Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 21, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:14:18

Episode 2542 CWSA 07/21/24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So good.
	So, so good.
	a tanker gel, so stine a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that don't mean to the day the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.
	So good. So, so good. Well, the news is weird and not the most interesting thing in the world, but the important part is that there's nothing else good on television.
	There are no other podcasters doing anything right now.
	I'm really the best you got, if you want to talk about this sort of stuff.
	So, let's have a great time, shall we?
	First, Israel has attacked Yemen, because Yemen attacked Israel first with a drone attack that killed one and injured a bunch.
	And so Israel had been warning that if any of their many attacks, I guess Yemen has attacked Israel a bunch of times with missile type things, but Israel has successfully shot them down until this last one got through.
	And so Israel responded with a long range, um, air attack, which, uh, took out the, well, it was attack on the port of, uh, who, who did I, who did I, who data, who data?
	You know, when you want to know the proper pronunciation of things around the world, you probably shouldn't watch this.
	I'm usually just guessing.
	Okay, it's called the Port of Hodeidah.
	Anyway, so the Port of Hodeidah got massively attacked, a giant fireball.
	Will that stop Yemen?
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	Won't even slow them down.
	Yemen, of course, is supported by Iran.
	Iran says, we don't know what you're talking about.
	We're not giving any weapons to Yemen.
	Yet all those Iranian weapons keep showing up.
	Hmm.
	So, but the important thing is that Yemen is changing their name to Ye-woman.
	Ye-woman.
	Because Yemen is kind of sexist, really, if you think about it.
	So it'll be, yeah, yeah, woman in the future.
	Do you know that story that every one of you heard that Elon Musk donated $45 million a month to President Trump's, to a pack for President Trump?
	You remember that story?
	It's not true.
	Can you believe that?
	That story's not true.
	That's been like one of the most basic stories you've seen in the news the last several days.
	Elon Musk is going to do $45 million a month, a month, in a super PAC for Trump.
	Nope.
	Not true.
	How do I know?
	Because Musk said it's not true.
	Here's what is true.
	He does have a fund, but it's not specifically for Trump.
	It's for candidates who are basically putting merit above DEI.
	So what he does have Is an anti-DEI fund, meaning that he will be supporting people who are in favor of merit as opposed to, you know, identity, I guess.
	And he says it isn't funded at anywhere near that level of $45 million.
	So that whole story was just bullshit.
	Does that just blow your mind a little bit?
	That the things you think are like, well, okay, I know that for sure.
	But it took up a long time to debunk it, didn't it?
	You would think that would be the same day that Musk would have said, no, no, I didn't do that.
	I mean, it was such a big story.
	You'd think it would be 10 minutes later that there would be community note and he would debunk it.
	Anyway, so don't believe anything.
	So here's a theme which I've been thinking about a lot.
	Which is that a lot can happen between one presidential race and another.
	And especially in the Trump era, because it's a three race situation.
	It's his third time he's been in it.
	And to a large extent, it's, you know, the usual suspects, you know, lining up on one side.
	But there are a lot of new ones, a lot of new people in the Trump camp.
	And one of the things I started noticing as a pattern Is there something happening on the right that I don't think is happening on the left?
	And I don't know exactly why, but here's the pattern, and you tell me if this seems like a real pattern.
	Tell me if you think I'm just imagining this.
	It seems to me that the people who maybe you could loosely say are pro-Trump, or at least not anti-Trump, which ends up being pretty close to the same thing, don't just talk about the news.
	So both the left and the right have plenty of people who are pundits who just talk about the news.
	Both the left and the right have plenty of people who are politicians that take their various sides and talk like politicians.
	Both sides have, you know, biased people on TV who you know what they're going to say before they say it, so there's no point of having them because you know it's just going to be talking points kind of thing.
	But there's something happening on the right that seems new and different.
	Which is a bunch of figures that I would consider teachers.
	So they're teaching you how to understand what you're saying.
	And that's different.
	That's different from just saying, oh, I watched Trump's rally, and I think he was acting like a dictator.
	And then somebody else will say, I watched that same rally, and I interpret it as being exactly the opposite of what you just said.
	Now, that's not any good for anybody.
	Right?
	Like, what did you learn from that?
	Just two people lying and nothing.
	But I'm going to go through some examples so you see what I mean.
	For example, let's take Glenn Greenwald.
	Thanks to him, I have a whole new and better understanding of the connection between the CIA and our intelligence people and the media.
	And so now I can identify, thanks to Greenwald, When there's an obvious Intel-related news event, you can look at the person.
	You could go, oh, it's that network.
	Oh, and it's that specific person who's been identified as, you know, an obvious Intel-connected person.
	And then Greenwald will also tell you, oh, this person pushed this thing that wasn't true and this thing that wasn't true.
	And suddenly, the news looks different.
	Right?
	I'm not just taking sides.
	I've learned The gears of the machine, but just in that one domain, right?
	The connection between Intel and and the media, but that's a big thing.
	I mean, it's a really big thing.
	If you don't understand that connection, we'll give you another one.
	Michael Schellenberger.
	Thanks to him.
	And you know, not him exclusively, but Mark Schneider earlier.
	Uh, but Schellenberger is probably the biggest voice that convinced us that we weren't seeing nuclear energy correctly.
	That if you looked at it more rationally, you'd see that there, there are plenty of ways to handle the waste.
	The modern device, the modern, um, plants have never had a meltdown.
	You know, the, the current technology has never had a meltdown.
	It's the old technology that's had meltdowns.
	So there's a whole bunch of stuff we learned about the whole energy and even, in a sense, comparing it to climate change and what you can do, that I don't think the left learned.
	I didn't see a ton of people educating the left, okay, maybe you don't understand nuclear energy well enough, let's explain what is really dangerous, what is really safe, compare it in a rational way.
	So Schellenberger is like a teacher.
	Right?
	He's a journalist, so he's breaking stories as well, but he treats it more like he's teaching you.
	And that's where I learned a lot of what I know on that topic.
	Likewise, Shellenberger taught us about, and Matt Taibbi, about the social media connection to the government.
	Now, if you didn't know about that, how deep that connection was, you would be really flying blind in understanding the world you live in.
