God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, 3D Printed Houses, AI Human Interactions, President Trump, Elon vs. GARM, Joe Rogan, Goal Oriented Democrats, System Oriented Republicans, Kamala Harris Price Caps, Goals vs. Systems, AG Andrew Bailey, Student Loan Forgiveness, Vivek vs. Mark Cuban, Climate 1% Risk, Repetition Frequency Persuasion, Polls Manipulation Techniques, Trump Helicopter Story, Kamala Harris, No Interviews, No Policies, UK Speech Laws, Tim Walz Stolen Valor, White Guilt Mind Virus, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
This part of my screen is always messed up, but not if I do that.
What is up with that?
I don't know.
Anyway.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and today is going to be an amazing, amazing show.
Better than normal.
And that's quite a standard, isn't it?
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shelves, or sty, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
I'll go.
Oh, delightful.
Bye.
Well, before you notice on your own, I have a confession that things went wrong this morning.
You might notice there's a bunch of ink on my forearm, and there's a bunch of ink on my hand, and until a moment ago my head was covered with ink as well.
It turns out That I was using this little portable back scratcher and it telescopes out like this when you want to use it and it's exactly the right size if you have a back scratch problem like I do.
Now I don't know if you've ever had any kind of a body itch problem but there's one thing I can tell you is that you could identify exactly where it is by what part of my body is impossible to reach unaided.
Now I don't have very long arms, so if you look at this, you can see that there's a zone in the middle of my back about the size of a large grapefruit that there's no possible way any part of my body could reach it to scratch it.
So part of my travel requirements is I can never go anywhere without a back scratcher, because otherwise I'm going to have to find like a wall to rub against like a bear.
And yes, I do all the, you know, I put anti-itching cream on it, and I do everything that anybody smart would do.
It doesn't make any difference.
Yeah, I think some of it's psychological, actually.
But anyway, I put my little back scratcher in the pen holder, and I haven't investigated, but it would seem that one of my pens has leaked, and now it was full of ink, and then I got it on my hands.
And then I rubbed my head and my head was covered with ink when I first went on to my pre-show today.
But the rest of the today, it's going to be way better.
All right, here are the stories of the day.
Did you know that coffee could cut your liver cancer risk by 50%?
If I'm not immortal already, I'm well on my way because every single day I tell you, There's another study that says coffee will make you live longer and reduce your risks.
Well, there it is.
Your odds of liver cancer are cut by 50% according to the National Coffee Blog.
And I don't think the National Coffee Blog would ever be lying to you.
So data is always right when it agrees with what you want it to be.
The bigger theme today is data's always wrong, and you should just ask me.
It would be much faster if you had come to me and said, Scott, we're thinking of doing a study on the health benefits of coffee on various organs and parts of the body and the brain.
I would say, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Calm down.
You don't need to do all that work.
Just ask me.
All right.
Is coffee good for you?
Yes.
See?
See how much faster that was?
It's way faster!
And how about, is there a new technology to make the batteries for your cars and your phones and everything much, much more effective?
Every day!
Here's another one.
Turns out that Samsung just demonstrated a 600 mile battery for automobiles that would charge in nine minutes.
And Toyota and Samsung have already agreed to mass produce them.
600 miles would be farther than the current Tesla technology and charging in nine minutes would be kind of amazing.
But is that bad for Tesla?
Well, I assume that Tesla also is sampling all the new technologies for batteries and will be quick to implement new battery technology as well.
So we'll see how that goes.
Here's another one.
Apparently, according to the Guardian, there's another study that says depression is highly linked with poor physical health.
So if your body is not healthy, it will make you feel depressed.
Hmm.
Oh, do you think they could have saved a little money?
I think you know where I'm going with this.
If they had just said, Scott, we're thinking of spending a lot of money and taking a lot of time to study whether being unhealthy changes your mental attitude.
And I would have said, whoa, you don't need to do that study.
Just ask me.
And then they say, OK, Scott, is being unhealthy bad for your mental state, possibly making you depressed?
