thing in the world right now, is if you could secure it, and if you could know, The government would have told you how you can secure it and how you can know it's secure.
And they don't.
It's pretty glaringly obvious.
All right, here's another one.
If you thought that climate change was going to destroy the world, and you really thought that the climate models were telling you something useful, and you knew that a huge portion of the world, more conservatives than not, don't believe climate change is even real, What would you do if you were the government and you were absolutely sure that it's the biggest problem in the country, in the world, really, and people didn't believe it, so they weren't maybe acting right?
Well, I think your news sources would be encouraged to have experts with both views on.
And then the critic would say, I'm not so sure about this climate change.
And then the expert would say, well, here's why you should be.
And then the critic would say, well, I'm not so sure you can measure accurately.
And then the expert would say, oh, you know, I can see why you'd say that.
But here's the evidence that we can measure accurately.
Wouldn't you expect that?
If the argument in favor of climate change is so rock solid, and 30% of the country doesn't believe it, would you deal with it by saying, well, you guys are idiots, 97% of the scientists are on the same side?
Is that the best you could do?
If the whole world is going to be destroyed, and all it would require to fix it, in other words, getting all the people on the same page, would be just showing both sides.
Because if you showed both sides, and one side is just overwhelmingly obviously true, wouldn't that be enough?
Just show both arguments.
You can see that one of them is, whoa, so much better.
But where is it?
The most obvious thing you'd expect, if it's true, that climate change is an existential risk, you would see that all over the place.
Every single time you turned on the news, they'd say, You're not getting it yet.
We really gotta educate you.
Here's the expert, ask him anything you want.
Right?
The most obvious thing you'd have.
And let's go even more obvious.
Since the crisis is really predicated on the reliability of the models, don't you think that given that climate models have now been running for decades, Wouldn't they tell you how accurate the predictions were?
Wouldn't they show you, look, this predicted that New York City would be underwater by, okay, okay, that one didn't work out.
But the one thing we can tell you is that by now, according to all of our models and predictions, you know, predictions on top of models, but the prediction on top of the model is the polar bears are completely gone.
Okay, they're coming back.
Okay, that one didn't work out.
But one thing I can tell you is that the coral reefs, the Great Barrier Reef is, okay, it's really coming back in the last three years.
Wouldn't you see the argument that the predictions have been right so far, thus giving you confidence that their next prediction would be right?
You don't see that.
When was the last time you saw a news show They said there have been eight predictions about, you know, everything from sea level to hurricanes to whatever.
How we doing?
You don't see it, because it won't check out, obviously.
So, just learned that dog not barking.
If they're not making the argument you know they would make, if they believe their own argument, you know they would be making the argument.
Everybody likes to be right.
Everybody who has a strong argument wants to crush the people with their dumb little stupid argument.
So why aren't the people with the good arguments crushing the people with the bad ones?
Kind of missing, isn't it?
All right, speaking of ridiculousness, some executives from the AI company Humane, which I think that company is not doing so well with their new device, but two of them are leaving and they're going to find their own fact-checking startup.
Really?
I feel so bad for them.
They're going to waste their time.
So there's two people who think that they can start a fact-checking startup, which suggests that those two people have some way to figure out what's true.
Do you think they do?
If they did, they'd be the first people in the world.
No.
Do they really think it's going to be like an objective fact check?
Or are they just working for one side and it's going to be another totally fake fact check thing?
What do you think?
But it's ridiculous.
To imagine that they know what's true, we know that's not the case.
It's going to be more bullshit like, okay, assume climate change is real, and then anybody who fact checks against it must be lying.
It's going to be bullshit.
Now, there's some indication they're going to use AI as some part of it.
But I think they're not using AI as the final word.
It'll just be a tool within their system.
But how in the world are they going to decide what's true?
I don't know how they're going to do it.
Nobody else could do it.
So it's a bit of ridiculousness.
Every time you think you can fix it by telling people the truth, you don't really understand what's going on.
Telling people what's real They wouldn't recognize it and wouldn't believe it if they saw it, and neither would you.
So how are you the source of what's real?
Well, there's a new device, an implantable LED device that uses some kind of light treatment on deep-seated cancers.
So the idea is they put this little LED right into your body, and it would be where there would also be a light-activated drug.
So the light, the little LED that would be inserted into your body, would light up the drug that's, let's say, near the cancer.
And between the light... What would you call such a thing?
What would be another word for that?
Let's see, if you had something toxic in your body, in this case the cancer, and you wanted to put some kind of light in there to get rid of it.
What would that be called?
Well, if you're a Democrat and you're a fucking idiot, you would call it injecting bleach into your arms.
Do you know why you would call it that?
Because that's what they did call it when President Trump Talked about the technology which did exist and which he did know about which is the heel light technology that was being planned in which they would use a some kind of catheter to put an LED light that would be UV light in this case down your trachea and potentially into your lungs and that would radiate your lungs and they were testing it.
It didn't work out by the way.
It didn't work.
But the idea was that they would disinfect your lungs with light.
And the fucking idiots called Democrats to a person, I don't think a single one got this right, said, oh, you mean drinking disinfectants?
Which turned into, oh, you mean drinking bleach?
Which turned into Joe Biden saying, injecting bleach into your arm.
That never gets fact-checked.
Oh, actually, it did get fact-checked.
Daniel Dale did fact-check that.
But he also, Daniel Dale, incorrectly fact-checked that the president was wrong and unclear.
Here's what really happened.
The two experts on the stage, Birx and whoever it was, were less aware of that technology than Trump was.
So when Trump brought it up and mentioned light, he very specifically mentioned light before the comments, And then light after the comments to make sure that you knew he was talking about light.
And the two experts, Dr. Burks, that piece of shit, confirmed that he was talking crazy.
No, he knew more than you did.
He knew more than you did about that topic.
He was trying to show off and it didn't work out at all because the experts knew less than he did.
So he was trying to show the world that he was up there with some experts and he could engage with them On a topic that the public wasn't so aware of.
It would make him look like he knew what he was talking about.
But instead, the fucking idiot experts decided to misinterpret him as some kind of drinking disinfectant fucking shit, and then the world went with that.
One of the biggest hoaxes in American history.
And the entire Democrat world thinks it was real.
And it's become part of Biden's campaign.
No, it's not injecting bleach, you fucking idiots.
All right, scientists have developed an invisible mask.
It's kind of a hat that blows air down from the hat, and they say it will block those viruses coming in.
Oh, great.