	That's an important part of the machine, to know that the social media entities have been, until X we hope, have been so, let's say, cooperative with the government that it was effectively a The restriction of your First Amendment, you know, indirectly.
	So, what about Mike Benz?
	If you're not following Mike Benz, you're crazy.
	He's done the best job of explaining what he calls the blob.
	That's not his own word for it, but the blob being the big military, industrial, state department, intelligence people, politics, and how it's always, you know, worked as sort of a coordinated A blob of power.
	Now, if you didn't know about that blob and how long that's been powerful and what they do and what they can do, what they can not do, you really wouldn't understand your world too well.
	You wouldn't at all.
	And Benz does an amazing job of explaining that on a regular basis.
	Again, he's not breaking news, although often, you know, he puts together observations that you haven't seen before.
	But he's simply explaining how the machine works.
	Hey, everybody, here's the machine.
	Here's this moving part, and then this is connected to that moving part.
	Who's doing that on the left?
	You start to see the pattern?
	No, and there's more.
	Let's take the all-in pod.
	So, with Sachs and Chamath, Bhattapati, I hope I'm saying that close to right, David Sachs, and the other guys.
	But those two in particular.
	Um, Sachs and Chamath, they don't just talk about the news, they help you understand it.
	So when they're telling you about the news, they're also explaining the context and why that matters and what it's connected to.
	That's very different.
	You know, you don't see them doing just the biased political stuff.
	You see them actually grappling with actual observations of real things, and how it all connects to other things.
	Very important.
	Cernovich, of course, can't be compared to anything.
	But how many things does Cernovich explain to you, like a teacher?
	Not just somebody breaking a news story, but a teacher.
	How this is connected to something else.
	All the time, it's every day.
	How about Elon Musk himself?
	How often has Elon Musk explained something to you that you needed explained?
	Happens all the time.
	He doesn't just give you his opinion.
	He doesn't just take the side Biden bad, Trump good, or anything like that.
	He just tells you how things are connected.
	You know, what works with what.
	And, of course, Vivek is basically like a teaching machine.
	Vivek has all the connections.
	Well, what about this?
	It's connected to this.
	You should expect this.
	Vivek goes even further.
	He tells you that the machine predicts the following outcome, and that you can play along.
	You can watch how the machine operates.
	You can see his prediction, and then you can see if he called it right.
	This is a whole different level of what I think is happening on the left, although I might be blind to it.
	So it could be that I'm just not seeing it.
	But I asked the other day, you know, who else is doing this kind of thing?
	And I didn't see suggestions that I accepted as being in the same category.
	Let's take relationships and just the category of success.
	Jordan Peterson.
	Now, I don't know the degree to which he has as many followers on the left, but if you're on the right, you're always seeing Jordan Peterson, if you're on social media, and you're seeing him explain what makes sense from a human being in a civilization sense, almost again like a machine.
	Like, okay, a human has this, these drives and these motivations, and there's, you know, this chemical signature under this situation, very much like describing the gears of the machine.
	And if you do this, it will cause your dopamine to do this.
	And if your dopamine does this, you're going to do that.
	You know, I'm simplifying, of course.
	But, but to actually see the gears of the machine, it's everywhere on the right.
	Wouldn't you agree?
	Now some of that turns into conspiracy theory, but I'm going to put the most positive spin on conspiracy theory.
	Watch this.
	This will require a premature SIP.
	You know how play is good for kids?
	Apparently if you're a kid, And you never get to go outside and play or play with your friends.
	You're just not going to develop, right?
	So you need to play.
	That's important.
	And you need to brainstorm.
	You know, you need to see different things.
	I think all the conspiracy theory is sort of people working through the machine.
	In other words, people who have the conspiracy theory are trying to apply it To what they've learned about the machine.
	You know, how the government really works, how the intelligence people really work, how the military-industrial complex really works, how the press is really bullshit.
	And they take all those things they know about the machine and then they take each news story, such as the attempted assassination of Trump, and you put it in the machine.
	And it's a way to test the machine.
	But some of it I think is closer to play than it is to knowledge.
	And that as much as you wish there were not weird conspiracy theories that turn out to be false and maybe mislead you, we all wish we were less misled by conspiracy theories.
	But I'm not sure that they're without value.
	I feel like, I feel like a healthy society would understand how everything is connected And then when a new thing comes up, they would apply that knowledge and say, you know what?
	This certainly opens the possibility of a second shooter or something.
	Cause we've seen that before.
	So I think even, even the conspiracy theories are people running through the right process, maybe not always getting the right answer, but running through the right process of knowing what's connected to what else.
	And no, I, I, of course, um, Spend most of my time trying to do exactly this.
	I'm doing it right now.
	So what I'm doing right now, for example, is explaining.
	I'm telling you that there's something about the right that is functionally different, like two different cars are different, right?
	So there's something that made the people on the right way, way smarter.
	And far more likely not to be fooled by fake news.
	In my opinion, the people on the right have learned a set of skills, and I would like to think that I'm part of that, in the sense of teaching you how to identify fake news.
	And I put my own filters on stuff, so I say, when it's appropriate, I say, well, I've reminded you too many times that I have a degree in economics, so here's what an economist would say looking at this situation.
	Here's what a business person would say looking at this situation.
	And I think all of those filters give you tools.
	It allows you to say, all right, what would an economist say in this situation?
	What does follow the money tell us in this situation?
	So, and you saw, I think, during the pandemic, maybe that's when things got solidified, but during the pandemic, would you agree that the people on the right may have ended up with pretty good, pretty good analysis of the machine?
	Because the people on the right didn't trust the machine.
	They said, wait a minute, money involved.
	These are the people we don't trust from other reasons.
	You know, too little time has gone by for the time it would take you to develop something that satisfied you.
	So, what would be the logical outcome of that?
	So, if you were to say, all right, Scott, let's take your proposition there and let's say, if it were true, how would that turn out?
	Well, if it were true that the political right had turned into a teaching machine, a teaching machine, and the political left had turned into an identity machine with mostly just accusations. You're a white supremacist. I'm black. I'm a woman. I am an LGBTQ. You're a bad person, right?
	So we'll talk about, you know, their prediction.
	But if you were to predict what would happen if one side just started teaching and just getting smarter?
	Well, one thing you should assume is that it would start attracting other smart people.
