God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Northwestern University DEI, Tony Robbins, Coal Hydrogen Conversion, President Trump, Nancy Pelosi, General Flynn, Big Boy Press Conference, President Biden, Hunter Biden, Senator Kennedy, Budget Cutting, AI Budget Debt Control, Crypto Debt Solution, Democracy Existential Threat, Stupid or Lying Media, Democrat Ops, Rep. Luna, Hur Tapes, Huma Alex Soros, Non-Citizen Voting, Russia Friendship, Al Gore Prediction Results, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and wow are you happy to be here.
It's going to be amazing.
And if you'd like your experience today to go up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, smooth human brains, I can't multitask.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass to take your gels or sty in the canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
That's some good stuff right there.
I hope it was as good for you.
All right.
I've still got a little bit of a problem here with my...
Come on, chat!
I can make this work.
You know, my secret with technology is if something doesn't work, you close it and reopen it, and you reboot, then you reload the app.
None of that ever works, by the way.
But it's what I do.
You should do it, too.
All right.
I'm definitely going to make this work.
There it is.
We have success.
Well, you're probably asking me, Scott, what does the Dilbert comic look like today?
Is it relevant?
Is it funny?
Well, I'm going to show you.
How would you like to see it?
So here's the Dilbert comic for today.
Normally, you could only see this if you're subscribing, but I thought you'd like a preview.
The point here, boss says, our CEO is showing signs of dementia.
It will be your job to cover it up, he says to Dilbert.
And Dilbert says, why?
And the boss says, if we get a new CEO, he might hire one of his friends to take my job.
And Dilber says, how bad is his dementia?
And the boss says, it's like a mild cold.
That's called foreshadowing.
Foreshadowing.
Oh my, oh my.
All right, so let's make that go away.
Hey, look at me using all this technology successfully.
Incredible.
Well, there's a new study that says one of the things you can do for Parkinson's, you know, because Biden is suspected of having Parkinson's, and they found that if you do these three things at the same time, you can reduce your Parkinson's risk by 55%.
You gotta drink coffee, smoke tobacco, and take aspirin.
Well, you know what?
I'm not going to recommend all of those things.
I'm not sure you should start smoking to reduce your risk of Parkinson's.
And it does bring into question, who funded that study?
Who do you think funded the study that said smoking tobacco could get rid of your Parkinson's risk?
Could it be tobacco people?
I don't know.
So I of course immediately searched the internet to find out if marijuana had been tested as a possible treatment for, or preventive, for Parkinson's.
And the answer is, the studies are ambiguous, but there is some evidence that marijuana is helpful for reducing at least the symptoms of Parkinson's.
Or if I could summarize this in all one big summary, science doesn't know what works.
Maybe about anything.
I don't know.
But no, I would not start smoking cigarettes and taking aspirin to reduce your Parkinson's.
Well, there's a big bust in Oregon.
So Oregon had a big crime wave and apparently 4,000 Lego sets were stolen.
And they were valued at over $200,000 in Lego sets.
Now it took the police a three-month investigation.
Do you know why it took him three months to solve the Lego situation?
It's because it took him a while to piece it all together.
Ah, you're welcome.
You're welcome.
Well, there's a lawsuit against Northwestern, the school, for anti-white, anti-male hiring.
So it's another DEI story.
So do you need to know the details?
No.
There's a professor.
He's white.
He's male.
Can't get a job.
I didn't even read it, but I can tell you that's the story.
Yep.
If these lawsuits succeed, do you think you'll see more of them?
Yes, you will.
One of the things about following the money is it's like seeing the future.
Let's see.
If somebody succeeds in a lawsuit, will there be more of them?
Yes, I will.
The likelihood of succeeding in this lawsuit?
Probably 100%.
Because the thing with these DEI cases is you never have to look for the evidence.
The evidence is what they told you and what they wrote down and there are witnesses all over the place and 100% of the people would agree and everybody in the same situation had the same outcome.
It's the easiest case you could ever prove because nobody's hiding it.
Not only are they not hiding it, it's often written down as a policy.
So how do you lose that?
Imagine if there were entities that wrote policy documents that says, we're going to steal money from people when they're not looking, and we're just going to keep it.
And you say to yourself, I think I can find the conviction here.
All right.
Tony Robbins.
Has reportedly, according to the Wall Street Journal, bet $200 million of his own money on a new technology that allegedly can turn coal into hydrogen so it can burn clean.
So some kind of science-y process to make coal, which would be sort of a dirty fuel, into hydrogen, which would be super clean.
Now, How does Tony Robbins have $200 million?
I had to check on his net worth, and of course, net worth numbers are usually ridiculous, made up, but it says his net worth was $600 million.
And he put $200 million into one bet?
That's a hell of a bet.
And this entrepreneur has some credentials, but some scientists are skeptical.
Well, I'm going to join these skeptical scientists, but I do love how Tony Robbins is putting his own money into it.
Let's call this another example of people who have given up on the government.
Why would Tony Robbins put $200 million of his own money into this?
Is it because he's a good investor?
I doubt it.
I mean, this would be weird to put a third of your net wealth into one company that hasn't proven its technology.
That would not normally be the definition of a good investor.
So why would he do it?
Well, I've got a few opinions.
One is, I think when you're really successful, you end up with a God complex.
Speaking from experience, you end up with a God complex, and you wonder, well, what else can I do?
If I did all this, what else can I do?
Like, I don't know what my limit is.
And I ran into that problem when Dilbert became successful.
There was this period of my life, maybe five years, where everything I touched was successful.
I make a book, it's a bestseller.
I make a comic, it's a big hit.
It was just everything.
I go into the speaking circuit, I'm one of the highest paid speakers.
So for a while I thought to myself, I wonder what my limit is?
Like, should I be shooting higher?
Should I be building a rocket to Mars?
And you can see that Elon Musk probably has the same thing.
He builds a car company that nobody could build, and then he probably has to wonder, well, maybe I could have done more than that.
Like, what's bigger than that?
How about putting human life on Mars?
Kind of a God complex, doing things that don't seem like they're possible.
So some of it is actually just, I think, people testing their own limits.
But some of it, the bigger story, is I think we've given up on the government.
There was a time when I thought, well, the big problems have to be solved by the government.
A war has to be solved by the government.
A pandemic?
Government.
Fixing climate change?
Well, it's probably going to be a government thing, it's so big.
But nobody really trusts the government to fix anything.
So if you really think that climate change is a problem, and you're Tony Robbins, and you know that you've done things that didn't even look possible, You'd probably say to yourself, you know what?
Maybe it's up to me.
With great power comes great responsibility, and I think that's what's behind that, actually.
So good luck with that.
Thomas Massey finally checked in, you know, as his wife tragically died a few weeks ago.
And he's struggling, of course.
The family is struggling.
They would be.
But apparently an autopsy has been conducted.
She had full security.
She died at home.
And they don't know what the cause of death is.
So they don't have the results of the autopsy yet.
God, that would be maddening.
Imagine you spend two weeks and you don't know the cause of death.
It was natural.
Well, I mean, There were no signs it was anything but a natural death, but they don't know the cause.
And no, she was not vaccinated.
I know you're gonna ask.
Well, Trump continues to be the best writer in the business.
