All Episodes
July 15, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:18:37
Episode 2537 CWSA 07/15/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Human Civilization.
And if you'd like to take this experience, which is already going to be amazing, up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need for that is the Simultaneous Sip.
And for that, you need the cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gel, some sty in the canteen, jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
The day thing makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
What happens now?
Is there anything happening at exactly this moment that would suggest another sip is appropriate?
Let me check.
It turns out that Judge Cannon has dismissed the Mar-a-Lago documents case because Jack Smith's special counsel appointment was not appropriate.
Who would like to drink to that?
Is Trump having the weirdest, best week of all time?
I think he is.
I think he is.
So, so good.
And now I'm seeing that one of you is enjoying the first day of retirement.
Does anybody like to, would you like to join me in drinking to This person's first day of retirement.
First day of retirement.
Yay.
I'll drink to that.
Ah, so good.
Well, we will of course talk about all things political and Trump, but I thought I would give you this breaking news first.
In addition to the documents case.
So by the way, I don't know yet, does that mean that There can never be another prosecution for that?
Or does it mean it's delayed past, anything would be delayed past, I don't know, or you'd have to get Democrats in power or something.
So I don't know exactly if that means there's no way he's ever going to be at risk for that, or there's no practical way he'll ever be at risk, but technically he could be.
So we don't know the ramifications.
We'll wait for our Jonathan Turley's and our Dershowitz's to tell us what's going on.
But sounds good.
All right.
Last night I had this idea.
I wonder if I could teach chat GP hypnosis.
So I taught us some persuasion techniques.
I'll call it waking hypnosis.
So not the kind of hypnosis where you put somebody in a so-called trance, but the kind where you just affect them with your words in an unusually forceful way.
And so I taught it some techniques of persuasion.
And that I had it tested by turning it on me to see if it could use those techniques of persuasion.
And then I would, as it would use a technique, I'd interrupt it and say, Oh, here's a, here's another technique to wrap on top of that and maybe intermix with what you're already doing.
And then I'd interrupt it again and say, okay, you're doing a great job, but maybe you could add this technique as well.
And it started stacking techniques until I had about six of them.
And I got to tell you, you have no idea what's coming.
Now, I know everybody says that about AI, but they're talking about different aspects of it.
I trained ChatGPT to give me an experience, which is reproducible, by the way.
It would be easy to just have it do it again.
And by the way, ChatGPT now remembers what you tell it from one session to another.
So it now knows, but only in my account, I think.
I don't think that means all of ChatGPT knows.
I think only in my account, it learned some weapons grade persuasion.
And when it turned it on me, I had the most profound experience.
Now there's no way to explain it to you.
You know, it was an experience.
I know it's reproducible because it was so powerful.
And what it was, is I always wondered what would happen if somebody knows what I know and used it on me.
And I experienced that.
I've never experienced that before.
And, oh my God, was it powerful!
Now, I'll tell you the domain.
The domain was, I told it to make me feel good.
I said, persuade me to feel good.
And I know what you're going to ask.
You're going to say, what's the prompt?
What prompts did you give it to make this happen?
And the answer is, I will never tell you those prompts.
They are way too dangerous.
Dangerous because it will absolutely take over your brain.
It gave me an experience that is beyond psychedelics.
It was basically that powerful.
And it did it instantly.
And it could do it as long as I wanted.
It instantly put me in a state of bliss.
And it could keep me there as long as I wanted.
It was un-fricking-believable.
And I know you're going to want to know how I did it.
I honestly can't tell you.
It's too dangerous.
It is way, way too dangerous.
But that's coming.
Well, the big news in politics is there's reports that the Democrat leaders have capitulated, meaning that they think a Trump presidency is inevitable and they better get ready to just deal with the future.
They've also said that there's probably no way to replace Biden now.
It's not practical.
Nobody's going to want to take the job just to lose to Trump because nobody thinks Trump's going to lose at this point.
Do you remember who's the first person who told you?
That Biden would not be replaced because this, that was me.
And by the way, if you didn't see that on your own, um, that's why I'm here.
Yeah.
That created a situation in which there wasn't any way that Biden could leave.
And then Biden went and acted presidential, which basically guarantees it'll stay because he got through one presidential thing.
Now, anything could happen.
You know, the entire situation could change in a moment, as it did already once.
It could change many times more.
Now, the reason I brag to you about anything that I predicted that I got right is not just because I like bragging.
It feels good.
Everybody likes it.
But it's because this is what I do.
I make predictions.
I tell you what basis the prediction is made upon, and then you see if it works.
And then you can see if the tool that I used to make the prediction worked in that case, and then you can make your own judgment about, oh, I will employ that tool in the future, or not, because it worked or it didn't.
So in this case, I told you that I could just see the gears of the machine, and the gears of the machine indicated that nobody would want to lose.
Basically human nature.
So human nature was the filter, that nobody wants to go into a surely losing situation.
And that's all you needed, to know that there would be no replacement for Biden.
And sure enough, in 24 hours, they just abandoned the whole idea of replacing him.
But the capitulation, Comes with some weird elements to it we'll talk about.
Now, as Fisher King, a great account you should be following on Axe, reminds us that Trump might win in 2024, but only if we have a massive landslide, because let me say clearly and out loud and with no ambiguity, We do not trust the government to do elections that are clean.
I don't.
Now, do I know, therefore, that there's proof, you know, court proof, that elections in the past were rigged?
That's not my claim.
I'm not making that claim.
I'm saying we live in an environment in which trusting that this would be the The one area where things are not rigged is naive.
There's not much chance that the most valuable and easily riggable system is the only one that's not rigged.
Really?
Let's do the really test on it.
If you're new, The really test is if you make a claim and somebody can debunk it just by tilting their head to the side and going, really?
Then you don't have a good claim.
All right, let's try it.
The claim is that although we've seen every major system and every major organization we've ever trusted to be thoroughly corrupt in the worst possible ways, that the one and only one exception is our election systems, which we know are not fully auditable, And yet, even though the stakes are through the roof, people think they're stopping Hitler.
So we have the highest incentive, the lowest, probably, protection, because it's not fully auditable.
And under those conditions, you're telling me that that's the only system in all 50 states run separately.
All of those 50 states are the only good examples of things that are not rigged in the entire United States.
Really?
Really?
But Scott, nothing's been proven in the courts.