	Because the smart people are going to say, why is this group Sometimes wrong, you know, definitely sometimes has a lot of conspiracy theories, but why are they at least thinking through it the right way?
	Like what, why is this different over this side?
	There's something that's, that's rationally based.
	And I would also say that a big change, and this is probably Trump as much as anything, when I was young, I never would have been associated with the political right.
	And the primary reason was that I saw that their main driver was religion, and that religion was informing their policies to a degree that I wasn't comfortable with, because I didn't share the religious beliefs.
	But I think that the right has changed now, so that they accept the religious belief is sort of their business.
	In the rarest case, just really it's just, I'd say at this point, abortion, it comes through and it's, you know, it's a big decider in that case.
	But generally speaking, I would say the political right is trying to lead with what makes sense.
	And then also, can I enjoy my religion, please?
	Does it feel like that?
	Because there's no longer this moral majority, you know, you've all got to go to church, hey, everybody go back to church.
	It felt a little preachy to me in the past.
	And now it just feels like freedom.
	Oh, oh, you want to vote for a qualified government?
	I do too.
	All right, so we're on the same page.
	Oh, you would like to privately enjoy your religion in all the ways that are good because you've shown that the religion works.
	Excellent.
	Please go do that.
	And do it a lot.
	I want you to be just as religious as you want to be.
	I love it.
	As long as it's not informing all of my political opinions and you can only pick a president who's got your same religion and agrees with all that stuff.
	No.
	So I think if you look at the right, the rights, let's say the way they treat their own religious faith, is now very compatible with any smart person whether they agree with your religious faith or not.
	Because it's freedom.
	It's just freedom.
	Of course I want you to be free to practice your religion if it agrees with me or not, as long as it's legal.
	Now, take for example The other side.
	Now, the other side, oh, well, to finish the thought, what you would expect is that the smart people would start streaming over to the right.
	People who don't identify with the religious part, but no longer see it as a big obstacle.
	It's simply part of freedom.
	And I think the all-in pod would be an example of that.
	I don't think I've seen any of them ever mention religion.
	It's just not necessary.
	Because you can be fully embraced in a pro-Trump way with any religion.
	It doesn't matter.
	Elon Musk doesn't seem to have a religion that matters, but he can be in favor of good policies and strong immigration.
	No problem with that.
	So I think what's happened is you're seeing the migration of the smartest people moving right because identity is just fucking stupid.
	Let me say it again.
	Emphasizing identity is fucking stupid, and every smart person knows it.
	If I can be honest, every smart person knows that focusing on identity is fucking stupid.
	And in the long run, what's it going to get you?
	If you were to draw that up on paper and say, all right, let's see, I think we Democrats, we need to focus more On identity, and intersectionality, and race, and gender, and sexual preference.
	That's really going to be our focus.
	If somebody told you that, before it ever happened, what would you predict would be the fate of their party, the Democrat Party?
	If you just saw it written down on a PowerPoint slide, we're going to change our focus to DEI, and CRT, and the SG.
	Well, I think you would predict, because you'd see the gears of the machine, you'd say, wait a minute, if you're focusing on your identity, doesn't this guarantee that sometime, not that far in the future, that the Democrat Party will atomize into these different tribes that hate each other?
	Because won't the black people who are looking for their identity benefits maybe come in conflict with the white women who want theirs and the LGBTQ?
	And here we are.
	So the right says, what's the best frame where everybody's better off?
	And the answer is nation.
	Nation is, and always was, the correct frame for bringing us together and making us a successful country.
	And the melting pot, in my opinion, was the strongest thing America's ever done, as a concept.
	Strongest thing.
	Is to say everybody's American.
	And that's your primary overarching philosophy.
	Everybody's American.
	Let's start there.
	Now, what would you expect would be the fate of that party?
	Just what you see.
	You would expect that the right, Would turn into a highly capable machine, because people of all types would say, wait a minute, I don't have to be black or white or anything.
	I could be over there.
	And why is Elon Musk seemingly friendly to that side?
	He's so smart.
	Wait, what are these all in pod guys doing?
	They all made so much money because they're so smart.
	Why are they over there?
	Right?
	So you're seeing this big magnet that's just sucking the smart Non-crazy people in one direction.
	And meanwhile, the poor Democrats, can you believe that they can't even figure out a presidential candidate right before the election?
	Have you ever seen anything in your whole life as incapable as the Democrats right now?
	And why is that?
	It's because of their identity issue.
	It's exactly what you would have known.
	Every one of you would have anticipated this, right?
	If I'd given you the test 10 years ago, all right, one group's going to focus on America.
	One group is going to focus on identity.
	You would have known exactly where this would turn out.
	There would be no mystery here at all.
	You'd say, oh, the identity people would start fighting with each other.
	Why?
	Because of their identity.
	So sure enough, Black Democrats seem to be wanting to keep Biden for whatever reason.
	I don't know if the reasons are good or bad, but they get to have their own reasons, and they want to keep him.
	Meanwhile, there are a bunch of other people, maybe other identities, who say, you know, maybe time to get rid of him.
	But they use their identity to put Kamala Harris in place, and it turns out nobody thinks she's really capable, at least capable enough.
	To win.
	And now they can't replace her, because they focused on identity, and they can't win with her.
	And they can't make any decision because they just have two losing paths.
	And what do the Republicans have?
	The Republicans ran a primary.
	They used a process which guaranteed that when we got to this date, Everything would be unified as much as possible and that the Republicans would be just chugging along like this magnificent well-oiled machine with, by the way, I don't know how many times I'm going to say it because I like saying it, Trump has really good advisors.
	We're going to talk about that in some more detail.
	He has really good advisors and it's not an accident.
	It's because the smart people have all been drawn to the same side.
	Because the smart people are running away from this identity argument.
	They're running hard.
	So, we're right where we expect to be.
	All right, let's give you some examples.
	You know that if you learned how the hoax machine works, and I've been teaching you that, how many of you knew that there would be a summer hoax?
	All right, you tell me.
	Let's see how educated you are on how the world works.
	How many of you knew months before it happened that there would be a big new summer hoax, which turns out to be the Project 2025 thing?
	You all knew, right?
	Every one of you knew, oh, there's going to be a brand new summer hoax, and the media will play it up, and they'll act like it's real, and it will be obviously not real.