I'm going to read one of his lengthy truth social posts in which he talks about Nancy Pelosi.
Only for entertainment.
All right?
This has no news value whatsoever.
It's not news you can use.
I just want to show you his writing skill.
Now, if you think he doesn't have writing skill, just feel how much you feel his writing.
Oh my God, you can feel it.
All right, I'll just read it.
Quote, Crazy Nancy Pelosi is more of a cognitive mess than Sleepy Crooked Joe.
I mean, come on, that's just so good.
There's just so much color in that first sentence.
I mean, you just feel every part, every word you're going to feel.
And it goes on.
She also suffers from a terminal case of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.
She is a total nutjob who impeached me twice and lost.
Lost meaning he stayed in the job.
Now I see her going around, barely.
Now I see her going around, barely.
Meaning that she can barely go around.
And saying that I am a threat to democracy.
No, this is just radical left Democrat disinformation, which is all they're good at.
Trump continued, trying to convince anyone that will listen that Crooked Joe is a mental giant.
And in great form, which everyone knows he is not.
She's just continuing the lie to the American people.
And that she is the true threat to democracy.
And a very sick one.
And remember, she took full responsibility for not doing her job on January 6th.
It was her fault.
And I'd like to thank her daughter for supplying the tape of Nancy's confession.
But what took so long?
Hiding evidence is a crime!
I just see him standing on a platform above the ocean that's filled with sharks, and he's just got this big barrel of meat.
And he's like, I want a little more red meat.
And he throws it in, the sharks go crazy.
And then he goes, how about over here?
And he's just throwing red meat into the sharks.
And the sharks think they have free will.
And they're just like, ah!
And he's just orchestrating all their craziness.
So he does this thing where he throws in so many accusations, you don't even know what to do about it.
Anyway, so funny.
Well, I was asked today for some constructive optimism, and I'm going to give you some optimism, because some of the stories coming up are, you know, less optimistic.
But this is from General Mike Flynn, and somebody posted about, you know, how bad things are, and he wanted to give some optimism.
He said, The country is absolutely fixable.
We cannot take nor accept a defeatist attitude.
I understand fully how corrupt our bureaucracy and elements within our government have become.
The one person who can fix it is the president.
But it must be the right president.
How do you think Lincoln felt halfway through his administration with the unity of the nation in grave peril?
That is correct.
That is correct.
throughout history, who saw peril and did not flinch out of fear or indecision.
Hang tough, Wyatt." That's who he was talking to in his comments.
"'I know you will, as will millions of others. You only lose when you quit.'" That is correct. That is correct.
Now, I've told you this before, one of the great advantages of being my age is that I get to see how many times we've been doomed.
We've been doomed a lot.
We've been doomed since I was five years old.
We were doomed from a definite nuclear war with Russia, the ozone was emptying, we were running out of oil, and the hippies were going to take over and ruin our work culture, and it looked like the communists were going to domino up with the world, and we were polluted, and we wouldn't be able to breathe, we were going to run out of food.
That's just when I was 10.
That's all the problems we had when I was 10 years old.
And the 70s actually turned out to be a pretty good era after the war.
So I would say that America is really, really good at solving problems.
But the phase before we solve a problem always looks like this.
It looks like us complaining and not knowing how to solve the problem.
And when everybody's complaining enough, and everybody feels doomed enough, and the problems look big enough, then we solve them.
Because the weird thing about our problems is they're not unsolvable if we, you know, work together to solve them.
But if you don't work together, you're pretty much dead.
I think I could say that with certainty.
If we work together to solve our problems, very solvable.
Very solvable.
If we decide to fight each other and not work together toward our problems, we're dead.
But, here's the good news.
America does pull together when they don't have any choice.
The internal division is a luxury that you get when things are working well.
You don't turn on each other until things are kind of working okay, and then you have that luxury.
So, as things get worse, Our ability to solve them gets better.
Because that's when people say, okay, as they are now.
Okay, Biden does have a problem.
Now we're all on the same page, because it got worse.
If Biden had not gotten worse, we would still be disagreeing whether he's bad enough to be president.
But yeah, what we do about it may vary.
But Certainly we've agreed that now we have the same problem we're working toward, right?
So I think that as the problems get worse, our ability to solve them gets better, but that's kind of invisible because you don't see it.
And also there's always stuff working behind the scenes.
There's technology, there's inventions, there are people trying things all the time.
We generally can figure this stuff out.
I would rate our current problems as average.
Average.
If you looked at every problem in America and compared it to all the problems we've ever had, somewhere in the middle.
It's not, it's not an extra scary time.
It might be the opposite.
It's probably closer to extra safe than it is to extra scary on average.
So no, don't worry about everything falling apart.
It might get worse, but as it does, it gets closer to the time we have the resolve to solve it.
All right.
There's going to be what they call a big boy press conference today.
Biden's going to try to take questions from the White House Press Corps at 530 Eastern.
So that would be right in the middle of Fox News' The Five.
So it's going to ruin their show.
And I might want to live stream when that's happening.
I haven't decided yet, but I'll see what I'm doing.
Here's what I think is the plan.
Uh, since it's clear that Biden himself does not want to leave, it seems clear that Jill is on that same page, and they don't have the physical power to force him out, but they really, really, they meaning Democrats, the leadership, really, really need him to leave.
What are you going to do?
Well, now we know.
Let me tell you what they're going to do.
And it's embarrassing and it's, it's just icky.
They can't talk him into leaving.
And they can't leave him there.
What are they going to do?
They can't leave him.
Can't leave him the way it is.
And they can't talk him into leaving.
What does that leave him?
Murder.
Now I'm not predicting that, because it would be too obvious.
So I think murder is off the table.
So you can't kill him.
Can't get him to leave on his own.
Can't force him out.
What's left?
You can figure this one out yourself.
I'm going to give you one more clue, okay?
That Kirby said in front of the public that this presser would be, quote, a big boy press conference.
A big boy press conference.
Do you see it yet?
And then George Clooney says, yeah, he's gone.
And now we hear that Obama agreed with Clooney that, you know, he had no objection.
Clooney said, do you see it yet?
He's going to embarrass him out of office.
Do you think that they would have this press conference if they were trying to protect him?
Nope.
Because we know that he doesn't have to give a press conference.
He went years barely doing any of it.
If they wanted to protect him, they wouldn't do it.
The Democrats have decided very clearly, I would say it's obvious at this point, that they're trying to embarrass him out of office by making him perform and making him fail in front of you.
So you're watching the Democrats slowly torture their own beloved candidate.
Because they need to win more than they need anything.
And there's nothing they won't do to get it.
If they could kill him, I think they would.
I think the only thing that stops them is they would get caught.
I don't think anything else would stop them from killing him, honestly.
So if you want to know how loyal the Democrats are to their own people and to their constituency, look at this.
Seems pretty definitive to me.
I would argue also, as somebody else pointed out, that maybe the reason that Biden is hanging tough is that they won't have an income.
Imagine trying to take care of Biden on no income.
That's sort of where they're heading.
No source of income and having to take care of a dementia patient with security needs and all kinds of special needs.
They need the money.
So here's what I think Hunter is doing.
I think Hunter is brought in for the one thing that Jill probably isn't good at.
Negotiating.