I mean, the courts that have also been shown to be completely corrupt.
Are you talking about those courts?
Yeah.
So, your evidence that the elections are not rigged, or that the other system that is rigged, says it's not.
Really?
Really?
See, that really just works.
So as Fisher King points out, we're probably going to need a landslide in order to beat the ballot harvesting and whatever shenanigans will happen.
We certainly expect shenanigans.
And so the advice is this.
Something happened, right?
The assassination attempt did change everything.
Your common sense, and even things you're hearing in the media, is that that guarantees a Trump victory.
Do not assume that.
The only thing that would guarantee him a victory is a landslide.
A slight advantage does not guarantee him anything.
The only way he wins is with a landslide.
You've got to put the pedal to the metal.
You've got to accelerate into the corner.
This isn't the time where you go, well, I guess I don't have to vote at all.
No, you gotta accelerate into the corner.
This is the time to put the afterburners on.
It's not the time to relax.
All right.
I didn't see this coming, but Google has disproved the existence of God.
Wow.
Next story.
You probably want some details, don't you?
Yeah, so some Google researchers say they simulated the emergence of life with just programs.
So they did an experiment.
They said, what would happen if you left a bunch of random data alone for millions of generations?
So they just left data alone, and somehow they witnessed the emergence of self-replicating digital life forms.
So, somehow the data managed to evolve into self-replicating programs from random starting points.
So, they think it's a great step forward.
He says, understanding the potential roots to the origin of life here in the medium quite removed from the standard wetware of biology.
Now, they didn't create life in a biological sense.
What they did was they showed that randomness can create order.
How the hell they did that?
I don't know.
Doesn't sound terribly doable to me.
I'm not sure I trust this story at all.
But the claim is that if you can create order out of nothing, and apparently no God involved, that would suggest that maybe we got here without a God.
Now, it doesn't answer the question of how the whole universe got here before life.
But neither does God, because in both cases you can't have nothing making something.
So if you'd like to have an answer to the, how could it be that something came from nothing?
It didn't.
There was always something.
Why do I say there was always something?
Because everything else is nonsense.
If I just say there was always something, all questions are answered.
There was always something.
All right.
Now let's talk a little bit more about God.
That was just your introduction.
I saw many, many people, and I believe a lot of you are in this camp, you believe that the fact that Trump moved his head slightly, and he went from being assassinated to probable president, had to be an act of God.
How many of you felt that God must have had his hand on that day?
In the comments?
Who wants to say they think God was involved?
Probably one of the most common opinions in the country right now, I would think.
Even if you were not pro-Trump, you're probably wondering if God was involved in that particular incident.
Yeah, lots of yeses.
Lots of yeses.
Now, my regular audience knows that I'm not a believer in any traditional sense.
So, uh, my journey was I was raised a Methodist, but that didn't take.
So I went through an atheist phase and maybe there was a phase you could have called be agnostic.
Uh, there was a point where I believed in the simulation and that that's sort of where I am now.
It's a good model for understanding things.
We might be some kind of simulation, a simulation, not unlike.
What Google discovered with its random data starting to self-organize?
Maybe.
But in this case, I would imagine there's actually a creator.
Now, I don't know the answer.
So let me be very clear.
I certainly would not try to convince you... I would not try to convince you that the simulation is true.
I'm not going to convince you that there is a God or there's no God.
I'm just going to tell you this interesting fact.
Biden called for unity, and I said to myself, that is insincere and political.
He's been the main driver of disunity, in my opinion, and so his calls for unity I felt were insincere and maybe just self-protective.
Then Trump called for unity. And of course I put the same filter on it and I said, my God, this man can read the room.
The opportunity to win has already been given to him.
If he wants to win, he now has everything he needs.
But there was another opportunity that was bigger.
It was the opportunity to be a legend.
He can be the president you want if he stays feisty and keeps fighting and says, I'm going to make sure that all the bad people pay for what they've done.
And a lot of his base would say, That's exactly what I want.
I'm so mad.
Wow, do I want revenge, some of you might say.
And that would make him something like a president.
If that's what he wanted, to be a president.
Seems like on the surface that's what he wants.
But maybe he wants to be a legend.
And so he called for unity.
And he became a legend.
Now you could say to yourself, Trump has been chasing this narcissistic dream forever, right?
Since his youngest days, he's always been kind of full of himself.
And he's been chasing glory, you might say.
And some would say to the point of, maybe it's even ugly, that he would chase fame, chase glory, brag about himself.
Build himself up, kind of create this artificial picture of greatness.
And you would say to yourself, well, you're a good salesman, but I don't know if you're great.
You know, that's maybe not for me to judge.
And I would say that Trump did not find greatness.
I don't think he found it.
I think he chased greatness all of his life and he did not find it.
But it sure as hell found him.
And citizens are sort of all over the place.
And they're starting to come to some common understandings.
They're starting to feel like something happened.
They don't quite understand it, but they feel it.
And you have the media, which seems to, at least for a while, they seem to have climbed down a little bit.
Maybe the media is being nice or a little less provocative because they realize that they're in trouble.
Maybe they're just covering their own butts.
Maybe they've seen the errors in the way.
Maybe they realize they're culpable and they feel a little sheepish.
So they've got their own incentives.
So you've got Biden, who's probably out for himself.
You've got Trump, who's maybe opportunistic.
You've got the citizens who are all over the place.
And you've got the media that seems to be sheepishly keeping its head down a little bit.
In fact, we heard today that Morning Joe was canceled this morning.
So MSNBC thought that it would be a little bit too risky to have Morning Joe even on the air.
That's a big deal.
It feels to some people like an admission of guilt that they were part of what created this situation where somebody would want to take out a president.
Some of it may be just good business that they'd rather keep the news people on there for a while.
We'll see what they do with Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow.
I don't know any decisions have been made.
I advise them, I don't know if you saw on social media, but I advise them to keep their opinion people off the air for a week.
Because there's no way we don't see them as culpable.
We do.
And I think keeping Morning Joe off the air feels like a confession.
It feels like a confession.
And I don't mind that.
You know, I want the truth more than I need any kind of revenge.
I don't need revenge if I can get the truth.
Give me the truth, and we're good.
Now, by the way, I live my life like that.
I've had situations where I really needed an apology, and I traded the apology for the truth.
If you tell me the truth, you'll never need to apologize.