	And sure enough, So here's Hakeem Jeffries saying, let's be clear, he says this in a post on X, let's be clear, Donald Trump is lying about Project 2025.
	So Trump gives his big rally, we'll talk about in some more detail, but one of the things he said was, you know, they keep saying I'm in favor of this Project 2025 thing.
	No, those are extremists, you know, some of them are I know and they're fine and you know But the stuff in there is extreme and I see it like there's extremists on the left There's extremists on the right and the 2025 stuff is you know A lot of it is extremists on the right and I reject it.
	You know, you can see my plan.
	It's published He's got his own plan of what he wants to do now Hakeem Jeffries Tells you he's lying about his own platform.
	Let me ask you this.
	Has that ever happened?
	Has anybody ever lied about their own platform?
	Certainly, you know, politicians lie and they might lie about individual things.
	But has anybody ever run for office with a whole different agenda than the one that they said they have?
	I mean, usually you can tell what they want before you elect them.
	But apparently, the left, with their big summer hoax, wants you to believe that Trump is running for president, and that all of the Republicans around him that would have to agree sort of on the, you know, what the platform is, that they're all in on this major hoax, where they really want to do this Project 2025 thing, or they think Trump wants to do it, and that the real thing that the Republicans are going to do is ignore their own platform.
	You would have to know nothing about Republicans to think that's the case.
	Now, you might say, you know, the team that does hoaxes one after another, the Democrats, the hoaxers might tell you they're going to do one thing and then do something else.
	Because I don't think that Biden ever said he was going to open up the border, right?
	I don't think he said, I'll just let everybody come in.
	So you can certainly see on, you know, individual things that they might not do what they said they were going to do.
	When have Republicans done that?
	Is that a Republican thing?
	Because remember, it wouldn't be just Trump.
	It would have to be a whole constellation of Republicans had somehow gotten together, and there'd been no leaks, no whistleblowers, no anonymous sources, and they'd all colluded to pretend that they had one set of policies.
	But really, Hakeem Jeffries knows that they have a secret set of policies That they don't.
	So you can all see all of the gears of that machine, right?
	Probably every one of you right now this morning says, yeah, we knew the hoax was coming.
	We knew how it's developed.
	We know, you know, that it's not Trump's thing.
	We know he's got his own thing.
	We know the media is coordinated as a Democrat machine, essentially.
	So they're going to say over and over that it's true and it's not so.
	Now suppose you're a Democrat and you haven't been trained in this way to see all the gears of the machine.
	You turn on the TV and the news says, Hakeem Jeffries says Trump is lying and he's going to do all these Project 2025 things.
	What would you do?
	If you had no background in training in what's really the way things work, you'd say, man, what's in that thing?
	And then they'd give you some scary things that are in that.
	And you say, oh my God, that sounds pretty dangerous.
	Yeah, it matters if you know how things work.
	Here's another thing I was thinking about.
	Mike Benz once said there are three or four major power sources.
	So a president is going to do well if those power sources support the president.
	For example, the energy industry.
	Uh, is one of the big power sources in the country.
	Now, Trump, presumably, would be loved by the energy business because he would promote more drilling, drill baby drill, and fewer regulations.
	So, one assumes that the energy industry would have a major preference for Trump over Biden.
	Fair enough?
	You'd all buy that, right?
	How about finance?
	Finance I'm not sure has ever, well, I don't know.
	I don't know the history.
	But if you say that Jamie Dimon is the, sort of the big name in finance, and he recently didn't say he was pro-Trump, but he did say on television, when the cameras were running, well, Trump has been right about a number of things.
	He said, you know, let's be realistic.
	You know, if we're just being objective, Trump got a bunch of things right.
	Now, that's not a strong endorsement, but it was kind of brave that he would say anything pro-Trump, even with caveats.
	So, I feel like finance might be leaning toward Trump a little bit, and the Republicans just for fiscal, a little bit of fiscal control.
	Now, I'm not going to argue that the Republicans have better fiscal control.
	I think they have an intention of better fiscal control.
	Actual performance, not impressive.
	But just in terms of which groups are going to support which candidates, I don't think Biden has a big advantage in the finance group.
	Then look at tech and other power sources, all the tech people, high tech.
	It looks like Trump's He either owns that or he's taken a big bite out of it.
	I mean, now we're seeing big venture capitalists and, you know, Musk, of course.
	And far more people than you would have expected.
	And now J.D.
	Vance is popular, apparently, in the tech world.
	And then the military-industrial complex.
	This would be the hardest one for Trump because he's anti-war.
	And the military-industrial complex makes money when there's war.
	But Trump does have a play.
	If his play is, I'm going to be Reagan, and I'm going to build up our military, that's expensive.
	So you could imagine them saying, oh, we do like the wars, because we make a lot of money with the wars, but we also like the rebuilding.
	Maybe even better, because we have to, you know, Build up our stockpiles of all kinds of shells and weapons and planes and replace our old stuff.
	So of these four big sources, the energy, group finance, high-tech, and military-industrial complex, Trump either already has the dominant position or he has a good enough argument.
	I've never seen that before.
	Now again, Who on the Democrat side is explaining to their people that there are kind of four power sources in the country?
	If you don't understand how each of them likes the candidates, you're going to be surprised at their outcome.
	Right?
	Now this is, you know, Mike Benz is the godfather of this stuff.
	Now, doesn't that make you feel smarter?
	You're actually learning how the machine works.
	All right, so Trump gave his first big rally since the assassination attempt.
	My observation is, how hard is it to go back in public after somebody shot at you?
	Just ask yourself how easily you could do that.
	I don't know how easy it was for Trump.
	It couldn't have been super easy, but he sure made it look easy.
	You made it look easy.
	And as others who are smarter talk about bravery, bravery isn't about how you feel about it.
	You know that, right?
	Bravery is not about how afraid you are.
	Bravery is doing it anyway.
	So the only part you can measure is, did he do it anyway?
	Yes, he did.
	So we don't have to wonder about what was in his internal dialogue in his mind.
	He did it.
	He did it.
	That's the end of the story.
	It took bravery.
	He did it.
	So that was good.
	It didn't take long.
	He was back in the saddle.
	One hopes he had better Secret Service protection by then.