The last thing I want is a new technology to keep my body away from the real world.
I do not want a mask hat.
No mask hats.
No mask hats.
Well, in other news, Elon Musk won.
He was fighting a $500 million severance suit over the mask layoffs on the old Twitter, to which I said to myself, how could they possibly win that?
What kind of job did the Twitter people think they had?
Did Twitter think that their jobs were like the magic kind, where you don't get fired for any reason whatsoever?
I've never held a job where I couldn't get fired for any reason they wanted.
So Musk comes in and fires 80% of them for any reason he wanted, which in this case was making money, and it worked.
I have a feeling that maybe they started the lawsuit before it was obvious it was one of the greatest management moves of all time.
Because it worked, and X is heading toward cash profitability this year.
At least cash positive.
Now, that's embarrassing that they even brought that suit.
I mean, to even bring that suit makes it sound like you don't know how anything works.
Like you've never had any experience in the real world.
How did all these people go to work in the capitalist world, they got a job and a paycheck, And somehow they didn't think that the boss could fire them?
For any reason he wanted?
I don't know.
Elon Musk talking about mail-in ballots said this, when combined with mail-in ballots, meaning the election, the system is, quote, designed to make it impossible to prove fraud.
He says mail-in and drop-box ballots should not be allowed, as cameras on the in-person voting stations could at least prevent large-scale fraud by counting how many people showed up versus ballots cast.
That's a pretty good test.
How many people walked in?
You could just count them.
And then you could count the votes, and you see if there's more votes than there are people.
But you can't do that if it's just, you know, bags of votes that show up.
Now here's what I liked about this.
I like that he framed it as designed.
It's designed, designed to not work.
It's not accidentally not working.
Not working meaning you can't tell if you got the result you wanted.
You could definitely tell if you got the right result if you didn't do this.
So why would you introduce into the design the one thing that would make the election the least credible and open it up for the most fraud, unless your intention was fraud?
Don't you think it's obvious that the intention is fraud?
Because the arguments are ridiculous.
That, you know, you're going to get the wrong answer in the election if you do it all in one day with paper ballots.
Even though that works everywhere.
Everywhere they do it, it works.
But we would be the only country where it wouldn't work.
And it's all this bullshit about black people can't get driver's licenses.
I mean, it's basically pure racist bullshit.
And here's the more common sense thing to say.
If voting in person is enough to keep you from voting, given that you could probably get off work, and you could probably do it after work, or even before work, given that almost everybody in the world can figure it out, do you want any part of your democratic process to be determined by people who wouldn't be able to vote in person?
Now I get it.
NPCs, you're supposed to rush in.
NPCs, please.
This is your time to shine.
I expect the NPCs to come in and say, Boscott!
Boscott!
What about my grandmother who can't make it?
Your grandmother can vote by mail.
Boscott!
Boscott!
What about the people in the military who are overseas?
Fine.
The military can vote by mail.
You're not arguing the other point.
The only thing is, you don't want to do widespread uncontrolled mail-in ballots.
And if you design that into the system, we must assume there is no other purpose than fraud.
It's designed fraud.
And Musk is calling it out for exactly what it is.
Now, does that mean that I can prove that the election will have fraud?
No.
But I can definitely prove that they intend it.
You can look at the design.
The design is a clear, clear intention of cheating.
Because there's no other reason to do it.
Why would you design the system worse when it takes more money, you know, more time and effort to make it worse?
You wouldn't.
There's only one reason.
All right, what happens if this year, or the, yeah, if this election, what happens if there's another one of those late night vote count stops for mysterious reasons, followed by Trump who's way ahead, Being blazed past by mail-in boats that are counted last for Biden.
What do you think is going to happen then?
Violence?
You think violence is going to happen?
I'm more worried that it wouldn't.
Now, I don't promote violence.
I don't want to see any violence.
But it is nonetheless a feature of the world that violence is the thing that keeps people from doing bad things.
Violence is part of the police and military because you need sometimes violence to keep people from doing the wrong thing.
So violence is not something you want to get rid of.
Legal structure, right?
So don't break any laws and don't be violent.
However, if the public is willing to never be violent, then you're giving away your democracy.
So I think I can say all these things at the same time.
Don't be violent.
Don't be violent.
But, if the public gives away their option to be violent, then they also give away the democracy for sure.
Because the risk of violence is the only thing that keeps the country free.
There's no other check and balance.
Because all the other systems could so easily be corrupted right in front of you, that if there were no counterforce to it, it would just happen.
I would argue it's already happened.
But I don't think that they can get away with that again.
Because even if you imagine there was a reason for it, which is more Biden voters vote by mail, that was their excuse, it's pretty clear that the entire right-leaning part of the country isn't going to buy it.
They're just not going to buy it.
So, unless somebody's standing there to watch those new ballots coming in, we're going to have a problem.
Here would be the ultimate problem, which I do expect to happen.
This is a prediction.
I believe that late at night, the observers who are Republican will be kicked out.
And I believe that after the observers are kicked out, as they were before, by the way, there's precedent for this, They will simply make an argument that the observers are being disruptive.
That's all they have to do.
Just say, oh, you're stopping us from doing our job.
You're not observers.
You're stopping us from doing our job.
So security is going to have to show you out because we can't, we can't not have a result.
We have to get a result.
So all these observers who keep complaining that the ballast don't look real to them, security is going to have to take them out.
And then you say to yourself, but Scott, You know, once they've seen the bad stuff, they can just tell the courts, they can make a case out of it, and the courts will look at these ballots, and if they're fake, well, then they change it.
No, that won't happen.
The system is designed so that can't happen.
Even if the witnesses see it with their own eyes, there can be no action.
Do you know why?
Because we know.
Do you know what happened when observers said, we saw a bunch of ballots that are fake, and they're in that room over there?
They went to the court and they said, hey, can you open that locked room?
Because we've got, you know, credible information that if you do, we'll find out the entire election was rigged.
Do you know what happened?
The judge ruled that they had to be opened.
Well, okay.
So then it was open, right?
No.
No, the judge ruled it had to be opened and then nobody opened it.
And people complained and nothing happened.
It remained closed.
And now the lawyers, Are saying, we'd like permission to destroy the things in the room that they wouldn't open that was ordered to be opened.
Why would they order it to be destroyed as opposed to just opening it and saying, well, you thought that these were fake, but as you can see, they're perfectly fine.
Take a look yourself.
Why wouldn't they do that?
There's only one fucking reason.