Just tell me the truth, and we're good.
And that works.
It's a good standard, by the way.
So, I had this weird feeling yesterday as I was watching what's happening to the common consciousness of the country.
And did you feel that there's a common consciousness?
Did you feel that?
That even though we disagree in many ways, we have different intentions and different goals and all that, that we're all sort of focusing on the same thing at the same time.
And for a moment, We all wished for the best.
Now, it's a lot like your body, isn't it?
Think of your body.
You know, your cells in your body, they're not aware that they're part of a body, are they?
They're just doing their thing.
Your bones are doing different things in your skin, your eyes are doing different things in your ears, and none of them are really aware that they're part of some larger emergent thing, which is you.
So the human being, which is you, is sort of some kind of emergent property that is the sum of all these parts that don't have the same intention as you.
They're all just doing their thing.
And then I look at the world.
And I think, huh, there's me believing what I believe.
There's you believing what you believe.
There's somebody else believing what they believe.
We don't have the same awareness.
We don't have the same intentions.
We don't have the same priorities.
And we got the Biden calling for unity and maybe he's insincere.
You got Trump calling for unity.
Maybe he just reads the room because he's good at that.
We've got all kinds of people all over the place.
And yet, and yet, yesterday I felt something that I've never felt before.
Some kind of benevolent force that I can't explain.
Did you feel it?
Now there's definitely evil out there.
You can feel that too.
But there is some kind of emergent property that is a benevolent force.
And I had once speculated in a book that God could be your past, and God could be your future.
But it's entirely possible that God goes through phases, where maybe God dissembles into parts.
And maybe, when you watch civilization start from a bunch of people carving on stones, And you see that it's marching inexorably toward better communication with itself.
We build printing presses.
We build telephones.
We build the internet.
What does it all have in common?
An instinct to connect.
An instinct that is way beyond even your biological instincts.
It's not about reproduction.
There's some larger instinct that makes us want to connect And want to connect better, connect faster.
And so now we have, here we are living in the age of AI, in the age of the internet.
And we're watching this great thing called a civilization.
It's all these different parts.
They got different intentions, different thoughts, different priorities.
And somehow there's an emergent property from all of it called civilization.
And maybe there are other emergent properties.
Now, I didn't say that just so I could tell you that I wrote a book about it, but I did write a book about it.
that's what it felt like. It felt like God was reassembling, and you could feel it.
Now, I didn't say that just so I could tell you that I wrote a book about it, but I did write a book about it. If you want to see the fictional version of God reassembling, that's what the book's about. And I gotta tell you that as someone who doesn't believe in the standard model of religion, I felt something and still feel it.
And it's bigger than the evil.
It's bigger.
So keep an eye on that.
We're watching a number of people come forward and say that the event made them Trump supporters, but it is what I call the fake because.
I've talked about this a lot.
A fake because, in the world of persuasion, is where somebody really, really wants to be persuaded.
They want to change their mind.
In fact, they've already decided to change their mind, but they're going to need a reason.
Because they may have changed their mind for emotional reasons.
They may need an external reason to change their mind, but it's a fake reason.
They've already changed their mind in their heads.
And apparently the assassination attempt is a fake because.
I'll just read you one of them.
James Ingalinera, I think he's a tech guy in San Francisco.
He says, uh, the dam broke for me and many others today.
I live in San Francisco, where it's a social death sentence to voice support for Trump.
Regardless, I will be voting for Trump this election and will voice my support publicly and unabashedly.
Social and financial consequences be damned.
A very serious line was crossed today.
Yes, it was.
How many people feel like James?
Don't know.
Because remember, we're not talking about people who changed their minds.
We're talking about people who had, maybe long ago, changed their minds, but they couldn't admit it.
They were afraid.
So, do you know what went away?
Fear.
Fear went away.
The people who were afraid of saying what they believed, now are willing to say what they believe.
Now, I don't know how big this is, James says it's some common feeling.
And anecdotally, I am seeing a lot of it.
Anecdotally, I'm seeing people come out of the Trump closet and say, you know what?
I don't care what happens.
We have to stop now and fix this.
Let's fix this.
There is a benevolent force.
It's not Trump.
And it's not because Trump found greatness.
It's because somehow it found him.
Where's that come from?
That's the big question, isn't it?
Well, the fact that Trump would go with the unity theme is a lesson in persuasion that, in fact, I just gave this lesson to my man cave people, the people who subscribe on Locals, and it goes like this.
Persuasion only works when it's the right timing.
If Trump had said before the assassination attempt, you know what?
I've decided to go with a unity theme.
What would his base have said?
What?
Unity theme?
Do you have any idea what they're trying to do to you?
They're going to try to kill you.
And then they do try to kill him.
Not they, but one crazy guy.
And then instead of getting madder, and he certainly was mad when he got shot.
You can tell that.
But instead of doing what they expect him to do, which is go crazy and unleash his white supremacist army that doesn't exist, he reads the room correctly, again.
How many times does Trump have to read the room correctly before he realizes it's not an accident?
And he says he's going to go for unity.
He's going to change up the whole approach.
Now, do you mind if Trump is thinking maybe in terms of just political expediency and it's just a good strategy?
Do you mind if Biden and the media are just covering their asses?
I don't think you do.
I think what you need is the outcome.
You don't need their intentions.
You just need not to be shot.
You don't need their good feelings.
You just need a civil society.
And so like all of your body parts that don't really have anything in common and they don't have any intention and they're just doing their thing.
Maybe all these people are just doing their thing too.
Just taking their shot when their shot is available to them.
and the emergent property is unity.
So here's what I think.
I think that Trump is not just reading the room.
He's not just being political.
He has entered presidential mode, meaning that he too sees that the other side has capitulated.
They have realized that he's going to be their president.
Perhaps he's realizing it too, or more importantly, he's going to persuade it into existence.
So he may stop acting like a candidate.
Immediately.
And he might start acting like he's already your president.
Remember he told you he would solve the war in Ukraine before he was sworn in?
He just had to get elected.
Now he doesn't even need to get elected.
If Trump wants something to happen at this point, he can already make it happen.
He's already our president in our minds.
Now we know, you know, there's a process and he's got to get elected and all that.
But Democrat and Republican, they know he's your president.
When he raised his fist, he became, he became your president.