	But he seemed very relaxed, very happy, seemed to be on a just complete high.
	And I believe he's already modified his approach into what I'm going to call presidential.
	There's a whole different mode when you're in pure campaign mode.
	But at the moment, he doesn't even know who he's running against.
	Think about that.
	He doesn't know who he's running against.
	Not really.
	So, given that people are assuming he's going to win under our current set of situations, he's running like he already won.
	He's running like he's already in the position, and then he can soften his rhetoric.
	For example, apparently he removed them from this speech.
	He didn't say anything about January 6.
	He liked to say the election was rigged, blah, blah, blah, the January Sixers are in jail for no reason, blah, blah, blah.
	But he's not going to get those January Sixers out unless he gets elected.
	So he moves into presidential mode.
	Uh, vastly increases the odds that he'll get elected, and then he can take care of any January 6th people who maybe were, you know, in need of a presidential pardon.
	So, being quiet about it for a few months might be the best play for the January 6ers, but it also is just less trouble, because he, you know, he knows that if he starts questioning the 2020 election, it's going to look like a backwards-looking approach.
	Nobody likes that, right?
	Even if you like Trump, I don't want him looking backwards at 2020.
	Do you?
	So the closest he's getting to the election rigging claims is to say that the only way he could lose is if Democrats cheat.
	I guess Don Jr.
	is saying similar stuff.
	That is a very much improved approach for exactly where he is in the campaign.
	Where he is in the campaign is don't give them any reason to have a weapon.
	So right now he doesn't need a new weapon.
	He needs to make sure he's not a target, that there's an opening, that they can make something that hasn't happened yet happen.
	So it totally makes sense.
	And again, I'm going to give you my millionth compliment to his consulting team.
	This is the sort of change that I'm pretty sure comes from advisors.
	That he trusts.
	Obviously, the boss always has to get the credit, because the boss picks the advisors.
	The boss decides which advice to take.
	So it's always the boss.
	But you can't choose good advice unless you've got great advisors.
	He's got great advisors.
	I don't know who it is.
	I would love to find out after the race who are the main advisors, because they're killing it.
	They're just doing such a good job for him.
	I assume it's a team of people, but they're just doing great.
	So, yes, that was exactly what he should be doing, is avoiding the January 6th thing.
	It's just red meat.
	You don't need it.
	Get the power and then do what you need to do.
	And here's the part I like the best.
	So, you know, the Democrats are trying to go with this vague, he's going to steal your democracy.
	Trump joked about it.
	There we go.
	That is exactly right.
	He should joke about it.
	And here's what he said.
	I'll paraphrase.
	He said, the Democrats are saying I'm trying to steal your democracy.
	He goes, how am I stealing your democracy?
	And then there's this little pause for perfect timing, and then he says, last week I took a bullet for democracy.
	Crowd goes wild.
	Now, how much do I love that?
	Beyond words.
	That's so good.
	Now, is it logical to say that he took a bullet for democracy?
	No, not really.
	It's not really a logical connection.
	I mean, there was an assassin, we don't know all the details, blah blah.
	It wasn't exactly he took a bullet for democracy.
	But were you willing to argue that point?
	No.
	It feels like it's right.
	It's the damnedest thing.
	It's sort of a Trump-only communication.
	It sounds like it's true and right and exactly the right thing to say.
	I took a bullet for democracy.
	It's not exactly sensible.
	But why does it feel so sensible?
	Can't you feel it?
	And it was a joke, but it also was a clarifier, it was a reframe, and then he just sort of laughs and says, steal your democracy.
	It's crazy.
	Perfect.
	Perfect.
	Because I want them to give examples.
	How is he stealing your democracy?
	Well, he's trying to take the bodily autonomy rights away from women.
	Here's the response to that.
	You mean by taking the power away from himself, the federal government, and making sure it got moved closer to the individuals, that's stealing your democracy?
	Because it looks to me a lot more like increasing it.
	Right?
	If you're a republic, you know, the people in charge are making the decisions, and that might include the federal government.
	If you're closer to a democracy, the people are more in charge, and moving it to the states gets you closer to that.
	Now, that's not the best explanation, but the point is, they don't even have examples.
	Even their examples are examples where he's increased democracy, not decreased it.
	By any reasonable standard.
	So, I love the fact that he asks the question, how am I stealing democracy?
	I love the fact that he's treating it as silly, because that's presidential.
	It's presidential to say, you know what?
	It's kind of silly.
	Let's talk about something that matters.
	That's presidential.
	Campaign would be, you say this, well, I say you do this.
	I say you're stealing the democracy.
	That's campaigning.
	President is, what are they talking about?
	I took a bullet for democracy yesterday.
	Perfect.
	They could not have been better.
	This was just perfect.
	And like he said, when he talked about Project 2025, he mocked it.
	He just mocked it like it was, you know, what are you doing?
	What are you making stuff up for?
	Perfect.
	Exactly the right approach.
	Um, and then it even got better.
	Apparently he, uh, he started joking about his own comb over.
	So I guess there was some video everybody's looking at that included him.
	And he starts looking at his own haircut.
	He's like, oh, look at that comb-over.
	If you think that Trump is the scary dictator, and you see him making fun of his own comb-over in public, how do you hold those in your head at the same time?
	Thank you.
	Do you think there was ever a time when Hitler was giving a speech, and then he paused in the middle and was like, you know, and this would be my Hitler impression except in English, you know, as I'm looking at all these posters of me as I'm giving this speech, You really made me rethink this whole mustache.
	You know, honestly, it's kind of a weird mustache.
	Like, that never happened, right?
	Did you ever see Stalin?
	Stalin giving a speech?
	He's like, well, you know, I've got this big, beefy mustache.
	Looks kind of funny, doesn't it?
	No, no.
	So he doesn't have to say, he doesn't have to, you know, complete the line and say, Well, you know, nobody does self-referential humor if they're a dictator.
	It's just that you know it.
	You know that dictators act a certain way, and that's not how they act.
	And so by being, you know, opposite their stereotype of him, even if it's just joking, and even if it's just about his haircut, Every time he does something that seems opposite their stereotype, it works.
	Indirectly, subconsciously, in every way.
	He just has to be opposite of whatever a dictator looks like, in every way that you can do that.