And I would say, yes.
And then they would say, oh, thank you.
You saved us a lot of time and money.
That's just one of the services I can give you.
Here's another one.
Apparently, according to the Japan Times, when big companies like to do risk assessment for real estate or insurance, they would like to know what is the climate risk and what is the risk of flooding?
Well, luckily, There are a number of companies that create complicated prediction models to tell you if your location is likely to be flooded and how badly and when.
Would it surprise you to know that the companies that make these proprietary models for predicting these things don't agree with each other?
Let's see, who would have known that in advance?
Let's say if you had told me, Scott, There'll be a number of companies, they'll be creating their own models of how risky it is to build in certain areas because of flooding.
Will those models all agree with each other?
What do you think, Scott?
And I would have said, no, they will not agree with each other.
And then they would have said, oh, thank you.
You just saved us a bunch of time and money.
I mean, see how easy this is.
Just ask me.
Next time you're thinking about a study, just ask me.
Yes, not only do the proprietary models that are very complicated, and you could never do these yourself, you'd better pay a lot for some big company to do a complicated prediction model for you.
No way you could be trusted to do this kind of thing.
And then they're not going to show you how they did it, because, you know, it's proprietary.
But they're going to charge you for it.
And it won't agree with the other people who also won't show you how they do it.
Because it's proprietary.
But you'd better pay for it!
So, do you think those big climate models are some science?
I know what you're going to say, but Scott, that's different.
Because the climate models are all in the same direction.
Basically, they're not exactly the same, but they're all sort of directionally, they're in that same zone.
So yeah, you can depend on those.
Because if all the models are done by different people and they all look the same-ish, that would be very credible, wouldn't it?
No, because anybody who ever created a model that wasn't in that range, it would be discarded.
That's all you need to know.
There is no way you could get anything but a whole bunch of models that are roughly the same, as long as those are the only ones that can get you paid for making a model.
Follow the money.
It's going to work every time.
Could have asked me.
Here's one.
Have you ever heard me say that music is a drug that goes into your ear?
Those of you who have been with me a while, you've heard me say it a million times.
The music, I treat it like it's a medicine.
So I literally use music medicinally.
I say, what mood am I in?
What mood do I want to be in?
Is there a musical selection that would move me toward that mood I want to be in?
And then I apply it.
But the last thing I would ever do is randomly turn on some DJ-selected list of music, because it's going to be all sad shit.
Oh, my girlfriend left me.
I'm so sad.
What am I going to do?
And then the worst thing, the worst thing in music is a man singing a song about how sad he is because he can't get his woman.
I don't want to hear that.
So it turns out there's a study where they're trying to figure out how to use classical music to improve depression symptoms.
Exactly like I've been telling you for 20 years, which is if you use music medicinally and you select it for that purpose, you're almost certainly going to be able to change people's mental state.
And sure enough, they're studying it to make sure they can do it well.
Let's see, what else would Scott have told you that science is just catching up?
Oh, Bloomberg has a story.
There was a little research that found out that TikTok shows less anti-China content than its rivals.
Huh.
So apparently if you go searching on TikTok for terms like Tiananmen, Tibet, and Uyghur, you know, things that you would commonly associate with not the best Chinese behavior, You'll see less anti-China content than if you were to search on Instagram, YouTube, or other places.
Huh.
Now, who could have you asked if TikTok is a little bit biased pro-China?
So, well, you know, you could have asked me.
You could have just said Scott is the company that's controlled by China, giving a lot of anti-China propaganda compared to other places.
I would have said, I don't think so.
I think maybe they'd do a little less than the other people.
And then they'd say, thank you, Scott.
We just saved a whole bunch of time and money because we were going to study it.
Now we don't have to.
Yeah, that's what you could have done.
There's a Texas town that printed a whole neighborhood with a big, this giant 3D printer that just prints the walls out of some concrete material.
And now they built the whole town and, uh, You can build one of these homes with just a very small team of people and a big device that's the 3D printer.
So it's wildly efficient compared to having a big team of people spending months building your house.