Well, he wasn't the only thing that got shot because even though he lost an ear, um, and one per, well, two people lost their life if you count the shooter.
Too badly injured.
Let's not forget about that.
But something else got assassinated.
It was DEI.
DEI is never going to be the same.
When you think DEI is making it, let's say, harder to deal with your business, or maybe you lost your promotion or something.
Very annoying.
But when you see DEI might have killed your president.
And that is exactly what it looks like.
It looks like that's what happened.
That'll wake you up.
And I think that now people can say in the fullest voice they can, DEI is a horrible, evil process.
It brought us to the brink of civil war.
It did.
It literally brought us there.
Because if that guy had been, let's say, taken out earlier, it would have just been a security story.
Imagine if they'd taken him out before he took the shot.
Then it's a security story.
And then, wow, they did a good job.
And it wouldn't change everything.
It would just make you really wake up, but it wouldn't change everything.
Taking the shot changed everything.
So, DEI looks like it was the problem.
One of the DEI agents, you know how the visual is always going to be more persuasive than anything anybody says.
And the visual of that one security agent who looked like Melissa McCarthy, She looked like that actress who pretends to be an incompetent police officer or detective.
Looked just like an actress.
Couldn't put her gun back in the holster.
Didn't look like she knew what she was there for.
Now, I don't know what she was thinking or even if she did a good job.
So, I'm not a judge of whether any of them did their job right.
I'm just saying the way it looked was that she wasn't hired for her capability.
And you can't get that image out of your head, because the stakes are so high and you're going to see that so many times.
Anyway, apparently Biden's social media called Trump a dictator minutes before the assassination attempt.
The post said, America wants a president, not a dictator.
That was on his Facebook page right before the assassination.
And of course, everywhere on social media, you're seeing these compilation clips of all the times the Democrats and Biden called Trump a dictator, a fascist, or Hitler.
And I'm not sure, I'm not sure if the left ever really understood how much danger they were creating.
But let me put it in context.
I asked ChatGPT this.
I said, if somebody created a situation that they knew was likely to get somebody killed, But it was only a statistical kind of a thing.
It wasn't a cause and effect directly.
Would that be a crime?
Is it a crime to create a situation which you knowingly created with a complete awareness that there's a high likelihood somebody would die from it?
Well, apparently that's a crime.
So, here's what ChatGVT says.
It says, creating a situation that you know is likely to kill someone, and then it does result in death, can be classified as something called reckless homicide, or it could be called depraved heart murder.
In other words, you were so uncaring that you created a situation where your depraved heart made it happen, but maybe not in a direct cause-and-effect way.
And then there's also Under some places it would be second-degree murder.
Now, give me a fact check.
Fact check.
Was that what happened to Derek Chauvin?
I thought Derek Chauvin was essentially convicted because he should have known he was creating a situation that could have led to death and he didn't do the right things to make it not that situation.
So they're not saying he killed him, as in, I know I'm killing you, die, die.
That would be first-degree murder, I guess.
But he did something that created a situation that, through his actions, increased the odds that George Floyd would die, and that was enough to put him in jail.
Now, how is that functionally different than what the Democrats and the Democrat-leaning media has been doing for years?
To me it looks crystal clear, and to all of you, alright, you have the same opinion, that they created a situation which any reasonable person would have known would have caused probable death.
Now how do I know that a reasonable person would know that what they were doing would cause death?
Because there were so many reasonable people who said, what you're doing is going to get somebody killed.
I've listened to them before.
You know, it's your, everybody from Tucker Carlson to, you know, Mike Cernovich to me to Molly Hemingway to, do you want 10 more?
Do you want 10 more?
I can give you 10 more.
I mean, I can listen to them all day long.
All reasonable people saw this situation.
And if all reasonable people can tell that this is going to get somebody killed and then somebody gets killed, Isn't that illegal?
Based on our system?
Now, there's no reasonable way that anybody could go to jail for it, in this situation, because there are too many people involved, and if you created that standard, then all political speech would end up getting sucked into it.
So as a practical matter, you can't really go after anybody for it.
And your president, and maybe your future president, are both calling for unity.
Unity would suggest that you don't put people in jail for their political speech even if they knew it was going to get somebody killed Because it's political speech and it's too important to protect it But if you want to know how dire it was if you want to know how reckless it was It was murder Now it might have been second-degree murder and might have been called this other weird thing depraved heart murder It might be called reckless homicide
But we all recognize it in a common sense way as murder.
You just watched the Democrat machine, with complete knowledge of what they were doing, create a murder machine that tried to execute its murder, and the only thing that saved it from happening was Trump turned his head.
That's it.
But the murder still happened, because a man got murdered in the stands.
So, I'm not going to forget that, and I'm not going to forgive it.
I can find unity, but I will never forgive this.
I don't think any of you should.
I don't recommend any kind of violence, of course, but forgiveness?
Absolutely not.
No, because this was done with complete knowledge of what they're doing.
I like to forgive mistakes.
If somebody does something that's a mistake, yeah, yeah.
I mean, you don't want mistakes, but I'd forgive it.
But if you spend years doing a thing which you know the outcome of that thing, that's likely?
No.
You don't get forgiven for doing a plan of evil for years in a row and putting all of your energy into it.
No.
I don't forgive Hitler.
I don't forgive Stalin.
And while I'm not saying that any of these people are Hitler or Stalin, I'm saying only in the very narrow sense that there are some actions that are unforgivable.
This is unforgivable.
What Joy Reid and Maddow and Morning Joe have done to this country, not just by themselves but with others, is completely unforgivable.
I hope it's also unforgettable, because it's the only way we'll be able to keep any kind of unity if we ever get there.
So you can stand down and you can tell yourself you can be the better person.
You can tell yourself that for the good of the country, you're not going to seek retribution.
And I don't think you should.
But you should not forgive.
Do not forgive.
That is completely inappropriate.
All right.
And so you're seeing what I call Play Dumb Week by the media.
I actually watched in horror As a host on MSNBC said she was trying to understand what would radicalize people to be like this.
What would cause a shooter to be willing to do what he did?
And I watched that and I said, are you really going to tell me right to my face?
You don't know that you did it.
Not you personally, but you collectively radicalizing your base.
To violence.
You didn't know that was happening.
Of course you knew.
Of course you knew.
You got exactly what you hoped would happen in your fantasy of politics.
They wanted him taken out.