	Making fun of his haircut is just one way.
	However, this was interesting.
	He did take a swipe at El Salvador, and President Bukele, Who many people are saying is doing a great job controlling MS-13 and crime is way down, etc.
	And even as he was doing that, I think yesterday Matt Gaetz was visiting and, you know, we have a very good relationship with El Salvador at the moment, it seems.
	But Trump took a swipe at him.
	He said that El Salvador is releasing their criminals into the U.S.
	and that's part of the reason that the crime rate in El Salvador is down.
	Now I did see somebody on the left say, there's no evidence of that.
	Because he used to say it about Venezuela, maybe he still does.
	And somebody said, but is there any evidence that they're actually literally opening the jails and letting them go?
	And I would say, that's a good question.
	That is a perfectly good question.
	I would like to know if Trump's claim is actually backed by data.
	Because I don't know.
	Do you?
	Is it... I don't know if it's provable or he just figures the suspicion is good enough.
	Well, I think it's compatible with his idea that too many criminals are coming in.
	And it helps his message.
	I think there's probably evidence, anecdotally, That at least some people came here because they were in trouble with the law in their home country.
	Would it be fair to say that we picked up some number of people, you know, not a gigantic number, but people who already were wanted in their own country?
	I mean, I've seen stories like that.
	So if we're picking up people who are wanted in their own country, That sounds a lot like they left the country because they were criminals and they thought it would be safer here.
	But you don't know.
	Every one of those stories is unique.
	They may have had different reasons to come.
	So I'd love to see if there's some backing to that.
	But it's also just interesting that you would He would slap an ally.
	But let me tell you, and so then Bukele commented on X, and his only comment was, taking the high ground.
	Taking the high ground.
	But basically he wasn't gonna, you know, directly mix it up on that.
	Totally the right answer.
	I'll tell you, Bukele, if I'm even saying that right, El Salvador's leader, you gotta say he's smart.
	I mean, whatever else you like or don't like about him, he's smart and he does smart things and he just does it one after another.
	So I think this might be a little bit of nagging.
	I think Trump Is going to first knock him down a few pegs, because remember, they're both leaders in this part of the world.
	I don't think Trump wants anybody to be a higher level leader.
	You know, anybody who gets more credit for being a leader.
	So I think he's going to first give him a little brush, brush back pitch.
	Later, assuming Trump is elected, I predict they will be best friends.
	Anybody want to make a bet?
	I bet if Trump gets elected, I can guarantee you there'll be a point where Bukele visits the White House, and you're going to see Trump slapping him on the back and saying, this guy's great.
	I love this guy.
	I wish we didn't have your criminals, but I love this guy.
	So I wouldn't worry about it.
	Trump just, you know, gives people a brushback pitch and then later embraces them.
	It's just part of his persuasion game.
	All right, let's talk about the question of one or two shooters.
	I saw Bill Ackman got involved in looking at some of the analyses.
	So there was an audio analysis that made it look like there was two shooters in addition to the one sniper.
	There's new news that suggests that two of the good guy snipers tried to take out the bad guy, which would mean that there were three different shooters.
	So two snipers that are on Trump's side, and then the one sniper who tried to kill him, and that would be three guns.
	So there doesn't seem to be evidence of a second shooter.
	Uh, but there does, there is evidence that there were three shooters.
	Just two of them were good guys.
	Apparently the police, um, and by the way, all of this could change, but apparently the police sniper, um, he missed.
	And apparently the, uh, the secret service sniper did a one in a million shot.
	Cause by the time the, the police sniper missed, I guess the guy, you know, Crooks was way down and just a little bit of his head was above the, uh, above the barrier.
	And it looks like, it looks like the, uh, secret service guy with one shot hit a target that was, you know, maybe four inches tall from a fairly sizable distance.
	So people are saying it was just an amazing shot by the one guy.
	I'm kind of surprised that the first shot didn't at least make the shooter stop, but it did make him shoot wildly.
	So, uh, one of them did their, their work.
	Now, the other thing we learned is that, um, the report is that the two different groups of police, one was local, one was nearby local in charge of the sniper that was in the building instead of on top of it.
	And then there was a secret service.
	Apparently, they did not have the same communication channels.
	Can you believe that?
	There were three entities, and there was not one communication channel that they were all on, so that they could be coordinating.
	Now, who speculated that that would be the case?
	Can you think of anybody who's been talking about this who said, you know, it could have been a communication problem, because they might have had different communication methods?
	Me?
	Yeah, I'm the only person who said that could be the answer.
	Do you know why nobody else said it?
	Because the rest of you have bought into the secret service is so capable There's no way that they're going to have separate communication channels.
	Like, even if they're working with the police, obviously, people, obviously, they're going to be on the same communication channel.
	I mean, you couldn't have three different police organizations working in an event and being on different communication channels.
	That wouldn't work, right?
	Well, looks like that might have been the case.
	Now, when I say different channels, it doesn't mean they couldn't all talk to each other.
	It might mean that they weren't just automatically on the right ones.
	In other words, you might have to dial a phone and get somebody to get somebody on the phone or something, but they didn't have a quick, common communication.
	All right.
	Now, how's the Dilbert filter looking?
	Remember I told you from day one, That, you know, certainly the conspiracy theory, multiple shooter thing is alive as a possibility.
	Not ruled out, but also alive is mass incompetence.
	And I know that some of you fought against it mentally.
	You fought against it because you thought nobody could be that incompetent.
	And I said, do you remember?
	I said, I don't think you understand how, how incompetent organizations can be.
	And I said, If there are two organizations, you're automatically going to have trouble.
	And if there are three, which there were, you're really in trouble.
	Now, somebody else said that it seemed very unlikely that somebody could carry out this assassination if it were a conspiracy theory.
	There'd be too many people involved and you'd find out.
	And why do you think they would be capable?
	Well, I'll use the Steve Jobs frame for that.
	Steve Jobs would say, if you want something done, you want the fewest number of experts, engineers usually.
	You don't want, you don't want a hundred engineers working on something.
	You want five, like five really, really good ones.
	Then you got something.
	So I would say that, you know, if it turns out there's that Crooks is part of a larger conspiracy, That the largest that conspiracy could be would be five people.
	Meaning that you could find, you know, four other people besides him who are super good at what they do and not going to talk to anybody.