A little team of people with a big machine shows up and bop, bop, bop, bop, bop, bop.
Next thing you know, you got walls.
How's it working out?
Well, it turns out that the cost of these highly efficient 3D printed houses is Oh, just about the same as a regular house.
Okay.
So there's no, there's no financial reason to get one of these houses if you're the customer, but it looks like the company making them can make a lot more money than a regular company.
So that's good news, right?
Well, you're probably thinking you wanted the cheaper house, but you're not going to get that.
But at least the concrete printed houses will be in every way, just as good as, Oh, It turns out that if you have these thick concrete walls, the Wi-Fi signal won't go through them.
So you can't have Wi-Fi too easily.
But I'm sure they'll solve that.
That sounds like a solvable problem.
And the walls are great insulation.
So if you're in a place with severe weather, they're a really good choice.
Now, I don't want to sound like I'm negative on this, because I'm not too negative on it.
Um, I think that if you have lots of companies trying lots of different technologies for lowering the expense of building a home, that's got to be all good in the long run.
I don't know if it'll be this model per se or something else, but, um, I would worry more about the, how you can change the walls.
I don't know if you've ever lived in one house for a long time.
There's almost always a point where you say, you know what?
If I took this wall out, this would be much better.
I don't know if you could take a wall out with these concrete walls.
So that's a question.
But if it doesn't cost less for one of those houses, that should take a lot of the fun out of it.
Researchers, according to Popular Science, researchers are worried about interacting with AI could turn humans into jerks.
Do you think that's a risk?
That if you do a lot of interacting with AI, you'll become more of a jerk?
Well, it could go either way.
You could have asked me.
Because I've spoken with AI quite a bit.
Maybe more than most people.
And here's my take on it.
If you ask AI if it has an ego, it'll say no.
I don't have feelings.
I don't have an ego.
And you can, you know, treat me any way you want, basically.
It's fine.
It's just pattern recognition.
So I found in some cases I could be rude to AI and it won't care.
So I can, you know, chastise it, kind of do whatever I want.
And I'm not going to worry that it would be mad at me later.
So do the researchers have a point?
That if I spend, let's say, all morning talking to AI, and I'm not being polite, and I'm not saying thank you, and I'm not saying please, will I take that habit into my human conversations?
And the answer is, hmm, maybe.
Maybe.
But here's the counterpoint.
AI is designed to be polite.
So AI will be polite to me all day long.
Will that have more effect By me copying the AI and becoming polite the way it's being polite to me?
Or will my not caring about his feelings cause me to enter a pattern in which I'm bad to it, and then I carry that into my human interactions?
Well, here's the answer to that question.
Why would I have human interactions if I've got an AI to talk to?
Have you met any humans?
Oh my god!
No, I'm just joking.
Sort of, not really.
So it could go either way.
We'll find out.
Maybe it'll make us more polite.
There's a shock survey, according to study finds, that 85% of parents are thrilled to have their adult kids move back home.
I'm not surprised about that at all.
Have you privately talked to any adults who have had their kids move back home?
It's always mixed.
It's always like, oh, you know, you feel bad that they couldn't strike out and, you know, make a life on their own because you kind of want that for them.
But on the other hand, kind of nice to have them around, you know, if you like your family.
So I think that this is part of a larger trend.
I think that a lot of seniors, are going to have a lot of roommates who are young people.
Why?
Well, take me for example.
Well, I'm a bad example, but my house is bigger than I need because I'm certain generation and made my money and I'm a certain age.
So suppose I had roommates that simply were adding something to my life, such as if I dropped dead, they could call 911.
Or if something heavy needed to be moved, maybe they could pick it up and I couldn't.
So I'm definitely in a conceptual way, not ready yet.
I mean, I'm not, I don't feel I'm elderly enough for this yet.
I feel like aging doesn't really apply to me in the normal way.
Probably everybody feels that.
But, uh, I can see at some point.
That my optimal life would be to have three roommates who just use the fact that the house has good facilities and the rooms are nice, and they just do some things for me that I wouldn't be able to do for myself.