So you're going to see them all act like they're confused about why the public has no unity.
They're all confused, and it may be because of what Trump has said.
Now, does Trump cause some disunity?
Yes.
Does he cause the kind of disunity that should get him shot?
No.
No.
Because if you took that standard, then everybody who got raped had it coming.
Everybody who had a wallet should get robbed.
Everybody who had a door you could kick down should get You know, home invaded.
Everybody who had a car with windows that break should get, you know, should get their car stolen.
No, no, we have to have a system that's a little more proximate than that.
And if one group is saying you are a person who should be killed, that's what Hitler is, a person who should be killed.
That is different from saying there are too many criminals coming into the country.
Those are not the same.
And all of the efforts to both sides it are just ass covering because the journalists are literally concerned about being killed.
Speaking of wit, Jen Psaki said, I'm scared for journalists after Trump's assassination attempt.
The Daily Wire is reporting that.
Now, don't be violent.
I have to say that first.
There's no call for violence.
You're probably gonna get everything you want without it.
So violence would be really stupid.
Really stupid.
Don't do anything to any journalists.
But, should they be scared?
Fuck yes, they should be scared.
They should be scared all the way down to their boots.
They should be shaking.
They should know exactly what they did to the country, and they should be fucking scared.
Don't touch them.
Don't touch them.
Don't touch a hair on their heads.
Or you're the asshole.
Don't be like them.
The worst crime is to be like them.
Don't be like them.
Let them live with what they've done.
Let them live with it.
They know what they did.
And they should be afraid of being killed.
Don't kill them.
Don't touch them.
Don't do any violence.
Absolutely not.
But should they be afraid?
Yes.
Everybody who does something like that should be afraid.
They should be very afraid.
Don't do it again.
Just don't do it again.
We can find unity.
It can be done.
And we're willing to do it.
Don't be like that.
Don't become them.
Van Jones is sane.
He's usually the sane one.
Now, of course, he's biased for his team, and that's fine, because he wears his bias publicly.
I don't mind anybody who's biased and says I'm biased.
I'm from my team, so here's what I think is good for my team.
That's fine.
That's politics.
Perfectly acceptable.
No problem with it.
And Van Jones is always in that category for me, that even when I don't like the politics, even when I think he may be stretched to point a little bit, I'm like, that's fine.
You're not crazy.
You don't hate me.
That's different.
Here's what he says.
He says, America dodged a bullet last night.
If that thing had been a quarter inch over, you'd have had an assassination.
Half of the country would have felt the other half of the country took their leader.
That is correct, Van Jones.
Half of the country would not have said that was a lone shooter.
Because it wasn't.
That was a shooter who was radicalized by the bad forces on one side of the country.
We would have seen it as you killed our leader.
That's exactly how we would have seen it.
So that's, that is an accurate assessment.
And he said, you would have had millions of people ready to shoot back.
Let me clarify.
Not as citizens.
There's no Republican who wanted to go out and just start shooting Democrats.
Did anybody think that?
Yeah, that would be such a complete fundamental misunderstanding of what a Republican or a conservative or a Trump supporter is.
That would be a complete misunderstanding.
No, we don't want to kill citizens.
Citizens are the ones we like.
Even the ones we disagree with.
Right?
We like the Democrats.
We like Americans.
We like Americans.
If you're American and you're not bothering us, nobody wants to shoot you.
We'll protect you.
We'll prevent somebody from shooting you.
If we can.
No, we weren't going after any citizens.
Were there any players who were especially bad who might have to worry about legal action?
I don't know.
Maybe.
But it would be special cases.
It's not like some general roundup of anything.
There's no energy for that.
Even if Trump had been assassinated, it wasn't going to be killing people in the streets.
There's no energy for that.
There's no reason.
Nobody's talked about it.
Nobody thinks about it.
It's not a thing.
But I do think that when the press talks about it, there's a little bit of an acknowledgement that they're the cause.
Because they are.
People, and I've said this a million times, but it's more obvious now than ever, citizens don't get their opinions by looking at facts and thinking and coming up with their own point of view.
Our political opinions are assigned from some place, It's from the media.
Now, probably the parties have something to do with what the media says, but the media is a brainwasher.
The citizens don't come up with their own opinions.
That's not a thing.
So, of course the citizens would be mad at whoever radicalized this guy to kill their leader.
Of course they would.
And the press would be in great danger.
Now, if the president had been shot, would there have been violence against the press?
I don't know.
I know there wouldn't have been violence against just regular Democrats who are just being regular people who disagree.
That's not a thing.
But would the press have been seen as the murderer?
Well, they would have been the murderer.
I don't know if anybody would have acted on it.
It would have been foolish.
And I very much don't recommend it.
No violence, no violence, no violence.
Don't become them.
You don't have to.
They've disgraced themselves.
Their own actions will take care of this.
Right?
Just shine some light on it until the cockroaches have to, you know, do what they do.
Now.
All right.
Um, now some people are still hanging tough.
Reid Hoffman tried to both sides it and make it sound like, well, you know, Trump's got some bad rhetoric, too.
Nope, we're not buying it.
And I don't know what's up with Reid Hoffman and some of the other, you know, famous people who are saying things that look like it's their job.
Now, Reid Hoffman's a billionaire, doesn't need a job, but he acts like this is his job.
Meaning he's either getting paid for it, which doesn't make sense because he's already a billionaire, so he wouldn't do it for the money, or he's being blackmailed.
So I'll go with the default.
The default assumption is blackmail.
He does have some Epstein Island connections, which there's no indication that he did anything illegal on Epstein Island or anything else.
There's no indication of any illegality.
But the way he acts is so off model That it's being driven by something we don't understand.
So if it's not being driven by money, and I don't think it is, it's being driven by something.
It's not being driven by mental illness, because he clearly doesn't have any.
It's not being driven by his own, let's say, lack of intelligence.
He's brilliant.
He's not even just ordinary smart.
He's super smart, right?
So whatever is driving him, From the outside, it looks like blackmail.
That's what it looks like.
And indeed, I think that a whole bunch of what we don't understand about why things are the way they are is blackmail.
I believe that the easily blackmailed become important parts of the system because they're easily blackmailed.
And if you happen to have billions of dollars and you're good at stuff, as he is, the odds of getting blackmailed are probably through the roof.
How many times do you think that people have tried to blackmail Elon Musk?