	You know, they're actual assassins and had done it for years and were experienced and they had a getaway plan and they knew how to, they knew how to brainwash crooks and they knew how to take him out and maybe, maybe.
	But once you get beyond five really hand-picked, high-capable people, everything's incompetent.
	Everything's broken.
	So why would the Secret Service be the one thing that was unaffected by what's breaking everything else in the world?
	Everything else in the world is full of incompetence.
	And sure enough, the Secret Service was apparently Just full of incompetence.
	It was exactly what my first guess was.
	Huh, that looks like major incompetence.
	And so far it looks like that.
	So there's a rumor that Cheadle, the head of the Secret Service, might resign on Monday, but I'm not believing that yet.
	I do not believe she's necessarily going to resign.
	And I'm not entirely sure that the world is better off if she does.
	I think she has to resign eventually, but don't they sort of need her there to answer questions and to, you know, kind of explain fully with resources at her, at her disposal.
	So I don't think you want to do that too quickly, but I think it'll happen.
	Anyway, it was fun watching on X as the experts were analyzing it, and then other experts were debunking it, and we're trying to figure out what's what.
	So that was a lot of fun.
	And then there's the story of, had the Trump people been asking for more Secret Service protection, and was it denied?
	Well, Mayorkas, who appears to be the biggest liar in the world.
	So we have our mentally ill guy back in the comments.
	So there's some mentally ill guy who just writes the word fart a hundred times and he's spamming the comments with them.
	So if you're listening to me, mentally ill guy, do you have anybody who can help you put you back on your meds?
	Because it looks like you're either deeply inebriated in the morning or you need some adult to help you out.
	So whatever it is you think you're doing by writing the word fart 400,000 times in the comments, it's not fun.
	It's not interesting.
	It's not useful.
	It's not funny.
	It just sort of makes you look like a complete loser.
	So if you woke up feeling like a loser, well, it looks like you are.
	You're a total loser.
	And if the only thing you could figure out this morning to do was to come here and make the rest of us less happy, you need to get some help.
	So if there's somebody around, oh, there he is.
	He's back.
	So if there's somebody there who can maybe help you, get you back on your meds, that'd be great.
	All right.
	So Mayorkas said, no, it's a baseless and irresponsible statement that he had turned down any extra help.
	But the Washington Post says, maybe you did turn down some requests for help.
	And then the story got into, well, Maybe they did give them some help, but maybe they did turn down some help.
	So, and then the, uh, New York Post, uh, says that apparently for a long time, the Trump people have been asking for more resources and, uh, have been told that they don't have them, that there are no extra resources in some cases.
	Hmm.
	Here's what I'm going to do.
	There we go.
	So I got rid of the commenter.
	So I can see the locals' comments now, but not the rest.
	So locals only will be commenting, because somebody in Rumble needs to figure out who that user is and delete them, please.
	So Trump gave an interview and he's a little concerned, maybe that's an understatement, he's a little concerned that there was evidence that there was a danger at the speech where he got almost killed and that nobody said, maybe you should wait a few minutes and don't go on until we take care of this.
	Now that is the big question.
	So the big questions are, Why did it take a while to shoot once they identified the assassin?
	And then the second one, and I think the answer to that is they couldn't tell if he was theirs or someone else's.
	So imagine you're the police, or imagine you're one of the good guy snipers.
	And you know that there should be a good guy sniper on that very roof.
	And then you see that there's somebody with a gun.
	Who is peeking over the top of the roof, and all you can see is sort of a face and a high-powered rifle.
	And you say to yourself, well that's exactly where there should be a person with a high-powered rifle.
	That would be the Secret Service or the police.
	So from a distance, you could easily imagine that they didn't want to shoot their own person.
	Now, it's the weirdest situation because everybody knew there should have been a good guy sniper on that very roof.
	So if you, it's sort of like that Yanni and Laurel thing, you know, if you expected a good guy sniper, And then you look in the roof and there's a guy with a rifle and you can't see much because he's beyond the crest of the thing.
	You just see a head and a gun.
	How long would it take you to know he's a bad guy?
	Probably he'd have to shoot.
	Probably they couldn't tell.
	And there might've been some back and forth.
	I don't know that.
	I'm just speculating at this point.
	So one question is why did it take a while to shoot?
	The other one is, why did they let Trump go on stage?
	These are still big open questions.
	And here's a weird story I wasn't expecting, but NBC is reporting that the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, have privately been supporting President Biden to stay in the job.
	Which would mean that Obama would be on the other side from Hillary Clinton.
	If the reporting is true, and who knows if it is.
	And the reason, Mike Ben's again pointing this out, that there's a big Clinton, what's it called?
	The Clinton Global Initiative wants to raise money to help Ukraine.
	So the Clintons apparently have a gigantic amount of money at risk, depending on which way Ukraine goes.
	So if Obama is in charge, I'm sorry, if Biden is in charge, then it looks like the Clintons could do their thing, raise massive amounts to rebuild Ukraine.
	But we all assume that the raising massive amounts is so that they can redirect some to their cronies, keep a taste, make a bunch of money.
	We don't really think that's for the benefit of Ukraine.
	It's for the benefit of the Clintons and whatever their power source is.
	So it looks like there might be a disagreement between the Obama wing and the Biden wing and the Clinton wing.
	So basically total chaos.
	But If the Clintons are still pushing for Biden to stay in office, I'm going to stay with my prediction that Biden will stay in office.
	Now, you probably didn't think we would get this far with him still in office and people are still saying, but wait, weren't we told that Biden was going to resign this weekend?
	Well, it's Sunday, right?
	That all the reporting was he's going to resign on the weekend.
	That would be today.
	How many of you think he's going to resign today?
	Because if Biden resigns today, that would mean that the reporting was accurate.
	Would you bet on that?
	Would you bet on that reporting being accurate?
	Because it looks like the reporting might have been part of forcing Biden out.
	In other words, if enough people say he's definitely going to quit on the weekend, Then the people who fund him and raise money for him are going to say, OK, well, we're not going to raise any money because he's going to quit.
	And then he has to quit because he doesn't have any money or he can't raise it.
	So a lot of people quite reasonably said the Democrats are lying about his intentions of quitting because that's part of the process of forcing him to quit.