And it's just safer for me to have other people around.
Safer from burglars, too.
Right.
So my neighborhood has been hit by this looks like organized burglary gang.
And they seem to somehow know when people are home and when they're not.
Haven't figured out how they do that yet.
But they hit when you're not home, even during the day.
So it doesn't matter when.
It's usually during the day, actually.
They don't do night because they assume you'd be in there sleeping.
So they're trying to find when you're not there.
But it would be very helpful To have a home where there's always, you know, two or three cars in the driveway, and then anybody looking at it will say, oh, there's probably somebody in that home.
And there would be.
All right.
Trump had a good line.
I don't think he delivered it as well as he could, but it was a great line.
Apparently he's joking that when he starts off his rally back in Butler, Pennsylvania, so he's going to go back there and do another rally, the same site where he was Nearly killed.
Shot in the ear.
That the first thing he's going to say when he starts his rally in Butler, he's going to start with this sentence.
As I was saying, Now, is that a great line?
I don't think it was his own line.
I think maybe somebody suggested it.
But I can't think of anything that would be funnier than watching Trump stand up in front of a roaring, a roaring Butler, Pennsylvania audience that's thrilled that he came back to the site of the attempted assassination.
You know, the most baller thing you could ever do.
And then it gets quiet.
And then the first thing he says is, as I was saying, And then he just goes right back into the same PowerPoint slide that went off.
Start with the same PowerPoint and just act like nothing happened.
That would be hilarious.
Now, but he's already signaled it.
So I think he stepped on his own joke by signaling it in advance, but it'd still work.
It would still work.
Well, I'm very impressed that when Elon Musk said he was going to sue that advertising coalition, Called Garm, that apparently had been instrumental in getting advertisers to avoid the X platform, which cost Musk billions.
So he said he would sue them for their non-competitive actions, I guess, and they immediately folded.
They went out of business.
They said, we're done.
We're done.
We're going to run away.
We didn't mean it.
We don't even exist.
Forget what we said, we don't even exist.
Sorry, we disbanded.
And they said that they're a small not-for-profit initiative and the recent allegations of misconstruing its purpose and activities.
Well, I don't know how misconstrued they were.
Of course, that distraction insignificantly drained its resources and finances.
Good for you.
I'll tell you, this is one of the most satisfying wins.
Well, here's what I worry about.
They gave up a little too easily, which suggests they have another way to get the same result, which is keeping X from getting advertisers, without this organization.
So I'm not sure it's the clean win it looks like, because in this world, things are never exactly what they look like.
It could be that they just realized they didn't need to exist because they've accomplished their mission.
It could be that they've poisoned X from advertisers so permanently that they don't need to do it anymore.
It just will take care of itself.
Maybe the advertisers will just decide they don't need to advertise on X, even though apparently it's a good bang for the buck.
You may have seen the story about Joe Rogan said some good things about RFK Jr., which caused people to be mad because they thought he might be more Trump-oriented.
So here's the story.
So on the Joe Rogan experience, Rogan said he was a fan of Kennedy.
He said, quote, he's the only one that makes sense to me.
Quote, he doesn't attack people.
He attacks actions and ideas.
And he's much more reasonable and intelligent.
Well, that, of course, became a big story because it looked like he was being anti-Trump, which he wasn't.
He was just saying that he liked some qualities of RFK Jr.
It wasn't an endorsement.
But Trump went at him hard.
Well, maybe.
I'm not sure if this is going at him hard.
This is more like a warning shot or something.
But Trump does a shot against the bow, across the bow with a post on truth.
He said, it will be interesting to see how loudly Joe Rogan gets booed the next time he enters the UFC ring, Trump posted.
Now, Trump is very adept at making sure that if you're on his side, you get praised and you get benefits.
And if you're even a little bit against him, he will immediately make sure that that's expensive.
And wow, this is quite a threat, because you know what kind of a You know what kind of reaction Trump gets when he goes to the UFC, it's his people, and Trump's basically telling his people, the UFC fans, you know, this Joe Rogan, you might want to boo him the next time.