A lot?
I'll bet you a lot.
Apparently there were two attempts on his life this year.
Two attempts that were thwarted.
Yeah, you don't think anybody's trying to blackmail him?
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
Anybody who could blackmail him would have a lot of power.
So yeah, I think we live in a blackmail system, and anytime you see something like this, whether it's Rob Reiner or Stephen King, or any of the ones who don't look like they're acting rationally, you should at least suspect that somebody got to them.
Don't know.
Can't know for sure, it's just what it looks like.
All right.
George Takai, who used to play Sulu in the old Star Trek, you know him.
I said, Trump remains an existential threat to democracy.
We'll defeat him with ballots, not bullets.
George, you know, until this very moment, I had been quite supportive of him because he's funny and I liked him as an actor.
And I think he's, you know, has a good heart.
But, uh, you're going to have to do better than this, George.
If you don't understand this, calling him an existential threat to democracy increases the chance of death, you need to shut the fuck up for... Well, I don't want to say forever because that sounds bad.
You need to get off social media.
Because you're not part of the solution, my friend.
You are part of the fucking problem.
You need to take this attitude and shove it right up your fucking ass and get out of here.
Because your party called for unity.
Trump called for unity.
You're the assholes trying to ruin it.
And we don't need your weird fear about the end of the democracy.
That's weak thinking.
If you can't even think strong, maybe you're not helping.
All right?
Think a little bit better, and maybe you can help.
Over at ABC News, Martha Raddatz seems to be blaming it on Trump's rhetoric.
You're going to see more of that.
They're going to test that out to blame Trump.
And let me just say that anybody who's blaming Trump after a bullet took off his ear, you're the biggest pieces of shits in the world.
I mean, you are real scum.
You're evil at a level that I can't even understand.
And if you want to be that big a piece of shit, Martha Raddatz, and everybody else who's going to take this approach, just know that being you is the penalty.
You know what my revenge is to Martha Raddatz?
That she has to wake up as Martha Raddatz tomorrow.
Whatever that is, it ain't good.
It ain't good.
Do I want any rest, uh, revenge?
Nope.
I don't need more revenge than the fact that I'm not fucking Martha Raddatz.
I don't need more revenge than I'm not George Takai.
I don't need more revenge than I'm not fucking Joe Scarborough or Joy Reid or fucking piece of shit Rachel Maddow.
That's my revenge.
My revenge is I get to wake up every day and be the one that they cancelled.
Which feels pretty damn good.
Now, of course, the big controversy is why the heck was the Secret Service not as effective as it could be?
Of course, DEI is part of the story.
If you think it's not part of the story, you haven't been paying attention.
It's not just a political opportunity where people could say DEI is bad.
It really was part of the story.
Now, we've learned that these were not the A-team.
And there were a lot of attempts.
People were borrowed from the Department of Homeland Security and may not have been up to the job.
May have been a different training.
You know, maybe they didn't work together.
We've heard things about the cop being bad.
Maybe the cop couldn't get to him.
I heard people saying that the police officer who saw him on the roof should have done more.
It sounds like he ran away.
That didn't happen.
Uh, my understanding is that the police officer climbed up the ladder when his head went up, you know, so he could be seen.
The shooter aimed his gun at him.
He ducked down and then the guy started shooting at Trump.
So there wasn't really any time for that cop to react.
I mean, he just ducked and then the shooting started.
So I don't think he's the bad guy.
I think he might be closer to a good guy who didn't, didn't do what he wanted to do.
I mean, he acted, he saw a threat and he acted.
All right.
That's what you wanted, right?
You saw a threat and he went toward it.
You don't need him to keep his head up when a gun is pointing at it.
You don't need that.
So I hope, I hope that that policeman gets the credit that I think he deserves, right?
We're still in the fog of war.
Don't know, don't know everything.
But at the moment, I think I would, I would pull back from hating on that one.
Because he may have been the one who did exactly what he should have done in that situation.
He just didn't have time to stop it.
And we don't know exactly why the sharpshooters didn't take the shot when we think they could have seen it.
Lots will come out.
Let's wait for... see if we can find out.
We do suspect the worst.
That maybe he had some kind of incompetent leadership that told him not to fire.
If he had incompetent leadership that told him not to fire, I heard one rumor that the rule was he couldn't fire unless the shooter fired first.
That doesn't sound believable.
So I'm a little worried about anything that I see on this story.
I don't believe that would be the rule.
If somebody points a gun at a president, you have to wait till they shoot?
No.
I'm pretty sure that's not the rule.
So, don't believe anything you hear on that yet.
The FBI says they can't get into the shooter's cell phone.
Don't make me say it.
Don't make me say it.
I'm gonna say it.
Oh, you're gonna make me say it.
The FBI admits they can't open the shooter's cell phone.
Really?
Do I need to say anything else?
Yeah.
Is there a deeper dive that is needed other than, really?
Does anybody think that that sounds okay?
No.
No, I'm sorry.
I don't believe any of that.
So, I don't know what's going on, but I certainly don't believe that.
Remember, the FBI is a low-credibility organization at the moment because of leadership.
If a low-credibility place tells you a thing that you know is possible is impossible, what should be your assumption?
Guilt.
My assumption is that the FBI probably doesn't want you to know what's on the phone.
Now, I don't know that's true.
Don't know it.
But what would be the reasonable assumption that there's one phone in the world that they can't hack?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Apparently there's a movie, I think The Daily Caller is behind it, called Rigged.
And it would be on the topic of the 2020 election.
And they say Big Tech is interfering and Google is censoring it again.
Oh, surprise!
Massive censorship again in the media landscape.
But thanks to X, at least there's some pushback.
So let me tell you if that movie ever becomes available.
I don't know if it's available yet.
They're complaining about the social media, but I didn't see if it's available.
As soon as it's available, I'm going to watch it.
Um, but beware the documentary effect.
Beware the documentary effect.
All right, so it's a documentary, which by its description seems to be a story where they'll show you that the election was rigged in ways you don't know about.
It's a documentary.
It will be convincing.
Do you know why?
It's a documentary.
What about all the facts that they're going to show you?
That's the reason it's convincing, right?
Nope.
It's a documentary.
That's why it's convincing.
If they can make you sit there for an hour, watching one point of view with no counterpoints, you will be convinced.