And they're gonna do it again, because they got away with it, and there is no counter to it.
They can just throw out the observers under any excuse, do whatever cheating they want, and then just stall until it's too late to reverse it.
And then the court will say, no, it's too late.
Or the court will say, you don't have standing.
Or the court will say, you know, who was injured by it.
Or the court will say, can you prove that it would change the election?
No, I can't prove it, because I don't know what's behind the closed door that they won't open.
So you see that the system, because it's slow, and the courts are really biased toward making sure there's a result, there is no mechanism, even if you see it with your own eyes, we know this for sure, even if the observers see it with their own eyes, Multiple observers.
We have no system to change it, correct it, or reverse it.
We know that for sure.
And the Democrats don't know that.
They think that the court is functioning and, you know, doing everything it does.
Of course it isn't.
Not even close.
So, that's coming.
It's hard for me to believe there will be a result from this election.
So I'm going to be the contrarian and say, under the current design, I don't see that we could have an election that the country accepts.
Do you?
Under the current design.
Because unfortunately, we learn too much about how they get away with stuff, but we don't have any counter to it.
Which means we're just going to watch it happen.
In all likelihood, we're just going to watch it happen.
And not be able to do a thing.
No, what happens when that happens?
Well, I'll tell you what won't happen.
We'll have a president that everybody agrees got elected.
So I'm not even sure if, I'm not even sure if we could get an election certified.
I suspect that no matter what the vote count is, it won't get certified.
That's what I think.
No, it won't require, you know, anybody attacking the Capitol.
I think the politicians themselves will look at it and say, you know what?
You have a point.
We actually don't know if we had an election.
I think that's what's going to happen.
I think the politicians who have to certify it in Congress will look at it and they will say, honestly, we don't even know if we had one.
We don't even know if we had an election.
That's what's going to happen.
All right.
You know what you don't hear about too much?
Now that Biden won't leave office and 100% of Democrats are quite sure that if he were to change his mind and leave office, that Democrats would be in much better shape to fight against Hitler and save the world from climate change and save Ukraine.
All those things they say are deeply, deeply important.
But you know what you don't hear anymore?
Biden is fighting for you, and Trump is only in it for himself.
That used to be one of their biggest themes.
You know why you can't say that?
Because Trump is just running for president in a democracy with a list of things he'd like to do to improve the country.
Joe Biden is fucking the entire country, double-fucking the Democrats so they're not going to get their way, for whatever is good for Joe Biden and his family.
Does anybody doubt that?
Is there any Democrat who says, yeah, you know what?
Joe is doing what's best for the country by staying in the race.
No!
No, they might say it because, you know, they don't have a choice or something.
But there's no Democrat who thinks that Joe Biden is working for the country now.
So one of the main, you know, the three-legged stool was he's going to be a dictator.
He'll take your democracy, he'll steal your democracy, and he's only in it for himself.
Right?
The only in it for himself thing is gone.
Because nobody has ever shown more selfishness and narcissism in office than Biden is showing right now.
Probably more mental decline than those things.
But you cannot argue that Biden's the one who's in it for the country.
That argument is fucking gone.
Watch you not hear it.
And by the way, that's another dog not barking.
Right?
Did you notice that they stopped saying it?
If you didn't notice that they just went cold on one of the three major complaints about Trump, you should have noticed.
Look for the dog not barking.
It's telling you way more than the dog that's barking.
All right.
So, I guess the New York Times didn't like it when Biden said it was the elite Democratic critics who wanted to step down, so they're doubling down and wrote another editorial saying Biden should step down and be replaced with some chosen candidates that would be better.
Now, let me see if you recognize the system.
What would the system be called, or the country that does it, in which there is a democracy There's definitely a vote.
And the vote is even fair.
The vote is completely fair.
As far as you know, there's no cheating.
But the candidates that you get to pick are selected by, let's say, one or just a handful of the elites.
So you don't get to vote for anybody you want.
You get to vote for one of, let's say, five people that were handpicked by some higher authority.
Well, what kind of system would that be?
Would you call that a democracy with a republic kind of a structure?
Would you call that the American system?
Who does it remind you of?
The correct answer is Iran.
That's exactly Iran's system.
So the Ayatollah, presumably with consulting of the other top Mullah people, the Ayatollah says these five people can run for president.
We will have a totally fair election.
Nobody complains.
I've never heard anybody in Iran complain that the election was rigged.
Maybe they do, I just don't hear about it.
But their intention, I believe their actual legitimate intention, is to run a fair election.
Because any of the five people have already been vetted to be okay with the Ayatollah.
Now what is it the Democrats want to do?
They want to get their elites, Obama, Bill Clinton, A few other people like that.
They want him to quickly put together a list of five candidates to do a little blitz, kind of a primary.
That's Iran.
That's the Iranian system.
Now, how would you like to be Trump and you're running against the Iranian government system?
Trump won his place fair and square.
Trump destroyed 16 challengers the first time, and however many challengers there were this time, it's Trump.
Anyway.
So I heard the best argument yet, just somebody on X who wanted to take a shot at it, the best argument that Trump will become a dictator in his second term, But he didn't become one in his first.
Because Republicans like to say, why are you so afraid he's going to become Hitler when you saw an entire term and he didn't become Hitler?
And here was the best argument, all right?
I'm not saying I agree with it.
This is the best argument.
That in his first term, he didn't have the option of stacking all the government entities with his own people.
So he had a lot of people who were kind of frankly anti-Trump in his own administration.
So, if he tried to take any kind of dictator power, there were just so many people in his own administration who wouldn't be up for it, that it wasn't really possible.
But, he's had time since his first administration.
He's consolidated power, so all the Republicans are under his control, or at least the ones in key departments and stuff, you know, the Attorney General will be, the Supreme Court, or his nominations, etc.
And that by consolidating power, which he's done over time, his second term would allow him unprecedented power to become this dictator that they fear.
What do you think of that?
By the way, that's the first time I've heard that argument.
And I have to say that at least, at least it has some bones on it.
You know, at least it's not just some bullshit he just made up by sitting in a room and imagining things.
I mean, it is a reality.
I would concur with the assumptions.
The assumptions that he's consolidated support and it will probably show up in this administration.
That seems fair.
But here's the part that's missing.
Please describe to me, and by the way, you saw this with January 6th, where people said, can you describe to me how that protest could have turned into taking over a country?
What was the mechanism?
Was the person with the nuclear football going to say, whoa, looks like we got new leaders.
Here's the football.