I think Hunter is a negotiator.
I think Hunter is trying to work out a deal where the family will make a fortune, and then he'll talk his father into leaving.
I would guarantee you, somehow, Hunter's going to come out ahead of us, because he's got all the leverage.
Hunter's the most powerful person in the country right now, because if he says, that offer is good enough, I will talk to my father, it's going to happen.
If Hunter goes to his father and says, look, you're probably going to end up Dropping out in any way, your health is failing.
But, if you were to leave now, you could retain some dignity, and I could get $200 million out of them.
Because they're going to give me a piece of some action.
It's not written down, but I've got a commitment.
You know, they're going to make something happen for us that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
So, for the legacy of the family, The good of the family and your own health care.
I'm going to take the $200 million.
All you have to do is bow out gracefully.
That's what they're waiting for.
Guarantee it.
Will it happen?
Probably not.
Probably not.
I think that I'm still going to bet that Biden stays into election day and that the Democrats start saying, Well, but you know, you're really voting for Kamala.
We didn't have time to do all the paperwork and get on the ballots with a different name.
And, you know, we were just pressed for time.
And, you know, so you're just really voting for Kamala.
That's my prediction.
All right.
If there's anybody new here who's never been in my live stream, you probably couldn't You probably couldn't conceive of how smart the audience is normally.
You probably have no idea how smart this audience is.
I'm going to give you a demonstration of how smart the audience is.
Give me the answer before I ask the question.
Go.
Give me the answer before you know what the topic is.
Go.
Correct answer?
Yep, there's a little stream of correct answers.
That's how smart they are.
The correct answer is 25%.
I haven't even asked the question.
Here's the question.
According to a Rasmussen poll, what percent of voters are very confident that Biden is physically and mentally up to the job of being President of the United States?
It's actually 26%, but I feel like Rasmussen got it wrong by one.
I feel like I trust you more.
So, I'm going to say we'll round it to 25%.
Yeah, because Rasmussen is very accurate, but let's be honest, they're not nearly as accurate as you are guessing the answer before I ask the question, because you get that every time.
So, this is called science.
Well, PJ Media is writing about this whole Kamala Harris conundrum, and made a Dilbert reference in this.
Let's see, what did they call it?
Sort of a Dilbert-like trick.
Oh, let me read the exact quote.
History will likely show that the smartest decision Joe Biden ever made was selecting Kamala Harris as VP.
It's not a PR trick, but a Dilbert-era middle management trick.
If you don't want to be replaced, make sure your subordinates suck more than you do.
Now, that's literally been a Dilbert comic joke.
It's a recurring one.
In fact, I've got one coming up that has that theme as well.
So yes, I've often told you that what I call the Dilbert filter, Which is, how do big organizations work in the real world?
That's the Dilbert filter.
In the real world, they pursue DEI.
In the real world, leaders do, in fact, make sure that their subordinates are not as good as them.
That's a real thing.
I mean, literally a real thing.
And when they do those two things, and then they find out that the leader has to leave, They are trapped by their own DEI situation.
So it's exactly a Dilbert situation, and it's one that's been in the comic and will be again.
So now they're boxed in, there's nothing they can do.
That's why I think it's Kamala or bust, and there's no real reason to elevate her to the top of the ticket.
It makes more sense just to leave it the way it is and let people vote the way it is.
All right.
I saw Senator Kennedy do the most useful thing I've seen a senator do in a long time.
Probably because Thomas Massey's, you know, out of Congress.
Congress was not terribly functional.
But at least Senator Kennedy is.
Here's what he did.
He brought in some budget expert for the government and asked, how much would we need to cut the budget To balance it.
Now, that's not paying down the deficit.
That's not paying down the $35 trillion.
It's just, what would it take to not make it more?
How much would you have to cut?
How many of you know the answer to that?
How much would you have to cut the current budget to get it in balance?
Because if you said, well, one or two percent, then I'd say, oh, we don't have that big a problem, right?
So the expert said 7% to 8%.
Do you think there's any human way that our current government could cut our budget by 7% or 8%?
No.
No.
Because you'd have to cut everything.
And if you didn't cut everything, it gets worse.
Because if you said, oh, we're not going to cut this one section, we're not going to cut this one, well then you're talking about maybe 15% cuts to other places.
Do you think we could cut any part of the whole budget of 15% with the current government in the current situation?
No, not a chance.
Because cutting gets you unelected.
Pushing the can down the field gets you elected.
Because they know, they always get elected.
So I asked ChatGPT to give me a little sanity check on it.
And here's just some numbers just to hold in your head.
When you're talking about the budget, just a few numbers to keep in your head so you feel like you're smart.
First of all, our budget every year is around $6 trillion.
So that's the U.S.
budget.
But we don't take in that much in taxes, so about $1.2 trillion of it is borrowing.
So if you just round off, what is $1 trillion of $6 trillion?
About 17%.
So, no, cutting 7% or 8% isn't going to get you close.
You have to cut more than 17% of everything.
Do you think there's any chance we would cut 17% off the budget of everything?
And again, if we don't, that means that some budget is going to get hit twice as hard.
Or the other budgets would be twice as hard.
And not twice, you know, I'm exaggerating.
But that's what it would look like.
And then I asked myself, how is that even possible?
So then I asked ChatGPT to come up with its own budget to tell me what to cut in each of the current budget categories to get to a balanced budget.
And I'll tell you what ChadGBT says, just to give you an idea how, oh, maybe I won't have to look it up.
But the answer is way more horrifying.
You would have to make cuts in various things about 25%.
So probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 to 25%, you'd have to take off of every budget.
Do you think they're going to cut the military by 17 to 25 percent?
Do you think Social Security is going to get cut by... No.
No, there isn't any way.
So, if there's no way to do it, are we doomed?
And it was really hard to get EvenchatGPT to give me a suggested budget which we could survive.
Survival.
I'm not even talking about optimizing.
I'm not talking about the best of several plans.
I tried to get ChatGBT to give me any estimate where we could survive.
And it fought me.
Just like humans do.
That's why Kennedy did a service.
He actually nailed somebody down and forced him to give him a number.
Because nobody wants to do it.
The reason nobody wants to do it is the number is unsurvivable.
Nobody wants to say, honestly, it's unsurvivable.
There's no way to cut it, and there's no way to survive it.
That's the truth.
It's unsurvivable.
Now, does that mean we're doomed?
No.
Let's go back to General... I'm sorry.
Just General... You know.
You know the thing.
Flynn.
General Flynn.
So we go back to his optimism.
Is this a worse problem than the Civil War?
No.
Is it a worse problem than World War I or II?
No.
Is it a worse problem than the pandemic?
Maybe.
But it's within the realm of things we solve.
How?
I have no idea.
But let me give you some just brainstorming to give you a sense it might be possible.
All right, because you need to feel it might be possible.
Number one.
Elon Musk says that Tesla might be way more valuable because of all the robots.
We're going to go through a once-ever robot cycle where we'll probably make and sell a hundred million robots pretty soon.
What if we tax the robots?
And just stop taxing people.
So if you were to get a robot, you got to pay something per robot.
Because nobody already has a robot, like a personal robot.
So if you just said, all right, here's the cost of a robot.
It's going to be $25,000, and there will always be a 10% robot tax.