	Now, if he if he's still on the job tonight, It means that at least the weekend, his report was wrong.
	And that was my prediction that he's going to stay in.
	So I think he has too much ego and other, maybe even, you know, risk of jail and risk of protecting his family and everything else.
	I think Biden's too invested.
	I don't, I don't think he can leave.
	So we'll see.
	All right.
	So there's a, did you know that a single data center, and we're going to need a lot more data centers because AI is going to just suck the energy out of the country, and already is by the way.
	So there's already a surging demand for energy because of AI.
	I wonder how long it's going to take before AI causes inflation.
	That's going to happen, right?
	Because AI is going to, Vastly increase the amount of energy that's needed.
	But we're not going to be able to create that much more energy fast.
	So the price of energy will go up.
	And that will affect everything we do.
	So it could be the AI is going to be this massive inflation driver.
	That's just my take.
	We'll see if that happens.
	Anyway, according to McKinsey & Company, one data center can use as much power as 80,000 U.S.
	homes.
	And we're building a lot of data centers, so that's a lot of 80,000 homes that will have to compete for energy somewhere.
	All right, Chris Brennan writes an article in USA Today, an opinion piece, and he says it's time for Biden to drop out so the Democrats can run a historic two-woman ticket.
	Now, do you remember, how long was it?
	Several years ago.
	When I started saying that Democrats were the party of women, and sure enough, there's definitely a male-female difference now.
	The Republicans are sort of testosterone-driven, but with lots of female support.
	Basically, women who still like men can be Republicans.
	And it seems like there's no real chance that they could win with that.
	What do you think?
	Do you think if, and they're talking about, let's say, Whitmore, Governor Whitmore being the VP, so if Kamala Harris is the head of the ticket, and the backup is a woman, Whitmore or somebody else, do you think that's a stronger package than what they have now?
	I mean, Biden's a weak package.
	But if they ran two women, what would happen to the rest of the men in the Democrat Party?
	Wouldn't the rest of them leave?
	Let me put it this way.
	If two women were the candidates, especially these two women, for the Democrats, how many Republican women would say, you know what?
	You know, I don't love their policies, but I love the fact that it's two women.
	So I'm not going to vote Republican because, you know, I think it's time for a woman.
	I think none.
	I don't think any, I don't think anybody who was, you know, either an independent leaning right or already Republican.
	I don't think there's any woman who would say, oh, it's women.
	Oh, I'll go vote for them.
	That's just so not Republican.
	That's just not what any Republican would do.
	But what about the Democrat men?
	If you're a Democrat man and you see that things have gone so female in your party that there's not even a man running anymore, wouldn't that feel like the last straw?
	I feel like that's where you'd use that as your fake because.
	It's like, all right, you're not even trying for men.
	All right, I'll go to the Republican Party.
	They seem to still like men.
	I think that's what's going to happen.
	But I do not believe that the ticket will change.
	I think I'm going to still go with my prediction that on Election Day, Biden will be the top of the ticket, Kamala will be number two, and the Democrats will hilariously and absurdly say, Hey, everybody, just know that you're really voting for Kamala.
	That was my prediction from a while ago.
	I'm going to stick with it.
	All right, there's a new robot for Biden.
	It's called CARMAN.
	C-A-R-M-E-N.
	It stands for Cognitively Assisted Robot for Motivation and Neurorehabilitation.
	So it's basically a little tabletop robot that helps you with your cognitive abilities if you're failing.
	So it can give you little tests and memory stuff.
	And I'm no product developer.
	But I don't think this has a chance to survive.
	I think it's... yeah.
	And here's why.
	If you are the kind of person who was not already doing a lot of things that got your mind engaged, You're not going to want to use this little robot testing you.
	So if you're already not the kind of person who said, you know what?
	I just need to keep my mind engaged at a certain age.
	So I'm going to read books.
	I'm going to get involved in this, this project, this task.
	I'll keep working, whatever it is I do.
	If you're not that kind of person, you're not going to use a personal robot.
	To test you every time you sit at your breakfast table.
	I don't see how this could possibly work, honestly.
	It just seems to me that the people who would need it are selected to be exactly the people who would never use it, because they were already not intellectually curious and driven.
	So we'll see.
	Anyway, my help could be Biden's new running partner is the dementia robot.
	All right, I'm going to close with this story, and I'm going to read it entirely.
	It's from Wall Street Apes, who brought it to my attention on X, but John Dawson wrote an opinion piece on, I guess it was on X, and I just want to read it to you because it's just so good, and it'd just be a feel-good way to start your Sunday.
	All right, you ready for this?
	So what you need to know about John Dawson is he's a young black man.
	And he says the following, and I quote, You say white supremacy is plaguing our country.
	And as a black man, when I walk around in Central Texas, when I go to all these other states, I'm like, well, where is this?
	Where is it?
	I don't see it.
	I'm going into white restaurants.
	I went into a coffee shop in the middle of a podunk town that had less than a thousand people.
	And all these white people were just so nice.
	And they make delicious coffees, might I add.
	Like, I'm looking around, I'm like wondering, where is this, right?
	When I go up to Dallas, when I go to Houston, when I go to California, it's just like, I don't see it.
	Especially when I see people with MAGA hats, here it comes.
	They're always so respectful.
	And maybe they're just trying to hide their racism, right?
	That's another comment that people make is, oh, well, you don't know what they say behind closed doors.
	I don't care.
	That's what he says.
	He says, I don't care.
	If you're going to make fun of me behind closed doors, why would I choose to assume you're making fun of me behind closed doors and then live under that umbrella of oppression because you said something meanie weenie behind closed doors and I'm supposed to live under that?
	This guy's brilliant.
	That's ridiculous.
	It's like this perpetuation of a victimhood that even if it doesn't affect you, you should make sure it affects you.
	Oh, this is perfect.
	It's ridiculous.
	It's basically trying to perpetuate people to live in this, this low society, even though they're not experiencing it in reality.
	Now I can give you my own comments about this, but it's too perfect.
	It's just too perfect.
	So I'm going to end on that.
	And I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately.
	Thanks for joining.
	I hope we can get rid of our, we'll get rid of our troll later and then I can look at the rest of your comments.
	But thanks for joining everybody.

▲