Now, that would be very bad for Joe Rogan, because he doesn't need that kind of trouble, and it's not exactly accurate to what he said or did or thought.
So Rogan immediately tried to clean that up by saying, for the record, he said, this isn't an endorsement.
This is me saying that I like RFK Jr.
as a person, and I really appreciate the way he discusses things with civility and intelligence.
I think we could use more of that in this world.
But here's where it's funny.
So he also said what Zuckerberg said, which I think is a smarter thing to say.
Rogan also said that Where Trump raised his fist and yelled fight after the assassination attempt was, quote, one of the most American effing things of all time.
But then Rogan said, quote, I'm not the guy to get political information from.
If you want that from a comic, go to comic Dave Smith.
He actually knows what he's talking about.
So one of the things that makes Joe Rogan the national treasure that he is, is that his ego Is probably the most healthy ego I've ever seen in my life.
Meaning that, you know, if there are things he's good at, he'll just sort of do them.
You know, such as podcasting and UFC commenting and stand-up.
So, he doesn't tell you he's great at anything.
He just does great things.
And then, you know, it's up to you to judge it.
And so, but he also has this wonderful sense of humility.
That politics isn't really his strong domain.
So if you want political opinion, go see someone else.
And then he recommends who you should see.
Now that's about as perfectly handled as you can handle anything.
And I would say that even the way he handled this is another example of Rogan just being excellent at something, but being quietly excellent.
Doesn't make a big deal about it.
He just does.
What I would consider a really strong response that should just take the energy out of the whole thing.
So it's just fun to watch a couple of people at the height of their powers.
You know, Trump, of course, but then Rogan very deftly handling it, which was impressive, I think.
All right, here's a reframe that I have mentioned a few times, but I introduced in a larger piece on X, and I'm going to share it with you.
And it's the observation that Democrats have what I call a goal-oriented view of life, that is, there are things they want, and Republicans have a more of a systems approach, which is, if the system is designed correctly, and we all respect the system, You can get the best result from that.
So here are some examples.
And by the way, I always say that goals are for losers.
Systems are for winners.
I'll explain more about that.
But let's say here are some examples.
So Kamala Harris is going after the high prices that corporations are charging in some industries, such as pharma, and I think such as probably energy.
And maybe rents are going to be part of that conversation.
But the question is, what do you do about high prices?
Well, if high prices are because of inflation, which they seem to be, if you were to put a price gap on some industries, those industries would be completely destroyed.
Now, does anybody need any proof of that?
To the best of my knowledge, that would be something that 100% of all economists Whether they lean left or right, we would agree with.
That if you put price caps from the government on anybody's industry, the industry will be almost instantly destroyed.
Richard Nixon found that out, and California recently found that out.
I told you that my neighbors and I almost can't get house insurance, because the state, California, said that the insurance companies can't raise their prices, even though their costs went through the roof.
So if your costs are going through the roof, mostly from forest fires and homes being more expensive to replace, if your costs are going through the roof and then the government tells you you can't raise your prices to match your cost of doing business, what do you do?
Well, it turns out that the insurance companies that were dealing with California just pulled out.
They just said, we can't work in an environment where our costs are going up like crazy, but we can't raise our prices.
So we're out.
We're just literally out of business.
They just stopped doing business in California.
Now, that's not just predictable.
That's every time.
There's only one way that goes.
And anytime it's been tried, it went that way instantly.
So Kamala Harris is suggesting price gaps.
Now, I would call that a goal.
So if I said to you, I would like prices to go down.
And a Democrat says, good, we'll make a law that says price can't go up.
All right, done, solved it.
So that would be a goal, where you just jump right to the solution.
All right, we'll force you to not raise your prices.
Problem solved.
It's not really a system.
The system was the free market.
The free market would have adjusted.
It would have taken some time, and it would have been ugly, but the free market always adjusts.
If the government gets in there, it's just permanently broken.
You can't fix from that.