Describe it in some way that doesn't sound crazy.
You can't.
There is no path that a bunch of protesters in one building takes over a country.
It's absurd.
Now let's do the same thing with Trump.
Imagine Trump decided to do some dictatorish stuff.
Do you really think the government's going to be okay with that?
See, it could be the things that, you know, maybe Democrats think are dictatorish, Republicans would think would be normal Republican policies.
So there's some of that.
But under what situation could Trump remain in power for the rest of his life and get away with that?
The Democrats have never met a Republican, I think.
Maybe never met one.
Because there's no Republican who's okay with a Republican dictator.
None.
The whole Republican situation is Constitution.
You know, the fealty is always to the Constitution.
And why do they like Trump?
Because he's compatible with the Constitution.
The moment he became not compatible with the Constitution, he would lose 100% of support.
He would lose Don Jr.
He would lose Ivanka, not, and I don't mean that as hyperbole, he would literally lose his own family support.
There is no situation in which he can just say, I'm 81 years old, I think I'll be the dictator.
Nobody's going to say yes to that.
Nobody in the military, nobody in this administration, his own chief of staff would shoot him, whoever it is, right?
Like, it's the smallest risk I've ever seen of any risk in the United States.
The smallest risk.
There's none.
But you have to be deeply gaslighted to think that there's a path between some protesters moving a lectern and controlling the nuclear triad.
Or that Trump, you know, has some, let's say, strong leader tendencies, and that somehow the entire Republican Party would cast off the Constitution.
What kind of thinking gets you to that?
That's a complete misunderstanding about half of the country.
Complete misunderstanding.
Anyway, Rasmussen did some polling on media bias.
61% of likely voters think the bias in the news is getting worse.
45% agree with the statement.
That no matter how much you hate the media, it's not enough.
45%.
That's almost exactly Republicans.
28% disagree, 27% not sure.
28% disagree, 27% not sure.
So that means that more than half of the country wasn't really noticing that the media had become the enemy.
Hadn't noticed.
Now, I didn't do the 25% thing this time because the disagree and the not sure, I think they should be lumped together as more than half the country.
All right.
You can tell what news people are watching if they're not so sure that the media is a problem.
It means they're only watching one source and they believe it's true.
God, I feel sorry for him.
Well, speaking of the news, I'm going to call this episode, this next story, Doocy vs. Dummy.
So, which Doocy is it?
Peter or Steve?
It's Peter Doocy, right?
The young one?
And he asked this of Corinne Jean-Pierre.
Biden is the sharpest before 8pm, so say that the Pentagon at some point picks up an incoming nuke.
It's 11pm.
Who do they call?
The First Lady?
Who do they call?
The First Lady?
Do you know what's funny about that?
That is the correct answer.
Because if you're going to wake up the President, and you know the President may have some medical issues, you're actually going to call the First Lady.
That is actually the person you would call.
Like, no joke, absolutely seriously, they would call the First Lady.
Because she would be the one to make the call, whether the President can make the call.
Like, if you're in a hurry, you wake up the First Lady.
You say, here's the deal.
Do you have any chance of getting him coherent in the next 10 minutes?
And the First Lady says either yes or no.
But you do call the First Lady first.
That actually was a perfect question, and I think it was right on point.
I do think, literally, it wouldn't make any sense to call the President first.
Especially if they're in the same bed, if they are.
Well, Biden is so confident that Google is biased that he says Google—he did a post on X that just said, Google Project 2025.
That's the Heritage Foundation has a big list of what they think a conservative president should do if elected.
Trump has said, hey, that's not my plan.
You know, my plan is this plan.
And he gives the Republican platform.
Now, there are some differences, but also a lot of overlap because it's Republicans, right?
Of course, one big plan by Republicans is going to have a lot of overlap in the Venn diagram with any other plan by Republicans.
But there are some big differences.
Which, of course, Joy Reid doesn't show when she shows them next to each other.
She just shows the ones that are the same.
Of course.
But imagine how biased Google must be that Biden can say to Google Project 2025, so it makes it sound like it's not him.
Well, it's not me.
Why don't you just Google it with this totally independent source, and you'll see all the totally independent sources at the top of the search list, That will tell you, you know, everything that I want you to know.
Do you think he could admit any more clearly that Google search is biased?
That's all I hear.
I hear you can't trust Google.
That's what that sounds like to me.
Well, CNN said it's going to cut a hundred jobs and launch its first CNN subscription product later this year, to which all of you just said, what?
CNN recently cancelled its subscription project called CNN Plus.
So, what is it, this new one?
Well, let me give you some insight.
I can't imagine how that would work.
I don't know who would buy a subscription to CNN.
But maybe.
We'll see.
Maybe they did some research.
All right.
So, remember, I think I told you I had a conversation with Michael Ian Black, in which I had claimed provocatively that all news is fake.
I doubled down by saying all data is fake.
All data is fake.
Now, there's some weird, like, special exceptions to that.
You know, if you're looking at the output of a specific one machine, That might be right.
For example, if you were testing the high speed or the gas mileage of one engine in a car, yeah, that might be right.
But most data that we use for making big decisions, you know, the employment data, the, you know, the inflation data, GDP, all that stuff, that's all fake.
Now, why do I know that?
The reason I know it is that I worked in an environment for many years, my corporate life, in which it was my job to put data together in a variety of different projects and ways, and then tell management what the right thing to do was based on the data.
You don't have to do that job for long to learn that all data is fake.
Because I got to ignore the data that didn't give me the answer I didn't want, I got to tweak the data with my assumptions until I could make it do whatever I wanted, which was whatever the bosses wanted.
It's all motivated.
All data about the big decisions of life are motivated.
Somebody wants you to think something.
If I had found data that was bad for my company or my department, would you ever see it?
Of course not.
Of course not.
So let's say I found some data that was accurate.
And it was good for my department or good for my company.
So then I publish it.
Do you say to yourself, Oh, well, sometimes they publish real stuff.
So this might be real.
Well, it might be real, but that's a coincidence.
What's true is I'm only going to tell you what's good for me, whether it's real or not.
Right?
So if you don't know that credibility and truth are different concepts, no data is credible.
That's a little different than saying none of it is true.
But, if it's not credible, it's as useless, and maybe worse, than if it were just wrong.
It's both the same thing.
You get to the same place.
You should not make decisions using it.
Whether it's wrong, or you can't tell because the people who gave it to you can't be trusted.
Here, let me give you a specific example to round this out.