Well, if you'd never had to pay a robot tax, because you'd never bought a robot, it doesn't look so bad, does it?
It just looks like it's the cost of the robot.
And you'd say, well, I have a maintenance program that's ongoing.
I have insurance for my robot that's ongoing.
What if I have a little tax that's ongoing too?
Just part of the cost of owning.
Now who's going to be buying these robots?
Not poor people.
So it wouldn't be a tax on poor people.
It would be very much on rich people.
And most of the robots will probably be by big companies.
Who buy all of the robots, and then they rent them to you.
So it'll be robot as a service.
So you're not going to have necessarily a robot in your house, but you might have a robot that drives up to your house in its self-driving Tesla, cleans your house, and then goes back to its business while you're at work.
That might happen.
Probably will happen.
So everybody's going to be renting a robot, even if they don't own one.
So could you get to a point where the robot tax is paying all of your costs?
How about AI?
AI is going to be wildly profitable for some companies, and wildly gigantic.
Suppose you say I'll put a special tax on, I don't know, data centers because we know we're going to build like trillions of dollars of data centers.
So suppose you say 10% tax or something and suddenly you're talking about things that are so big and so new That there's some chance that growth gets rid of some of your deficit.
Some chance.
But you would also have to almost stop spending.
You'd have to just like flatten spending for a long time.
The other thing you could do is use AI to recommend where the cuts are.
The reason you could use AI is that Congress will only vote for things for which they won't be blamed later.
Right?
If you say, who's in favor of cutting these budgets 20%?
No congressperson signs up for that because that's the end of your job.
Because you would be blamed for cutting 10% or 20% of their social security.
They're going to take it personally.
So how could you make it so that Congress could vote in the way that's the best for the country and not lose their jobs?
I have a suggestion.
You delegate the suggestion for the cuts to AI.
Now, will AI make the best decisions?
Nobody will ever agree on that.
No, we'd fight it.
We'd say, no, don't listen to that AI.
But what AI would do, it would give the Congress people an out.
If they could sell the AI version of the cuts to the public, then they can say, look, If it were up to me, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have done that.
But we had decided on a process in which AI would make the decisions, because we all agree that if the humans try to make the decisions, we'll just delay it.
So can we all agree, this is what you can imagine Congress saying, can we all agree that if you leave it to us, we won't do it.
We'll just kick the can forever.
You agree it has to be done.
Let's agree that we'll use this objective standard that doesn't care about us one way or the other, AI.
Let AI make the decision of where to cut, and AI might be more rational.
For example, if you and I were going to cut, we might say, oh, I think they can handle 2%, but I can't go further.
But the AI might say, oh, you realize if you just redo this whole department, you can lower the expenses 90%.
Because that's something humans wouldn't necessarily see, but maybe the AI would say, oh, we could just automate this whole thing.
I can get rid of the entire, I don't know, department of whatever.
Just make it AI.
It'll take you two years, 90% reduction in cost.
So the AI could do things that the humans can't do, only because the AI won't be blamed for being biased.
I mean, it will be biased, but it won't be as blamed.
So, is there any path?
Yes.
I don't know what it will be, but I think we have a chance.
Now, here's an update.
I was talking about the idea of using a magic crypto to pay off our debt, and I kept asking for people to Validate whether that was the dumbest idea in the world, because it sounds like it, or the smartest idea in the world, because sometimes the smartest idea and the dumbest idea sound the same.
It's really hard to tell sometimes.
So I did get some expert, smart people who contacted me separately and explained to me, nope, you can't do it.
So here's the simple explanation.
Is if you add money to the system in any way, whether it's regular money or crypto, it's too much money in the system, it's inflation, everything crashes.
Now that I knew, of course.
But I was thinking, what if you just replaced US dollars with crypto?
Does that create money out of nothing?
And here's the other problem.
Apparently, Even if a space alien came down and somehow magically gave you money to pay off all $35 trillion national debt, it would destroy the country.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
If some outside third party, who magically had $35 trillion, appeared tomorrow and says, I'll tell you what, I could write a check, We'll just get rid of all this debt.
It would be so disruptive that the economy wouldn't recover.
So you need some kind of debt because the debt is doing work too.
Debt isn't zero money.
Debt is somebody gave the government money and then the government can allow banks to lend more money and then the economy works.
That's the quick expression.
But here's my updated suggestion.
Suppose you created a crypto, but it could never compete with money.
How is that possible, you say?
Well, like this.
Suppose the government said, we're going to make a program for people who don't have a lot of money that they can buy all these goods and services that are, you know, super designed so that they're cheap and effective and healthy, but you can only spend crypto on it.
Now, that doesn't work because the crypto would still have to get into the system.
If you're only spending the crypto for the government, well, here's the idea.
It's a bad idea, but could you bifurcate the economy so that it introduces new money, but that new money can't get to the rest of the economy to cause inflation?
In other words, could you create fake money just for poor people so the poor people could have goods and services, But it wouldn't add money to the system.
Because they'd be settled.
They couldn't buy a car with it.
They could only buy food and shelter and stuff.
I don't know.
I think that doesn't work either.
Pretty much all the ideas don't work.
But here's the thing I want to tell you.
Paying down the debt doesn't seem that important.
But getting rid of the deficit is critical to survival.
Does that make sense?
You got to make sure that your budget every year is good, because if you drive the $35 trillion up to $100 trillion, we're definitely all dead.
So there's something that's too big for sure, but it's not too big yet.
It's getting there.
But if the only thing you did is keep it the same, You could limp along and inflate it away over the years.
So, you either have to massively increase taxes by massively increasing productivity, or else you cut things massively.
But your choices are some kind of massive growth and some kind of massive cuts.
Now if you cut the difference, It would be something like you'd have to take the GDP from what is around three or four.
You'd probably have to get it up to six or seven, which probably can only happen during the robot AI turnover.
It could work the other way and reduce it, but I think in the short term it'd be more.
And then maybe cut things 10%.
And you'd have to have AI make the cutting decisions, because the Congress can't.
So that's what you're looking at.
Hey, have you heard the Democrats say that Trump is only in it for himself?
He's only in it for himself.
This is called the projection alert.
Projection alert, where they accuse somebody of what they're doing.
What do you think they think of Biden right now?
So Biden is staying in the race for Biden, right?
There's nobody, there's nobody who's a Democrat or Republican, nobody, who believes that he's staying in the race because it's good for the country.
Not a single person believes that.
What have they been saying about Trump?
He's in it for himself.
How does that work?
Because it's so good for the Trump brand?
That's not true.
How is he in it for himself?
Exactly.
Unless you think he's going to steal your democracy?
I don't know.
I can't even call it a democracy.
It's like a dumb crazy.
Have you noticed how much democracy and dumb crazy sound the same?
It's our dumb crazy democracy.
Anyway, so I think even the Democrats are starting to write, wait a minute.
Something's going on here.
It would seem to me that Biden's only in it for himself.
It would seem to me that Trump is like Jesus, and he is sacrificing his brand, maybe his life, and his reputation and his business to help the country survive.
Now, maybe he's doing it for his ego, but don't they all do it for their ego?
I mean, that's always part of it, right?
You think Biden doesn't have an ego?
Everybody's in it for their ego.