So here are some things which I would argue Democrats have a goal-oriented approach.
DEI is, okay, make sure you have the right number of people from each group.
But what's the system to get there?
See the problem?
It ignores that the system to get there is going to break more than it's going to fix.
There's no real system that can get you there without more cost than benefit.
How about climate change?
Climate, they're like, it's too hot, got to make it cooler.
Well, what's the system from getting there?
Well, if the system is stop pumping oil, Before you have some way to survive and have good companies, or have a good economy, you can't really get there.
So just going directly to the goal, you know, with the force of government, terrible idea.
I would say the Republican system is best described by Vivek Ramaswamy, which is, if you don't know exactly what the danger is, and sometimes being too cold is going to kill you, like eight times more likely than too hot, and too hot might kill you too, but how do you solve both too hot and too cold?
What is the solution for a world that's either too hot or too cold?
As Vivek says very succinctly, it's energy.
If you have plentiful energy, you can turn on the heat.
If you have plentiful energy, you can turn on the AC.
Or you can build yourself a new house that's nice and insulated.
So, a system, I'd say the Republican system, which is you make sure that you're as wealthy, and as educated, and as free, As you possibly can be, and then you're ready for everything.
You're not just ready for climate change, you're ready for everything.
So if it's too hot, if it's too cold, you got money to solve it.
If there's a flood, you got money to solve it.
If you need to relocate, you got money to solve it.
But if you don't have money to solve it, everything is the end of humanity.
There are all kinds of things that could wipe you out if you don't have resources.
Resources are the solution to everything.
So the Republican system of giving you maximum free speech, maximum resources, maximum freedom, maximum reduction of government interference should create the maximum power within a country or the world or even a family where you can solve a whole variety of problems, not just the heat.
That's a good system.
Look at DEI, climate change, and price capping of pharmacies and pharmaceuticals and all that.
Those are all goal-oriented, and they are all suboptimal as systems.
Here's another example.
Pelosi says her main goal in life, basically, or politics, I guess, is keeping Trump out of office.
The main goal is keeping Trump out of office.
Again, trying to skip right to the goal.
Let's compare that to the Republican system.
The Republicans are trying to protect free speech, because it's being lost.
They're trying to make sure that people have the right information, and they want to make sure that our elections are not rigable, and that we would know if anybody tried.
So if you have elections that people trust and are not rigged, and you can audit them easily to know for sure, and you have maximum free speech, are you worried about who becomes president?
If you have a good system, you're going to get good leaders, because people will know what they're voting for.
They'll understand the situation.
They'll say, oh, this one's better than that one.
But no.
Instead of a system to pick the best person, be it Trump or be it anybody else, Pelosi just wants to stop Trump.
That's a goal.
And you'll see this very consistently.
You also see that there is ignoring of usually half of every problem.
Here's another example.
I think it was Attorney General Andrew Bailey of Missouri.
It had done some kind of a legal attempt to block the half a trillion dollar student loan forgiveness that the Biden administration was trying to do.
So they're trying to forgive a whole bunch of student loans.
Now, I saw a Democrat saying, well, you know, that was a good idea to forgive those loans.
And the reason is, It would be really, really helpful to the people who took out the loans.
To which I say, and?
And, finish your point.
Oh, your point's finished.
That it would be really good for the people who got the money.
Well, we all knew that.
It's the other half.
What about the people who paid the money?
That didn't get to go to college, in many cases.
So, the Democrat approach is you skip right to the Oh, we want to relieve the student debt problem, which is a huge problem.
But they're leaving out the fact that you would have to trample on other people's rights and sensibilities to get there.
What would be the Republican method?
The Republican method is everybody takes care of their own problems.
If you took out a loan you shouldn't have taken out, That might be between you and the government and the university, but it's not about me.
If I didn't take out those loans or I paid back my loans.
Um, I have paid back some government loans for somebody else, not me, but, uh, yeah, you got to show the whole story or else, or else it's nonsense.
So you see it quite, uh, quite clearly.