All right, this will be an adventure.
Let's see if my technology works.
Damn it.
Is it really not working?
All right, I think it'll work.
There we go.
Got it.
And then you just disappeared, so let's see if this works.
Oh, is it really not going to work?
Good Lord.
Oh, my God.
I just want to shoot myself right now.
Well, I can make it work with a different way because I put it on my phone.
So on Instagram, I saw Dr. Peter Atiyah.
With a diagram that shows the health spending per capita, so how much health care spending per person, and then life expectancy.
You see that the U.S.
has a relatively low life expectancy, but the highest spending.
So what does that tell you?
We have the highest spending for the lowest life expectancy of these major other countries that we would be comparable to.
So that tells you what?
What's your conclusion?
Is your conclusion that we spend too much relative to what we get?
Is that your conclusion?
Because I think that's what Dr. Atiyah is telling you, that we're not very efficient, that we spend too much and we don't get enough from our health care.
Is that what you see in those numbers?
Well, let me ask a few questions and see if these came to your mind when you saw them.
Number one, do you think that all of these countries measure health care spending the same?
For example, is cosmetic surgery considered health care spending in Japan?
Or does Japan have as much of it?
Let's say if everybody put it in the number, I don't know if they do, But would you put optional health care spending in there?
If you just spent your own money and went to a cosmetic surgeon, would that be in health care spending?
The doctor does it.
I don't know.
But you don't know either, do you?
We don't know.
So what if it's in some of these numbers in these countries and others not?
Because if you look at the difference, that big bar at the top is the American spending.
If the only difference was our cosmetic surgery, that would be most of the difference, wouldn't it?
How about this?
If you're comparing, let's say, Japan to the U.S., in Japan you have mostly Japanese.
Far less.
There's actually a story today that Japan is getting pro-immigration compared to the past.
So they do have more diversity than they ever had, but still Japan is More Japanese people in Japan, you know, there's a high percentage.
So does it make sense to compare the outcomes of Japan to the outcomes of the United States?
Not exactly.
If you're trying to figure out if we're spending too much on health care, you should look at just the Japanese Americans.
Shouldn't you?
If you compare the Japanese Americans To Japan, do you think there would be a big difference?
The answer is no, there wouldn't be.
I checked.
So are we really spending too much if the Japanese Americans living in America are living the same amount as the Japanese who are living in Japan?
It's just other ethnicities who aren't doing well?
That should be included.
I mean, that's got to be part of the analysis, but I don't see it.
How about the fact that the black Americans have high unemployment and high crime rates and therefore, and also, you know, a lot of overdoses and death by murder, etc.
If you took out just the black population and looked at the rest of America, would it look like this?
Or would our health, our life expectancy be longer?
It'd be longer.
So part of what you're measuring is just that we have more diversity than the other countries.
And within that diversity, you've got groups that have pretty good life expectancy and people who have, you know, really alarmingly low because of poverty and violence and all the bad things.
So that's not giving you a clear picture.
How about diet?
What about diet?
We know that the American diet is unusually bad and we're unusually obese.
Wouldn't you expect to see way more spending on health care and way less good results if the only thing that was different was we were eating shit and the French were eating good food?
And of course, we've all heard the stories that if you go to France or Europe and you eat the bread, you don't get bloated and sick, but if you eat the same food in America, because they use a different process, you feel terrible immediately.
Some people.
So those are a few things.
Let's see.
And what about the quality of the health care?
Suppose, let's take my experience.
So I have Kaiser Permanente.
So it's a HMO situation.
If I want to get in to see my doctor, I could pretty much do it by today or tomorrow.
Today or tomorrow.
And they could refer me to a specialist.
And I'd get in there pretty quickly.
I can get tests done just because I want them.
I can email my doctor, get all kinds of telemedicine.
Can they do that in all the other countries?
Well, I don't know.
But what I do know is if you're comparing our health care, they're not even trying to do the same level of service.
If you have a national health care, they're going to make you wait two weeks for an appointment.
If you do it in America, you're going to pay extra and you're going to get in faster.
Now, apparently that's not enough to keep our life expectancy up, but here's my point.
Peter Atiyah, very, you know, respected doctor, but is he an expert?
Would he know the assumptions that went into this study?
And the answer is probably no and no.
So my point is, That when I say all data is bullshit, it's this.
It's this.
If you've worked with data, you look at this and you go, well, I can see three major problems.
And I don't know anything about healthcare spending or life expectancy.
You simply have to have experience in the domain of collecting data to know that when you look at somebody else's data, you see three big problems and you know that they didn't solve them because they're probably not solvable.
The databases of all these countries?
Probably not counting stuff the same.
Almost certainly not.
It would be the rarest thing if this were apples and apples to apples.
So just take that learning and say, I'm not making a case just about health care and outcomes.
I'm making a case that all data has this problem.
That somebody who is good with data can see all the problems.
But if you're not experienced with data, Looks right to you.
Even if it's your domain, even if you're a doctor, it looks right to you.
And then let me end by saying, I don't know if any of the criticisms I just made are valid for this study.
I don't know that.
But what I do know is that it's not credible because I don't know if they did it.
Because I don't know, I can't take it seriously.
Even if it's right, I wouldn't know.
Well, over in Sacramento, the city attorney has threatened Target stores because Target keeps reporting retail theft.
And they've reported retail theft so many times that the government is having trouble functioning because they're dealing with all these reports of thefts.
And so rather than solve the thefts, they've decided to, let's see, They've issued a warning to the Target store that it will face fines for reporting so many retail theft incidences.
So Democrat or Republican?
Let's see.
I'm gonna use my ESP.
Was it a Democrat or Republican entity that said the solution to reporting so much crime is to stop reporting it?
Which would that be?
Republican or Democrat?
I'm gonna go with Democrat.
Gonna go with Democrat.
Now, I ask you, if you saw some crime data reported in California, would you say to yourself, that crime data looks pretty credible?
Or, if you had a little bit of experience with data, but you were no expert on crime, could you look at the crime data, and with what you knew about the world, say, you know what?
I don't think they're collecting the data the way they used to.
Do you know who would know that?
That they're not collecting the data the way they used to?
Everybody who had experience with data collection.
Everybody would know that.
If you're not an expert in that domain, you'd think, well, these numbers look right to me.
But they wouldn't look right to anybody who knew the field of data collection.
All right.
Sam Altman and Arianna Huffington.
Or teaming up on an effort to use AI for some kind of health outcomes.