But there was an MSNBC guest who repeated what I call the Gottfeld Observation.
They didn't credit him, of course, because it's MSNBC, but they basically were saying out loud, why do we keep pretending that Trump is an existential threat at the same time we're running the only person who will surely lose to him in an election?
How do we explain to ourselves, our own messaging, that Trump is a threat to the existence of the world and we're not trying very hard to replace him?
In fact, we're doing the worst thing we could possibly do if that's what we cared about.
How do we explain that?
Well, apparently there's some evidence from people who are Democrats who are finally admitting that they are not worried about a Trump presidency at all.
That's right.
You wonder, are the Democrats lying, crazy, or evil?
Turns out that more and more of them are admitting they were just lying.
They do not, in fact, fear an existential threat from a Trump presidency.
Do you know how I knew that?
Here, let me, let me show you how I knew that.
We'll prove it to you right now, I hope.
Otherwise this will be very embarrassing.
Um, you prove it by looking at the stock market.
And, uh, let's see, what's the stock market look like?
Uh, we'll just take you since let's take the stock market since, uh, we learned for sure that it was going to be Biden versus Trump.
And then we learned for sure that Biden had a very low chance of winning and it was going to be Trump.
So scary.
Trump was going to end the world.
What does that do to the S&P 500?
Right up!
So the stock market, which is a collection of all the smart people, no worry whatsoever.
Because that's pricing Trump into the market.
Because the market is a forward-looking measurement.
So when the market is confident and solid, It means that they are not worrying about Trump ruining things.
It means they were lying.
Now here's the fun part.
Since we know that Biden was obviously demented and has been for a long time, and we know that most of the media on the left was saying, well, we don't see anything.
No problem.
Yep.
Don't see a problem here.
It's one of those rare times when both Democrats and Republicans can tell that they were saying things that weren't true, that the people in charge of the truth, the dues and the politicians.
Now we both know it, right?
Everybody knows it.
So that's where it gets fun.
Because if everybody knows they were telling us what wasn't true, what are the What did the press who was saying it and covering up for it, how did they explain themselves?
Well, the only two possibilities are that they were lying or they were stupid.
If you're a member of the press and your only choices are to explain your behavior by saying, I was either stupid and didn't notice the dementia or I was lying and I wasn't dumb.
I was just lying.
I was a weasel.
Which one will they pick?
It's an easy question.
If you're in the press and you admit that you lied, there's no penalty.
When was the last time you saw somebody lying about the news and losing their job?
There's no penalty for that.
But suppose you said, I didn't notice.
Then you just look like the dumbest fucking person in all of politics.
Really?
You're the only person who didn't notice that?
How do you not notice that?
So you have this situation where, you can see it already, it's starting.
The press is scrambling to confess that they lied.
Because the alternative is that they were really, really stupid.
And that's less survivable than lying.
Because they work in an industry where lying is so ordinary, it's not a risk.
Think about that.
Being stupid in public is always a risk.
But lying in public, as long as it's clear that they all did it?
Totally survivable.
So the weird thing is, you're going to see people rushing to confess that they were lying, because the alternative would be worse.
I love this summer!
I love this summer!
Yeah, there might be some cognitive dissonance, but I think they actually know exactly what happened and why.
All right.
Let's see who's stealing whose democracy.
This would be another projection alert.
Projection alert.
Well, Cenk Uygur says in a post, it's not helping the Democrats' case for democracy when Joe Biden's campaign is premised on the idea that it doesn't matter if he is senile in office.
Then who are we voting for?
And how is that democracy?
So here's another prominent Democrat voice saying, wait a minute, the things we're saying and the things we're doing, they don't line up at all.
They don't line up.
All right.
So let's go down the list of Democrats stealing democracy, and then we'll do Trump.
We'll do Trump stealing democracy.
This is going to be a little bit of a spoiler, but you probably didn't see this coming.
But the list of things that would be Democrats stealing democracy are all real and observable.
The list of Trump stealing democracy is imaginary.
Are you surprised?
That's their play.
Everything that they do in front of us is objectively true and observable.
Everything they say about Trump Is like, really?
Like in the future he'll turn into a dragon and use his fiery breath to destroy your village?
I'm not so sure that's going to happen.
That feels imaginary.
So here's the list.
The Democrats rigged their own primaries, and still are.
They created a massive assault on free speech.
If you don't know how that worked, follow Mike Benz.
By creating, you know, infinite external entities that could put pressure on US sources of information.
So that would be the Twitter files and everything else.
So, massive free speech assault.
Trying to limit the Second Amendment, of course.
Weaponizing the Department of Justice against Trump, all the lawfare.
Nobody believes that that's legitimate.
You know, if you're still in the world where, well, but Democrats think they're just pursuing the law.
No, they're not.
No, they're not.
They're not.
Not anything like that.
It's transparent, obvious weaponization of the Department of Justice.
It's obviously coordinated.
It's exactly what you see.
They have controlled the media.
So that everybody started saying that Biden was sharp as a tack at the same time, and their media was like, well, okay, whatever.
So we can see that they control the media, although the media finally gave up on them on the Biden brain thing, only because they had to.
Only because they had to.
If the debate hadn't happened, the media would still be covering up for Biden.
Just think about that.
They'd still be covering.
Except for the debate.
If the public had not found out on their own, basically doing their own research by watching the debate, the news never would have told you.
That's just mind-blowing that we had to see it ourselves and they never would have told us.
Now we got Democrats to discuss packing the Supreme Court because they don't like it.
AOC wants to impeach two of the justices because they don't like it.
So they're not so big on the whole separation of powers thing.
There's the whole starting a war under false pretense in Ukraine.
What part of that was democracy?
Did we vote for a war?
I don't recall voting for a war.
No, I don't remember that at all, but we're in one.
The Democrats have universally and completely and in every case voted against laws that would improve election integrity.
They have voted against Every measure that would make it more clear who got elected.
That's not a coincidence.
It's because they're stealing your democracy.
There's only one explanation for that.
Now you've got the party elites trying to replace Biden, which is basically the Iranian system, where the elites, or the mullahs, decide who can run, because it doesn't matter which one gets elected, because they've all been pre-approved.
The Iranian system.
And they're doing it right in front of us.
Again, it's observable, right?
You can see them trying to organize a fake primary after they had one.
And now we are connecting the dots that Hunter once took a $5 million loan from a Chinese citizen who was connected to Chinese intelligence, And there's no indication he ever paid back the $5 million loan, which would mean that somebody in China kind of owns him a little bit.
And now Hunter's maybe controlling policy in the White House just because he's capable.
So, does that sound like democracy?
The guy who's the gatekeeper for the president owes a Chinese guy connected to security or Intel five million dollars?
I don't think that could be worse.
All right, so those seem, I think you'd agree, that those are observable.
Not really any question that all that's happening.
Not really.
Now here's Trump's list.
Stealing your democracy.
There's the things on the Project 2025 list that he does not agree with.
So the first imaginary category are things he says he doesn't agree with and wouldn't do.
So that's one of their evidence that he's going to steal your democracy.
The things he says he won't do because they are trying to paint him as a supporter of things he's not supporting.
Then there's all the gaslighting that Democrats did about January 6th.