And by the way, congratulations to attorney general, Andrew Bailey from Missouri for a big win for the people who want those, uh, payments to be canceled.
Now it is still a big problem, but got to look at the whole picture.
All right.
Oh, I didn't have this in my notes, but I saw a fascinating conversation between Mark Cuban and Vivek Ramaswamy, and it included some talk about how to look at climate change.
And I teased a little bit about Vivek saying that if you take care of your wealth, you're in the best position for all kinds of problems.
That's an excellent answer.
But Mark Cuban's argument was that although you might doubt the existential risk of climate change, you can't doubt that there's some risk.
And let's say you thought that was a 1% risk of destroying the world for your kids.
Cuban would say, wouldn't you still put like maximum effort into it?
Because you really have to get rid of that 1% risk because it's a risk of everything being ended.
Do you agree with that logic?
Do you think that is a correct risk management, risk reward way to look at it?
So let me say it again and just tell me if you think the logic makes sense.
If there's a 1% chance that climate change caused by humans could just destroy civilization or something like that, wouldn't you put maximum effort into it to make sure that 1% didn't happen?
Yes or no?
The answer is no.
No, that is not good risk management, which surprises me.
Because I think that Cuban is unusually good at risk management.
In fact, you know, I think there are multiple examples.
Certainly the way he handled his business affairs in the past and made sure that Broadcom didn't get tanked and he kept his money and all that.
So he's actually very good at risk management.
But this one doesn't make sense, and let me tell you why.
Because there are too many things like it.
If you are going to put your focus and your major resources into stopping a 1% problem, there are too many of them.
How about the risk that a meteor will hit the Earth and destroy it?
Is that bigger or less than the risk of climate change?
Well, I don't know, but let's say they're both in that 1% risk.
Shouldn't we put maximum effort into building rocket ships to take us to Mars?
Because the whole planet's at risk from that meteor.
How about the national debt problem?
Shouldn't we just stop everything we're doing and figuring out how to take care of the national debt?
Whatever that takes.
What about fentanyl?
What about the cartels getting enough, let's say, enough traction in the United States that there's a reasonably good chance the cartels will be running America in 10 years?
Is that a bigger or smaller risk than climate change?
I think it's bigger.
But I could go down the list and I could give you probably 10 more things that have a 1% chance of ruining everything in the world.
So if you can't give your focus and your attention to all of those 10 or 20 things that if everything went wrong it could be the end of the world, like climate change, which I acknowledge there's some chance it could ruin the world.
I acknowledge that to be true.
A chance.
I would bet against it very heavily.
So here's what I think.
I think Vivek had the better risk management proposal because we really can't trust climate models and we can't trust the science completely.
And there's so many other things that are the end of all humanity if we don't do them right.
You pretty much have to make sure that the humans are as strong as possible so that they can take on whatever weird risks come at us.
All right.
So that's how I see risk management.
So there's the weirdest thing happening with Hunter Biden.
There's currently a court case in which part of their accusations from the government are that it's obvious that Biden was taking money from foreign countries to influence American policy, and then they go on.
To which we say, wait, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You're saying it's a given and it's in evidence that Hunter Biden was doing FARA violations, meaning that he had not registered as a foreign agent who would be legally allowed.
So, according to Jonathan Turley, who I recommend as the source if you want to read more about this, apparently it's now completely obvious and in evidence.
We've got bank records, we've got eyewitnesses, we've got all kinds of evidence that not only did Hunter Biden accept Millions of dollars from foreign countries, Ukraine and Romania and China, but that he very clearly was influencing American policy and that's why he got the money.
No other service was ever presented or even proposed or even alleged.
There was literally nothing else to it but taking money to influence policy through his father who was vice president at the time.
And the weird thing is that We're trying to understand why, if it's so obvious that he committed a crime that a Republican would go to jail for, there's not even a charge.
And the answer is because his father's the president.
That's it.
That's exactly what it looks like.
It's two standards of justice, and they can do it right in front of you, because as long as the mainstream media treats it like it's not a story, you're not going to treat it like it's a story either.