Basically to be a health coach to help people change their lifestyle and their habits to get rid of chronic illnesses.
I love this.
I don't know if it'll work, but I love that powerful, capable people are working on this.
To me, this is exactly right.
If it works, that's great.
It could really change lives.
If it doesn't work, it was still the right thing to do.
Right?
If this doesn't work for whatever reason, absolutely the right place to put your energy.
And, you know, I use ChatGPT all the time now, and one of the things I think I can do that I haven't tested yet is I'll bet I could take a picture of a plate of food and just take pictures of everything I eat during the day.
You just basically, every time I eat, just snap a picture of it.
And then at the end of the day, take those pictures, upload them into ChatGPT and say, how did I do today?
Keep a running total of my nutrition.
I think it can do that already.
I'm not positive.
I don't know if you need a specialized app, but I'll bet I could do it just by looking at it.
So I'm thinking of doing that, actually.
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, she lives in a neighborhood that seems a little unsafe because her bodyguards, who are assigned to protect Supreme Court Justices, Somebody tried to carjack their car outside her home and they opened fire and shot the carjacker, who lived.
Now, I don't have much to say about that, except that there's an anti-gun Supreme Court justice who probably can't take a walk in her own neighborhood because of all the guns, which she should say, probably would say, if you just make guns illegal, We wouldn't have this problem.
To which the pro-gun people would say, if we didn't make guns legal, the bad guys would have them and all of your cars would be stolen.
So I guess we're getting nowhere on that.
So Biden did his NATO speech.
It was off the teleprompter.
He doesn't really know the difference between putting passion into his speech and anger at this point.
Yeah.
So, you know, this is what passion would look like.
And we've really got to increase the GDP and we've got to help Ukraine.
That's what passion would sound like.
Biden can't get there.
He can only do old man yelling at the sky.
We're going to raise taxes!
We're going to raise taxes!
Raise taxes on the rich!
He's so far away from looking normal, but we got used to it, didn't we?
If you'd never seen all of his other stuff, and the only thing you saw was his next speech, and you didn't know about the whole dementia thing, you would say to yourself, why is he yelling?
What's wrong with him?
But he's so far gone that he can, you know, give an angry yelling speech, and people will say, well, at least he didn't fall asleep.
That looks like a step in the right direction.
The bar is so low.
Anyway, he did call the Secretary of NATO an intellectual wigger.
I don't know what that means.
He looked right at him and he said, he's an intellectual wigger.
W-I-G-G-E-R.
A wigger?
What was he reaching for?
I don't think it was going to be an ethnic slur.
But what exactly was he trying to say when it came out?
You're an intellectual wigger?
I guess we'll never know.
Well, Trump continues to be funny and kind of perfect in his campaigning.
So people are saying that he's doing a great job of letting Biden's trouble be the top line story.
So instead of Trump making big news with some policy or something, he gives Biden a golf challenge, which is kind of perfect.
A golf challenge, because it's not serious, but he reframes Biden as feeble.
He said that he challenged Joe Biden to an 18-hole golf match, and he was going to spot him 10 strokes.
So he'd give him 10 strokes.
And he said, if Biden wins, Trump will give a million dollars to a charity of Biden's choice.
Now, I think we all know that Biden can't golf.
We all know that, right?
So Trump can make any offer he wants for free.
It's just a free punch.
And he can just say, well, look, I'll give you 10 strokes and a million dollars to a charity.
You don't want your charity not to get the million dollars, do you?
All you have to do is play a round of golf.
Now of course he's not going to say yes, and of course he would lose if he did.
So the fact that this is such a non-serious topic, but harmless.
It's just a harmless, non-serious topic.
It gives Trump something to say, which worked.
It reframed Biden as physically incapable.
But it wasn't such a big deal that the Democrats have to respond to it.
Right?
And what could they say?
What exactly could they say?
Oh, he will beat you in golf?
I've seen him.
Man, in private, he golfs like crazy.
Yeah, in private, he shoots par.
It's only when people are watching that he slips up a little bit.
All right.
So Cenk Uygur continues to be hilariously normal.
And when you see a Democrat who is acting all normal, they stand out like a sore thumb.
You're like, whoa, what's he trying?
Is he trying to be normal and say things that make sense and stuff?
So here's what he says.
The Democrats are literally asking us to vote for a person in mental decline for President of the United States.
The whole party must be in mental decline.
Yes, Cenk, that is a normal, smart reaction to what you observe.
And boy, does he stand out.
All that normalness is looking crazy.
But I would say it's not so much a mental decline in the way that Biden is mentally declining.
I would say that there's a weird denial of reality that happens on the left that is unlike anything I've ever seen.
And I believe that they have somehow They've created a fantasy world they can live in just all the time.
So they live in a fantasy world that Trump somehow could conquer the country through the force of his will plus his friends in high places.
That's crazy.
This is crazy.
They fantasize that they can put together this speed primary and they can put that together.
No, they can't.
That's not going to happen.
And then they fantasize That maybe Gavin Newsom could come in and be the head of the party.
No, he can't.
If you haven't noticed that Newsom could not possibly skip over the DEI vice president, you haven't noticed anything.
How could you know anything if you don't know that?
No, Gavin Newsom was never a possibility to be the head of the ticket.
Never.
So far away from being possible that it's a joke.
But I don't think that's from mental illness.
I think that's DEI and inability to see cause and effect and inability to understand human motivation, inability to see things as systems instead of goals, a complete denial of reality, basically.
But not mentally incompetent.
It just seems some kind of weird selection process.
Anyway.
Here's what CNN quoted Trump talking about Kamala.
Now, here's a change.
How often does Trump get quoted in full insulting Kamala Harris or a Democrat?
It's sort of the sort of thing that they wouldn't want to say because it's sort of good for Trump if it's a good insult.
So here's what they quoted on CNN Trump saying.
Whatever else can be said about crooked Joe Biden, you have to give him credit for one brilliant decision.
Picking Kamala Harris as his vice president was the greatest insurance policy of all time.
If Joe had picked someone even halfway competent, they would have bounced him from his office years ago.
It's so perfect.
It's just perfect.
I tell you that the Trump campaign, He's just hitting every note.
That is perfect.
It was so perfect that CNN read it on the air because it's perfect.
There's no hyperbole in it, and yet it comes off as hyperbole.
But it's literally true.
It would be hard to argue with the statement that if the vice president were just, you know, clearly a superstar, by now the pressure to get rid of Biden would have been through the roof.