So because January 6 was a whole op, a gaslighting op, in which they pretended it was an insurrection and that Trump was in charge of it, an entire imaginary hoax, that's one of the main reasons that they have to say, well, If he did it once, he'll do it again.
But he didn't do it once.
He left office on the day he was supposed to leave office, and there was never any possibility he could have taken over a country because some of his supporters trespassed, or because he picked some alternate electors just to hold his rights, but that didn't work out.
All right, and then There's the stuff that Democrats are hallucinating Trump might do if he becomes president.
Literally, they're afraid of the things he'll do that they don't really have a specific name for, but think he won't leave office.
Just crazy shit that is not observable, and it seems to come out of pure mental illness.
We're just lying.
And then, of course, there's the abortion question that he'll take away your bodily autonomy.
Will he do that by taking himself out of the decision-making process?
Because that's what he said he'd do.
He said he would not be part of any national ban on abortion.
In other words, he's not going to be a decision-maker.
Either way, he said he moved all the power to the states, which they've been wanting to do, so that it's not his role.
How does, how does giving your power away to the states suddenly qualify as stealing your democracy?
I mean, basically all he did is correct it.
It's something that was, you know, seemed out of whack at one point, so he corrected it.
Put the power back in the states where it probably should have always been.
Now, have I made my case?
That the Trump stealing your democracy is purely imaginary, and it's based on their own hoaxes and gaslighting?
And all of theirs are obvious.
It's a longer list, and you can observe it.
It's observable right now.
You don't have to wonder what will happen in the future.
It's right now.
All right, and then you have, of course, Biden defying the majority, because ABC News says two-thirds of the public wants him to step down.
Is he acting all democratic by staying in office?
When we don't know who's in charge, and two-thirds of the country wants him to step down, including the majority of his own party.
So that's his view of preserving democracy, I guess.
Not doing what people want.
Now, I know we're not a democracy.
Let me just do an update for the NPCs.
Swimming is the best form of exercise.
The United States is a form of republic, not a democracy.
And if somebody invents a new source of food, it's probably soil and green.
So, if you're trying to remain an NPC in good standing, make sure that whenever any of those topics come up, you add your value like I just did.
All right, Representative Anna Apollina, Luna from Florida, she's leading up an effort to try to fine Attorney General Garland $10,000 per day until he turns over the HER audio.
Now the HER audio is the one where we think President Biden was incoherent, but the transcript may have erased all the incoherence.
So since they already have the transcript, what would be the big deal of hearing the actual audio?
Well, I think we all suspect that the only reason you don't hear it is that it's really bad.
And I think her was maybe being kind by saying he's too out of it to ever stand trial.
I think he was right on that.
And so far he's been vindicated.
But I would ask you this, Representative Luna, how is this good for us?
How's it good?
Because worst case scenario is that audio comes out tomorrow.
Democrats say, okay, we're all out.
And it goes to 90% Democrats want him out.
And then basically he has no choice.
He's going to get pushed out.
So how's that good for Trump?
I think Trump is playing this right.
Trump's playing it right.
Because the question of whether Biden is mentally capable has been asked and answered.
If you're still trying to ask and answer it, you're only introducing a variable that we don't need and could go wrong.
Because the way it could go wrong is it might give the Democrats the ability to rapidly replace them, and then you don't know what you're getting.
Then you don't know what you're getting.
Could be better.
Although they still have the problem of how do you skip over Kamala.
So I suppose the way they would do it is they would elevate Kamala Harris to the top.
They would pick a really strong vice president and then it would sell them as a team.
And they'd say, well, you know, if you don't like Kamala, it's a team.
Look at this vice president pick.
It's so strong.
That's probably their best play.
But I don't think we need to hear the horror tape.
It's not going to add anything, but it could subtract something.
It could reduce the chances you get the president you want.
Joey Behar says that when Trump calls Kamala laughing, laughing Kamala, that is sexist.
That's not something, you would never make fun of a man's laugh, would you?
Like, of course, this is purely sexist.
Because making fun of how somebody laughs, Honestly, that only happens to women, and conservatives only make fun of women who laugh wrong.
Have I ever given you my Tucker Carlson laughing impression?
I can't do the high pitch.
Everybody makes fun of Tucker's laugh.
Tucker's laugh is one of the most famous memes in all of right-leaning world.
We love Tucker.
No, Joy Behar, she can find more ways to be wrong about more things than anybody I've ever seen in my life.
It's literally one of the most famous things that people make fun of, is that Tucker has one of the most distinctive laughs in all of Laughdom.
So, no, it's not.
It's not sexist.
Anyway, so the press conference will be 5.30 today, Eastern Time.
I'm just going to say it.
Do you want me to beat around the bush?
Or do you want me to just say it?
against him. In other news, Alec Soros, the heir to the Soros fortune, now in control of its money, has married Huma Abedin. I'm just going to say it. Do you want me to beat around the bush, or do you want me to just say it? This is why it's good to be cancelled.
I would never say what I'm going to say next unless I'd been cancelled.
If you spend one minute googling Alex Soros in images, he's very gay.
Alright?
Let's just say you've never seen a gayer guy hanging out in intimate poses with his boyfriends.
He's not even slightly straight.
He's the gayest gay guy you've ever seen in your life.
Now, if you don't believe me, just Google his images.
There are plenty of them.
It's really observable and obvious.
Now, you will not tell me, here's what won't happen.
I guarantee this won't happen.
You're not going to go look at the pictures yourself and then say, well, I think you're misinterpreting this, Scott.
No, you're not going to do that.
There's no doubt from his personal life that he's a gay man.
Now, I love the LGBTQ community.
I'm very pro-gay.
So, I'm not saying anything bad about him.
Just to clarify, it's 2024, you have to clarify.
In 2024, I shouldn't have to clarify that if I mention somebody's gay, it's not an insult.
Can we just, are we past that yet?
Can we be past that?
Can it just be a fact without it being some kind of, you know, assumed insult?
We should be way past that.
Because the LGBT community is probably one of the most successful American communities.
One of the ones I have the most respect for, honestly.
Because, you know why?
Nobody ever said this, We don't want to go to that gay neighborhood because of all the crime and filth.
It's like one of the most successful groups in America, so I have complete respect for that group.
Now, he's obviously a member of the group, and he's marrying a woman who's, what, 10 years older than him?
Which is what billionaires do all the time, don't they?
They marry people who are 10 years older than them.
I don't think I've ever seen it, frankly.
It's like something that happened zero times.
So your pattern recognition should be kicking in at this point.
And your pattern recognition should say something like, huh, that looks a lot like somebody who's getting married for political reasons, doesn't it?
What could that political reason be?
We believe that George Soros, whether you think he's evil or not, is a brilliant, brilliant tactician.
Would you agree?
Nobody's ever called George Soros dumb.
I mean, he just keeps doing smart-looking things that you might not like, but he's certainly effective.
Would you say the same thing about Alex?
Well, I don't know.
I've not seen any evidence that he's a highly qualified player.
It seems that they're hiding him from interviews.
Because given his out-sized influence on the world, I mean really, really big, he should be on interviews every day.
But they seem to be hiding him.
If you can find an interview of him talking in public, You'll very quickly learn why they're hiding him.
I don't think he's good at it.
I don't think he's good at it.