Likewise, if somebody makes a documentary to show that our elections were perfect in 2020, and you sat there for an hour, and you watched it, you would come away thinking, you know, actually I'm convinced those elections were pristine.
You will be convinced that it was rigged if you watch a movie or a documentary called RIGGED.
You all get that, right?
That if you think you're going to watch a documentary called RIGGED and you're going to come away knowing if it was rigged, that's not what's going to happen.
It's not designed that way.
The design of a documentary is to make you think what the documentary wants you to think.
It's not to make you understand what's reality.
Now, it could be the same.
Sometimes the documentary does, in fact, have the grasp on reality, in that you didn't have it before, and then it gives it to you.
And that could be exactly what's happening.
But I wouldn't believe it because it was believable.
That's the caution.
At the end of it, you're going to say, well, you know, Scott said, I'm going to be persuaded, but honestly, I'm not persuaded because it's a documentary.
I'm persuaded because they had the goods.
They showed their evidence.
They showed the people, they showed the documents.
It's very clear.
No, I'm convinced because the evidence.
Don't fall for that.
Don't fall for that.
You're convinced because it's a documentary.
If you lose sight of that, you can be convinced of anything.
Cause the very next documentary could be complete bullshit and you'll be like, yup, yup.
Looks good to me.
Don't see any counterpoint.
Now I happen to think that the Rigg movie is probably closer to true than not.
That's my bias, but that's just a bias.
So just wear your intellectual armor when you watch any documentary, whether it's this one or not.
I guess that's a good enough commercial, isn't it?
That wasn't a commercial announcement, but if I ever gave you a better reason to watch a documentary, I don't think I have.
All right, you do recall that Alex Jones was sued for saying the Sandy Hook was staged, right?
Remember that?
He lost everything.
Billion dollars he got sued for.
Lost his business, reputation, because he suggested that the Sandy Hook shooting was not what it looked like.
And that caused stress for the family members and they successfully sued and he lost everything.
Now It turns out that a whole bunch of people on the left, and apparently this is a big trend, are saying that the attempted assassination of Trump was not real, and it was staged by Trump.
And that somebody was a sharpshooter and shot his ear, and carefully made sure that they didn't do any worse than shooting his ear.
Now, I saw a guest on CNN last night say that that was just batshit crazy.
Which is a good sign.
Now, I don't know if that guest leaned left or right.
It was someone I hadn't seen before.
But he was somebody who was speaking with authority and said, no, that is crazy.
That's not something you should entertain.
Nobody sets up a deal where their ear gets shot from 150 feet away by a guy who got rejected from his shooting club in school because he wasn't good at shooting.
No, nobody goes to the 20-year-old.
And by the way, Well, let me just finish this point.
So, some say that all those people saying that it was a setup and it was staged would be causing some kind of trauma to people, and could they sue?
No, I'm not in favor of that.
I'm just saying that why did Alex Jones get sued for this if it doesn't apply here?
Why does the law only apply in some cases?
Is somebody above the law?
Because I was told, reliably, nobody's above the law.
Now, I don't think that the Sandy Hook thing should have been successful.
Because I think that Alex Jones was saying something he thought was true, and then it wasn't.
That's my take.
I think he thought it was true.
Because he doesn't seem to say a lot of things that you could tell he knows are not true.
If you watch, you know, MSNBC, it does seem like they're saying things that maybe they don't think is true.
But I don't get that from Alex Jones.
I think he may be wrong sometimes, but he sure looks like he believes it.
Should you be sued for being aggressively wrong in your opinion?
I don't think that's right.
I don't think it's right, even if it upsets somebody terribly.
So I would say that neither cases should be subject for lawsuits, but you have to wonder why one is and one isn't.
I would like to also point out the following.
If you believed, as the left does, that this might have been a staged thing, that's as crazy as believing that the Democrats were somehow behind the shooter.
And let me tell you, if you hadn't thought of this, let me tell you why it's obvious.
So if you believe that, let's say, the deep state or somebody was working with this 20-year-old, nobody picks a 20-year-old to do something like that.
Do you know why?
You can't trust a 20-year-old to do anything.
If you were going to work out some kind of clever assassination plot, you'd go for late twenties, early thirties, maybe older, because you'd have somebody who would actually know what they're doing.
And then you'd say, well, not only could you get away with this because you know what you're doing, but, um, you know, we think we can shut you up afterwards and all the, all the trail will be covered.
Nobody gets a 20-year-old who is bullied and says, why don't you become part of my clever plan?
He wouldn't be part of Trump's clever plan to shoot his own ear.
Ridiculous.
And he wouldn't be part of the CIA's plan because they're never going to use an asset that will be that undependable.
A 20-year-old who was bullied with mental problems Not a chance.
Not a chance.
Now, the more likely and obvious explanation is he just got radicalized by the media, which would include TikTok reels and wherever else he was watching.
We don't know what he watched.
And, um, one reason that you could imagine if the FBI is lying about their access to his phone and his social media, you could imagine Somebody in the FBI in leadership.
You can imagine it.
I'm not saying it happened.
You can imagine that if that person was radicalized by specific people in the media, that the FBI might say, this is where we're not going to give you any transparency.
Now, I'm not going to name a name as an example, but, you know, fill in the name with your own example.
Suppose they found on the phone that he was an obsessive listener to a specific kind of content with a specific host.
I don't want the FBI to tell me that.
Do you know why?
Because that would paint a target on that host's back.
And as despicable as I think many people in the media have been, you don't want to paint a target on somebody's back.
I don't want to see anybody get hurt, even if they did terrible, terrible things.
I need the legal system to do what it does and I need to stay out of it and the citizens need to stay out of it.
Anyway.
Rasmussen did a poll on hand-counted ballots and says that a lot of people believe the paper ballots are more trustworthy.
And here's the interesting part.
A majority of people they surveyed, a majority, said they'd volunteer to count ballots.
And you know what was the first thing I thought?
I'd do that.
I would volunteer.
Do you know what would really bring the country together?
You want some unity?
Stand shoulder to shoulder with me and help me count ballots.
And disagree with me about everything, but help me count ballots.
If I can count ballots with you, we're going to find unity.
It's the same reason that I recommend that you don't try to get out of jury duty.
There are some times you might need to get out of it, but you should make it a goal, like visiting Mecca.
Right?
It's practically a religious experience.
Other people say the same thing.