Because everybody would say, well, the superstar can beat Trump better than you can.
But people are looking at a degraded, mentally incompetent president and saying, you know what?
Well, you're still better than Harris.
The fact that even that's a conversation shows that she is the perfect insurance policy.
Meanwhile, Joy Reid continues her mental breakdown in public.
And I don't mean that as a joke.
To me, her mental breakdown, actual form of some kind of insanity or mental incompetence, is very obvious.
And if you tell me, Scott, let's see your diploma for being a, you know, some kind of expert on mental health.
Have you been alive for the last year?
You realize this is the same thing?
That's happening with the news being surprised that Biden is not mentally capable.
Oh, how about the fact that you didn't have to be an expert and everybody who wasn't a liar saw it on day one?
I mean, we've said for years that Biden can't make it two terms, and here we are.
So don't tell me that Joy Reid is not having a mental crisis.
She's having a mental crisis.
It could not be more obvious.
It's not a difference of politics.
It's not a difference of opinion.
What it looks like is that she got brainwashed.
Yeah, she looks like she got gaslighted by her own team.
It looks like she believes her own network.
Same with Rachel Maddow.
Just listen to her for five minutes, and you can see extreme mental health problems that are coming through with her work.
And by the way, she admits to a lifetime of depression.
So she does have genuine mental issues, and you can see that this is making it worse.
So to pretend that these are opinions, I'm really so done with that.
It's really not about Their opinions being different.
That is just mental illness.
Let's call it out.
And by the way, Kamala Harris looks drunk to me lots of times when she appears in public.
And am I an expert on addiction?
Nope.
But I can spot a drunk.
I think you could too.
I do it.
Actually, I do it all the time.
I spot drunks on X. I call them out for acting drunk.
You'd be surprised how many times they get back to me and say, OK, you got me.
I am drunk.
Because it's easy to spot.
You don't have to be an expert.
I've done it in public a number of times recently, where I say, you sound drunk.
And then they say, OK, you got me.
I'm a little drunk.
All right.
But don't get cocky.
So if you're so smart that you saw Biden's decline and you're celebrating, I'm so smart, I saw Biden's decline before the news had been in it, did you also think that Newsom had a chance to be the top of the ticket?
Because if you're bragging about seeing that Biden wasn't capable, but you didn't know that Newsom is a white man who doesn't have any chance of being the top of the ticket, if you didn't know that, you can't brag.
If you got them both right, you could brag a little.
I think that would be totally appropriate.
If you got the Biden thing right, you got Kamala Harris looks like she has a substance problem, and you guessed that the Democrats can never skip the DEI vice president with a white guy.
If you got all three of those right, then you're pretty smart.
Or you agree with me, that's just as good.
R.F.K.
Jr.
was asked about reparations.
He says that reparations are not legal and that there was a Supreme Court case that would confirm that.
And he said the only way it could ever be legal or funded is if you could somehow prove a direct connection, like you knew your DNA came from a slave and you knew where... I don't know what you'd have to know, but you'd have to know something specific.
It would never be good enough that you're just black and you live in the United States.
So apparently the Supreme Court ruled on something like that that I didn't know about.
But RFK Jr.
says it's not an option.
But he says that systemic racism against black Americans is deeply embedded in our prison legal system, education system, job marks, access to capital, and beyond.
So he says the moral argument for reparations is compelling.
I disagree.
I agree that the systemic racism exists exactly as he described it.
That's not connected to the moral argument for reparations.
Here's a better explanation.
Everybody's got some shit wrong.
Everybody's got a problem.
That's it.
The moral argument doesn't exist because we all got problems.
And all of us could trace it back to somebody else.
You don't think I could sue for reparations?
I lost two jobs in corporate America for being a white male and my TV show because they decided to have an all-black Monday night lineup on UPN.
You don't think I have a case for reparations?
Of course I do.
Everybody else does too.
We all got problems.
We all got problems and a lot of them are somebody else's fault.
You just can't run a country where if you got a problem, even if it's real, And even if it came from, you know, the system, you can't, you can't give everybody reparations for that.
I do agree with the direct ones, like the Japanese internment.
People were still alive.
There were living people alive who were in them.
I happen to know several of them quite well.
All right.
Um, so Duke medical school.
Some new documentation for their Duke Medical School.
They claim that white supremacy culture is something you want to get rid of, and you want to get rid of things like dismantling racism and advancing equity.
The way they're going to do it is get rid of these white supremacy work culture things, such as being on time, dressing professionally, your speech and your work style, and negative terminologies.
So they're gonna get rid of all that stuff.
It says that white supremacy culture is the idea that, or ideology, that white people and the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of white people are superior to people of color and their ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions.
And that's just wrong, says Duke.
It says that America is rigged for the interests of white people who get privileges And they're unquestioned about their unearned set of advantages, entitlements and benefits.
Bestowed on people solely because they are white.
Well, not in the country that I live in.
In my country, being white and male is about the worst fucking thing that could happen to you.
And I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
But sure, sure, your problems are bigger than mine.
How about that?
Yeah, your problems are bigger.
So we'll do everything your way.
This is just dumb fuck assholes who got in power, right?
And whoever it is who's arguing that to be black means to not be on time and not dress well for work, it's just a fucking asshole.
Let's not pretend this is some kind of ideology, right?
Now, there's certainly something to it, that there's, you know, That there's some systemic, you know, whiteness preferences built into some things.
But there are so many things that the non-white preferences built into, it's not even close.
At the moment, it's probably 10 to 1 against white men.
Probably 10 to 1 in terms of the weight of bias.
But is there a 1?
Yes.
Yes, there is.
There is definitely discrimination and systemic racism that affects black people and other minority groups.
It's just that if you want to be accurate in counting it, this being my theme, my theme is that the data is all motivated.
If you actually counted up how many people lost a job this year because of their color, white men would win hands down.
How many people know that?
If you stop somebody in the street and say, is job discrimination by race real?
They would, of course, say yes, because everybody knows it's real.
Then you would say, all right, were there more diverse minority people who got turned down for jobs or more white men?
The average person would probably say, oh, minorities, of course.
They would probably be wrong by 10 to 1.
Meaning it's not close.
It's not close.
It's 10 to 1.
It could be 100 to 1.
I don't know.
Probably not 100 to 1.
But it's probably 10 to 1.
I think that's a fair estimate.
All right.
Governor Whitmer does that funny thing with body language.
Where she says, the fact of the matter is, the President, Biden, is showing that he's up to the moment, up to the job, he's in it to win it.