And I think that when you see Hillary Clinton's best friend and confidant marry him in a marriage that looks suspicious at best, you have to say to yourself, is there something else going on here?
Now, I don't know.
But let me just speculate.
It looks like Hillary is making a play to control the Soros fortune after George Soros passes, which will happen pretty soon.
Because all that money, or at least control of it, will go to Alex.
Alex will be controlled by Huma, which gives Hillary functional control of the Soros fortune.
That's the play.
In my opinion, that's the play.
Now, let's take it to the next level of conspiracy theory.
What happens if Alex Soros dies in a boating accident, tragically?
What if he falls off a yacht?
And a shark eats him?
Because that could happen.
He's on a lot of yachts.
Accidents happen, people.
Accidents happen.
Just the fact that he happens to be in Hillary's He's in Hillary's orbit.
That doesn't mean something bad's going to happen to him.
I mean, I know you think that.
But just because Hillary would get functional control of, I don't know, $30 billion that she could use to control the world, that doesn't mean she's going to kill Alex and let Huma take over the money.
And presumably, Clinton has some influence over Huma.
So, I think it's exactly what it looks like.
I think Huma is going to maybe make George Soros happy before he dies.
As in, maybe George Soros doesn't know his son is gay.
And he might think, you know what I really need is heirs.
I want to make sure I have an heir.
So it could be.
The Alex is making his father seem to be getting an heir, but he'll die before he has to see if there's an heir or not.
So every bit of this looks suspicious.
They don't look like a couple, even a little bit, honestly, if you see the pictures.
I think it's exactly what it looks like.
It looks like a Hillary Clinton play to get control of Soros' fortune, because they don't think Alex Soros is dependable or smart, and they need to control it, because it's essential to their power base.
They can't lose control of that.
That's what I think.
And let's see, I'm quoted in the Gateway Pundit.
So here's what I said that they quoted.
I said this on X. When Biden refuses to sign a bill preventing non-citizens from voting, which I think is going to happen.
So the House passed a bill that says non-citizens can't vote.
The Senate might pass it.
We don't know.
But if they did, it would get to Biden and he said he would reject it.
So that's the premise.
So if Biden refuses to sign a bill preventing non-citizens from voting, that should become the only issue in the campaign.
Because it also reveals everything else.
It's like the key that opens up everything.
It gives away the whole game.
And what I mean by that is it's an unambiguous statement that Democrats prefer their power Over your happiness.
There's no other way to explain it.
That they need a crooked election, because they need the power, and they don't care if it makes you unhappy and your outcome's worse.
They're just putting themselves over you.
And what I said is you should ask Democrats to defend it, and you should ask Biden to defend it.
Like, why would you Say that non-citizens could vote.
Now, I think their reason is going to be... Somebody's telling me that Uma is 47, so she's not going to be making any heirs.
I disagree.
They could probably use a surrogate and make a baby.
So don't be surprised if you hear that there's a surrogate baby on the way.
Anyway.
So I would ask Biden to defend it, and I would ask the Democrats to defend why they don't want to limit voting to citizens.
And I don't think they can defend it.
I think that what they're going to say is, well, it's already illegal, so don't worry about it.
But that's kind of missing the point.
Well, The Daily Show had a little panel of six black voters that they were asking about Uh, the presidency.
And, uh, so they got, they're, uh, New Yorkers too.
So they're black New York voters, a mix of men and women.
And, uh, half of the group, three out of six said they would vote for Trump.
The, uh, the moderator who worked for the Daily Show was also a black gentleman.
And after three of the six of them said they would vote for Trump, uh, he said, and I quote, We're an even split.
I didn't see that coming.
I didn't see that coming.
I did.
I would have guessed 3 out of 6.
If you said how many randomly picked are going to say Trump, I would have said about 3 out of 6.
That's, you know, 2 out of 6, maybe more often, but 3 out of 6, I think you can get there.
And as Mike Benz warns, and many of you are seeing, and I think Glenn Greenwald is warning on this too, the Democrats can't release on this Russia is to blame for everything thing.
Do you all understand why it's always Russia?
You have to know the history of the CIA.
So the CIA is the CIA because of the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet Union fell, they needed a new enemy to justify their actions and their budget.
So they're like, well, Russia.
Even though the entire point of disintegrating the Soviet Union was that Russia would basically become friends with the United States.
Do you know why we're not friends with Russia when everything they were doing was for the intention of being our friends and never being at war with us?
It's because it wouldn't be good for the CIA's budget.
That's probably the only reason.
Yeah, that's probably the only reason.
Now, there was also the energy stuff, you know, later, blah, blah, blah.
And Putin, you know, maybe interfering in other countries where we wanted to interfere before he interfered.
So there's, you know, certainly there's lots of little stuff.
But if we had already made friends with him, Putin probably would already be working productively with us in these other countries.
And if he wanted something like a warm port, and they were our allies, We would have said something like, why would we object to you having a warm port?
You're our ally.
We don't object to France putting a port anywhere, do we?
They're our ally.
So, it seems to me that the reason Russia, Russia, Russia is because the intel people work with the Democrats, and the intel people need the Democrats to tell you that Russia, Russia, Russia, so they can keep their budget.
So, I don't think that Russia as an enemy is real.
I don't think it's based on reality.
I think some reality comes out of it, because when you tell each other you're enemies, you don't work together in other countries well.
So, we see that.
But it feels like a manufactured problem.
Totally manufactured.
And it looks like it's manufactured to support the budget of our intelligence people.
And nothing else.
It may be military, too.
That's what it looks like.
Eric Adams says sanctuary cities are a big mistake, wants them to go away, of course.
All right, I've got a challenge for you.
Oh wait, we'll do this first.
So Joe Rogan was talking about Elon Musk believing we live in a simulation.
And he said something that I've said a few times.
He said, if you're Elon Musk, of course you believe it's a simulation.
People are letting you drill tunnels under LA and shoot rockets off into space and you make electric cars, solar roof panels.
I mean, he's literally living like some character in a movie.
Now, I've told you that, right?
The exact same thing.
If you were Elon Musk and you saw what you could personally accomplish, you would have to believe none of this is real.
Because he lives life like a video game.
He plays video games, so that model is in his head, you know, closer to the front of his head.
But I say the same thing.
Now, you don't know everything about my life, but if you just looked at the things you know about, how is that possibly real?
That when I was six years old, I said, you know, I think I want to be a famous cartoonist.
Well, the number of famous cartoonists who happened since I was six years old is like three?
Three or four?
And of seven billion people?
And I'm one of the three or four?
How is that possible?
And then, you know, next thing I know, I'm predicting Trump, and I'm invited to the White House, and here I am.
How is any of this possible?
Right?
And that's just my professional life.
My personal life is even weirder.
How is any of it possible?
So yes, I believe we're in a simulation, and I think we're going to find out in a year.
So that's my prediction.
I think we're one year away from confirming that we live in a simulation.
Now, when I say confirming, I don't mean that everybody will agree.
I mean that the evidence will be overwhelming.
And here's what it will look like.
In one year, we will create our own simulation, In which the characters believe they have consciousness, free will, and they're living their own lives.
Once we do that, and we already have the tech for that, once we do it, maybe in a year, the argument for us not being one will just disappear.