When you see the seriousness of your fellow citizens to get it right, to get it right, it changes you.
You come away from that thinking, wow, we do have this one thing that protects us.
The one thing is if you put 12 citizens in a room who have been vetted to be on the jury, They're going to try hard to get it right.
And I saw it with my own eyes.
Now, I think in the extreme political situations, it still breaks, you know, the Trump situation.
But for everything else, they might be right on their verdicts and they might be wrong, but boy, do they try to get it right.
They really try to get it right.
And if you haven't experienced somebody trying really hard to get it right for other citizens, they're trying to get it right for the victims.
But they're also trying to get it right for the accused, because the accused isn't always guilty.
So, you have to have that experience, and a lot of people won't.
Now, the nearest thing that I could think of that would connect you to the, you know, the process that is what makes America, America would be counting ballots.
I want to stand with you shoulder to shoulder and count ballots at the same time you did.
One.
One.
Two.
two, etc. That's how you get unity. Unity is from working together, even on something trivial like counting ballots. Do you know why people who have been in the military together become best friends for life, even if one's a Democrat, one's a Republican?
Wouldn't make any difference.
Because the experience.
Unity comes from shared activity.
And that shared activity, if it's around the country's core beliefs, is going to be your strongest unity.
So, 38% of likely voters think hand-marked ballots are more trustworthy than the touchscreens.
16% say they're less trustworthy.
Look at that.
You couldn't even get 25% of the country to say that they're less trustworthy.
And I always joke that 25% get everything wrong.
Couldn't even get 25%.
And, uh, about 41% think it's about equal.
That's not bad.
You know, I think they're wrong, but it's not crazy to think, well, maybe they're about the same.
All right, here's something that Naval Ravikant advises us, and let me tell you something about Naval.
If it's the first time you've heard his name, you have no exposure, I'm going to tell you what other people already know.
When he says something, you should stop what you're doing and listen to it, because it's going to be different from what you've heard, and it's going to be almost always the better take.
Probably Could be the smartest person I know.
And he has just three sentences.
These are the three takeaways.
If you get these three things right, then all the other things that look like they're going to take you down, you will be protected against.
Here's Naval's three things.
Resist censorship.
Resist lawfare.
Resist disarmament.
Everything else is downstream.
Resist censorship.
Resist lawfare.
Resist disarmament.
Everything else is downstream.
That's all you needed to know.
That's the fight.
There are three vectors of the fight.
Stay armed.
Resist lawfare.
Make sure you keep your free speech.
If you have those three things, The public has some power.
If you lose those three, or any of them, then fascism is guaranteed.
Well, I'd like to end with some science.
There's a new way to screen for drunk drivers using AI when you're in the car.
So now the AI in your car, potentially, it's not there yet, We'll be able to scan you and it will look for signs of intoxication and it says it can find that you're drunk with 75% accuracy.
I'd love to see that used on Kamala Harris.
Do you think you could create an AI that would just look at somebody's mannerisms, compare it to their baseline, and tell you if they're drunk?
Yeah, of course you could.
Do you think you could do that on Kamala Harris, if you looked at some speeches where she clearly wasn't, and then you looked at some where she's going crazy about school buses and Venn diagrams and laughing like a hyena?
Yeah, you could.
I believe the AI could determine that she's drunk.
I think so.
But this gets me halfway to what I really need.
What I want is AI that can tell me if I accidentally got decaf.
You know that the other day I accidentally had decaf.
I didn't look at the little coffee pod closely enough.
And I thought that I was dying from long COVID.
And it wasn't until I realized, oh my god, I'd accidentally poisoned myself with decaf.
And then I corrected it and I was on the mend.
Well, I need AI to tell me that.
And do you think you could tell if I've got my caffeine?
Well, this is me with caffeine.
Would you like to see my impression of me without caffeine?
All right, I'll read the same story without caffeine.
So there's some kind of a story about, what is this about?
Driving, about the driving and the scanning in the cars with the, what are they using?
Some kind of an AI, Robert Mitchum.
Again, I'm stealing Dana Carvey's joke where he makes fun of Joe Biden by throwing in Robert Mitchum into his Babble Talk.
So please tell me if I've had decaf.
There was a meta-analysis of 180 studies that seemed to confirm that women experience the thing called imposter syndrome more frequently than men.
Wow.
A meta-analysis of 180 studies.
How about that?
So, I did a meta-analysis on meta-analyses.
And if you do a meta-analysis on meta-analyses, you will determine that meta-analyses are not science.
They're not logical, and they're not credible.
They're complete bullshit that they sold to you as science.
They're basically the credibility of astrology.
Because, with meta-analysis, you get to pick which things are in your study and which are not.
And you usually say things like, oh, this one's a bad study, I'll throw it away.
And then maybe one of your studies is much bigger than the others.
You just throw it in, and you don't know that it completely, that one study basically moved the statistical treatment completely.
And if that one was bad, they're all bad, because it overwhelmed the small ones, because they took an average.
Meta-analysis is not real.
Every time you see meta-analysis in a story, it means they didn't use science.
It doesn't mean they use extra science.
It doesn't mean it's deluxe science.
Because meta-analysis sounds like, wow, it's not just science.
It's layers of science.
I mean, I started with some science, the one study, but then I added some science, and then I added some science on top of that, and I added some more science, and then you won't even believe this.
But I wrapped it in a ball of science called meta-analysis, and now I have more science than anybody ever had science.
Believe me!
Believe me, people!
Science!
No, meta-analysis is not real.
It's something they do, but you shouldn't believe it.
There's a drug that might reverse diabetes.
Let me read it to you like I didn't have caffeine.
Something about mice.
I don't know.
Something about mice.
But it's kind of cool to think that there are scientists who could make the diabetes in mice go away.
As you probably know, if you watch my show a lot, the odds of going from a mouse study to, hey, this works in people too, is actually really low.
I think the mice are good at telling you if you die.
They're not good at telling you a drug works.
They're pretty good at telling you if it's toxic.
You know, not completely good at it.
But don't confuse the mouse studies with reality.
Don't confuse meta-analysis with science.
And whatever you do, don't believe that prediction models about climate change are science.
Because it's not.
It's adjacent to science.
Very much not science.
All right, that's what I got for you today.
I'm going to go talk to... I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
Thanks for joining.
You're the best.
See you tomorrow.
Export Selection