Now my impression of her head while she's saying it.
The fact of the matter is, the President is showing that he's up to the moment.
He's up to it.
He's so good, he's up to it.
And her head is just shaking, Bill.
That's one of the easy ones to spot.
That and the wide-eyed thing.
I think it was John Kirby who did the wide-eyed thing talking to Bret Baier.
Yeah, and say, uh, do you think the president is, you know, capable of doing the job?
And Kirby first looks down, he's like, oh, you can't make eye contact?
Like he's preparing.
He's like, oh, yeah, yeah, totally good, good.
And then, and then he does the wide-eyed thing.
He looks at Bret Baier, he goes, he's totally good.
Everything about him.
Seems totally normal.
I don't even see a problem.
He's so mentally acute, or whatever that word is.
I like to say acuity.
It's hilariously bad body language.
So, the only hope that the Democrats can win is to unite around some kind of gaslighting idea, because apparently the Democratic caucus met, and they decided that they all hate each other.
So if you are finding yourself disliking Democrats, here's the good news for you.
Democrats agree.
They just think it's the other Democrats that are bad.
All right.
Last night on The Five on Fox News, Greg Guffield was amplifying the idea of Trump should talk directly to some Democrat voters and get it on video.
And I like the idea of a lunch where you edit it so it's not live.
But Trump just shows up and talks to some Democrats and teaches them that he's not Hitler.
And they can ask anything they want and he'll just answer.
And just go right to the people.
Because right now every Democrat is being filtered through their news and that's all they know.
All they know is what their news tells them.
They need to see a Democrat In the real world, having a real conversation with a person who's definitely not Hitler.
Because it doesn't take long to figure out he's not Hitler.
It takes like a second.
So let's see if anything comes to that.
Here's something that sounds dangerous, but it's the only thing that's keeping you safe, probably.
Balaji Sridharvasan is pointing out, if we ever got in a war with China, do you know what's the first thing they would do?
They stopped making our weapons for us.
Did you know that nearly, maybe all of our major weapon systems require parts from China?
And we can't even make that stuff?
Just think about that.
Our weapons are made by China.
So if we got into any non-nuclear war that was going to last a while, we'd have to ask them to keep making our weapons.
I know we're having a war with you guys, but I don't think it's fair if we don't have weapons.
So if you wouldn't mind, could you send us those spare parts that we can put on our missiles?
Because we got, you know, we can make part of a missile.
We got part of the missile, but we're kind of going to need those parts that you make, because we don't know how to make that stuff.
So now you say to yourself, but that's terrible, Scott, because That makes it more likely that China will go to war because they have control over our weapons.
No, it's opposite.
It's opposite.
It probably keeps us safe, because the only war that you could have with China is nuclear.
Do you get that?
Because they make our conventional weapons, and we can't make them without them, and therefore we couldn't win a war of attrition, there's only one war we could win, and nobody wins a nuclear war.
So basically, by making ourselves crippled to China, that we can't even make our own weapons in sufficient quantity, it eliminates the option that we're going to attack them.
And do you know why they won't attack us?
Because we're their biggest market.
So the only kind of war you could ever have is a stupid war where you decided to go nuclear and both die.
And since nobody wants to do that, The odds of war with China are basically zero.
Too tight.
And we're not going to nuke each other.
So, I would love to see Trump talk about the reality, which is, look, There is no scenario in which the United States and China get into a war.
There is none.
Now, of course, they might use their military in their local area, you know, to put a little muscle and, you know, try to nudge things, and we might try to use our muscle to nudge them back, but we're not going to get in a war.
Even if a war started, the first thing we do is stop it.
Say, whoa, whoa, what are you doing?
Stop that.
Yeah, there's no chance of a war with China.
None.
All right.
And I would say that, so China has introduced their first all-robot factory.
So they have what they call a dark factory.
Dark meaning literally they don't need to turn on lights because the robots don't need lights.
So they have, you know, many, many robots and building from scratch.
I think a phone device.
I'm not sure.
I think it was a phone, but no humans.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, That's terrible, because the robots will take all our jobs.
But I would argue the following.
If robots can do the entire factory, doesn't that mean that we could have entire factories making stuff that we can't normally make?
The problem, the reason that we don't have American manufacturing is largely because we lost the skill.
But if robots are learning to do that skill for us, and AI can solve, let's say, the paperwork and get things approved, because that's a pain in the ass too, it could be that AI and robots brings manufacturing back to every country.
So there's no country that needs to have some other country manufacture, because the other country is just going to use robots.
You could use robots locally.
There's no minimum wage advantage.
So as long as no people are involved, and it looks like China's going to put their own population out of work, we can just have robot factories and get our manufacturing back.
So I think that's going to happen.
I think America needs to become a vacation destination and needs to work on it fast because I think we're going to have some minimum income eventually because the robots will take all the jobs.
And I think that people still need something to do.
So if you said to people like me, okay, you're not going to have your normal job, but how would you like to, I don't know, work in the restaurant that's on the bike path so that people can visit the United States and they take a vacation and they're on their e-bike running across the country and they stop at your restaurant.
I would say, actually, that sounds kind of fun.
I'd do that.
I'd run a restaurant on a bike path.
I would enjoy getting up and going to work.
So I think, and of course robots would do the hard work in the restaurant too, but you still need some people in that environment.
So to me it seems like we need to figure out how to become a vacation destination for the rest of the world.
Because we're not going to have anything else that they need.
Nobody will.
Nobody will have anything to sell except experiences, eventually.
So we need to make America an experience and one that everybody has to go to, like Mecca.
Short of that, I think we're in a lot of trouble.
Because what else do you have to offer?
Eventually, nobody will have anything to offer anybody, because the robots will bring the cost down so far.
So either energy, we either have to be the biggest modular nuclear power company, or AI, or robot makers.
But there aren't that many jobs in the future.
Bye.
Anyway, the Gaza Pier that was a disaster is going to be taken down.
That's a little story.
The problem is that that Gaza Pier that the US built to deliver stuff to Gaza is visual and it was a failure.
You don't want to do something that's both visual And a failure.
So they finally just said, all right, we can't have more pictures of this thing being a debacle.
We're going to have to clean it up and they're just going to take it away for another bazillion dollars.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, probably ran really long.
Didn't mean to do it.
I'm going to say bye to X and YouTube and Rumble.
And I'm going to talk to my beloved subscribers for a little bit, uh, privately.