Because once we can do it, the argument was always that once it can be done, there'll be more than one.
So after somebody makes one of them, in a year, in the real world, in one year, there will be that simulation, Somebody else is going to say, hey, that's a good idea.
I'll make one, too.
And at that moment, the number of simulated realities will be confirmed to be twice as many as base reality, if even one exists.
Now, the argument that I've heard against the simulation is stupid, and it goes like this.
Because, Scott, you're just Pushing God back one more level.
I mean, you know, something can't come from nothing, so therefore a God.
And then I say, is God something?
Well, yes.
Where'd he come from?
Something came from nothing, or something was always there.
Here's the answer to where everything came from.
Everything was always here.
That's it.
Now, the fact that your brain can't wrap its head around that doesn't make it wrong, because you can't wrap your head around any of physics.
But you don't need to solve the problem of how anything came from nothing, because that's an absurd assumption.
The correct assumption is there was always something.
Do you know why?
Because you can't make something out of nothing.
It's obvious there was always something.
You know, even if you say the Big Bang was the beginning, No.
Whatever it was that caused the Big Bang had to exist.
So there was always something.
Even if it was packed into, you know, one little singularity.
But there was something.
So, no, you don't have to solve the God or simulation problem.
There was always something.
That's it.
That's the whole solution.
There was always something.
All right.
Here is my last challenge to you.
I want to see if you can prove me wrong.
I was curious how many of the predictions made during the Al Gore era of the inconvenient truth, when he first started saying you were all doomed from climate change, how many predictions were made either by him or other experts at that time that have panned out?
Now that seems like the easiest thing you could look up in the world, doesn't it?
The most important thing is climate change.
So there's, you know, a gazillion documents and science about climate change.
The most important thing we need to know about climate change is, are the predictions correct?
Right?
Would you agree?
It's the biggest problem, if it's true, and the biggest issue within it is, can we predict it so that we know that we're in trouble?
So, the most obvious thing that should be easy to Google would be what are the predictions and what's the reality?
You can't find it.
You cannot find it.
Good luck!
You can even take one thing.
Take just one thing.
Are the storms more severe or less?
Good luck.
You'll find yes, you'll find no.
Sometimes you'll find confusing answers.
But you cannot answer the question, have the predictions so far turned out to be true?
Now here's what you're going to say.
But Scott, I know the answer.
The sea level has not risen.
That's not what the internet says.
The internet says that the sea level has risen, but not everywhere.
For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, they say the sea level has risen.
As predicted.
But maybe not on the other side of Florida.
So if you go to the internet, I swear to God this is true, they'll tell you that the sea level rose on the west side of Florida, but not the east side.
Which maybe is possible, because one side is warmer than the other.
Don't you think it raised a little bit on the other side?
So here's my challenge to you.
My challenge is this.
You cannot, with any credibility, determine if the predictions were right or wrong.
Now, do you think that's an accident that the Internet won't tell you that?
Do you think that nobody studied that?
No.
I'll bet it just gets erased as it's published.
I guarantee you That somebody did a good job of looking at the predictions and a really good job of comparing them to reality.
And you can't fucking find it.
Try.
Try yourself.
I welcome the challenge.
See if you can find the answer to that question.
Now the fact that you can't find it, what does that tell you?
That's all you need to know.
That is the dog that is so not barking Because if the predictions had been largely true, not completely, but even just largely true, you would hear that every day.
Right?
If Al Gore had been right about most things, but not everything, it's all you would hear.
It'd be in the news every day.
Look how right we were.
I don't see it.
I see stuff like, looks like this one island had a little problem, but the island next to it was fine.
Or we did get storms like a little earlier this year, but we don't really see a signal that there's more or worse storms.
But some people will say there are.
That's the state of our data.
Don't know.
So we don't know if sea level is going up or down.
We don't know if storms are getting worse.
And then what about the ice?
There was a prediction that the ice would melt and that the North Pole you'd be able to pass.
So is that a prediction from climate change?
Well, the trouble is that was predicted without climate change, because the world is always warming or cooling long term.
So we already knew that the ice was going to melt because we're in a warming period, which is better than being in a cooling period.
So how much of the ice melt is because it was going to happen anyway versus climate change?
Well, the argument would be, Buzz Scott, there's an acceleration.
So, it's much more now, it's accelerated.
Yeah, there might be some baseline, because we're in a long-term warming period, but, you know, accelerated.
Did it?
Did it?
You think they can measure that?
Because I've seen evidence that they measured it wrong.
Do I believe the evidence that they measured it wrong?
No.
Do I believe the evidence that they measured it right?
No.
Because part of the argument is, you're measuring the wrong ice.
Like, there are places where there's less of it, but in other places there's a lot more.
And if you only looked at one place, you'd say, well, there's less ice there.
But if you looked at all the places, you'd find that some were more and some were less.
Did you know that?
I'm not even sure if it's true.
It's just something I read.
So we can't even be sure, conclusively, That we have more or less ice.
I mean, just think about that.
And then what about the polar bears?
The polar bears, of course, would be at risk if the ice melted.
But you know what happened?
We came up with some polar bear conservation laws, and polar bears are starting to come back.
What about the What about the Great Barrier Reef?
There was going to be bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, and then when the coral all dies, that would cause some ripple effect, and the oceans would be in bad shape.
Did that happen?
Yeah, it happened for years.
The Great Barrier Reef was getting worse and worse and worse and worse, until about three years ago, and then it reversed.
Why?
Why did it reverse?
How could it?
And the answer is, well, maybe we don't know much about Great Barrier Reefs.
So we don't have a conclusive evidence that anything has ever happened in climate for 30 years, probably.
No real evidence.
There are claims, but nothing credible.
And so it comes down to temperature.
So they bring it down to, but we did tell you That as CO2 went up, which it did, that temperature would go up.
And sure enough, temperature's up, CO2's up, bada-bing, proved it.
To which I say, did it?
Because the recent studies show that you can't tell if the temperature went up because the heat islands got closer to the thermometers, and you don't know how much that would have affected it, but you know it affected it.
Right?
And do you think they could have ever measured it anyway?
That's not a thing humans can do.
We can't measure the temperature of the Earth.
That's sort of the Dilber filter.
If you've never worked in a big entity where you tried to gather data, you wouldn't know that it never works.
This is something I can't even communicate.
You have to live it.
Sometimes you say to yourself, well, Scott, lots of times the data is good.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
No, the data is never good.
In the real world, the data is never good.
That's just the quality of the world.
It doesn't not apply to climate science.
Climate science isn't the first place that data became good.
No, it's just like everything else.
It's a bunch of human beings, and if they can't measure it, they lie.
That's what I did.
Used to be my job.
If I couldn't measure something, it was my job, explicitly, I'm not making this up, to lie about it.
Because we couldn't do things without data, and we had to show our analysis because you needed to get approved for things, and the only way you could do it is lying.
So I just changed the assumptions and tweaked things until my boss was happy, and then that was the truth.
Now, there is no possibility that a bunch of humans could measure the temperature of the Earth with precision and take it back a hundred years.
That's crazy.
Yeah, that's really crazy.
So that concludes my prepared comments for today.
Thanks for joining.
I know I went long again.
I don't mean to go long, but it's just so much fun.