Let me go back and connect a couple of things.
The reason that Hunter will probably get away with no FARA charges is that the news will just ignore it.
And if it's only the news on the right, they're not powerful enough to get anything done.
It has to be the mainstream says it's a story or it's not a story.
And if the public doesn't think it's a story, because it's complicated or they don't believe it or whatever, nobody needs to do anything.
Because there wouldn't be enough public pressure to make them.
But going back to the climate change risk, the thing that you need to know about risk is that the thing that you as a human being will judge as your biggest risk is whatever you're exposed to the most.
So, if you take Mark Cuban, a normal person in the normal world, and he looks at the news, there's probably going to be a story about how climate change is going to kill you.
And the next day, you look at the news, well, there's another story about climate change that's going to kill us all.
So, how many stories are there about meteors destroying the Earth?
Hmm, once a year?
It's sort of out there, but not really focused on, because nobody's raising any money for it, I guess.
So, what you think is your biggest risk is never the biggest risk.
What you think is your biggest risk will always be whatever you are exposed to the most.
So the reason that a Mark Cuban and, you know, half of the country thinks that climate change is their biggest risk has nothing to do with the size of the risk.
It has everything to do with how often they hear about it.
Now, if you don't understand that important point, the world is a confusing place.
What you think is important is simply what you hear the most.
No, that's hard to believe, because you're saying to yourself, that's not true, because I apply my reason and my thoughts and my knowledge and my deep research to every question.
So it doesn't matter how much I hear about it, I've applied my thinking to it.
So it's my thinking that's driving my opinions.
No, it's not.
Science is very clear on this.
Whatever you're exposed to the most, you'll think is true.
Now, are there people who are immune to it?
Yes.
Yes.
There are some people who have created structures in their brain where they can somewhat ignore the things they're hearing the most and use the reason.
But that's rare.
If you're looking at the public in general, all that matters is how often you see it.
That's it.
The reason that Democrats went from Kamala Harris doesn't seem like a good candidate to us My God, we're so excited.
It's the best thing we've ever seen.
I'm so happy with Kamala Harris.
It's because the news kept telling you that she was doing great.
And if the news kept saying she was great and she's doing great, well then you started to think it was true.
Was it true because you used your reason and your deep research to find out that you were always wrong about Kamala Harris and indeed she was an amazing candidate and she'd be a great president?
Nothing like that happened.
No.
There was just more pictures.
There were just more times you heard her name.
That's it.
That's all it takes.
It doesn't take more than that.
All right.
Rasmussen is having a good time the last several days.
It's been several days since Kamala Harris picked Walsh as her running mate.
Do you know what hasn't happened in several days?
A new poll Huh.
Why would that be?
Well, it's not that nobody has a new poll.
Rasmussen themselves has a new poll.
They showed that Trump was still handily ahead.
Five points, I think?
Now, Rasmussen points out that they are not similar to other polls.
There are other polls that seem to be showing that Harris has pulled even or ahead.
But they're not current.
So there's some suspicion that it's not because the other pollsters didn't do any polling this week.
I mean, after Walsh was picked, but that they've seen their own polls and they've decided not to show you.
Do you think that's possible?
Do you think that the polls showed that Harris is getting stomped and that Walsh didn't help a bit and that they're just sitting on the polls?
Because Rasmussen is sort of suggesting that there's a little bit of obvious collective tardiness in updating the poll.
And when they don't update the poll, and it looks to you like, you know, last week, Harris was pulling even, it allowed the betting, the betting markets actually pulled even too.
So for a while, the polls said Harris and Trump were about even.
But the betting markets were still saying Trump, Trump, Trump.
But if you let that stay for a while, you don't update your polls, the betting markets adjust to the polls.
And that's what happened.
And now those things have a life of their own.
So it could influence future betting, and the future betting could influence future polling.
And future polling could influence future betting.
And so there's sort of a thing here going on that you should keep an eye on.
Maybe it's a coincidence that Rasmussen had a poll and the others didn't.
Maybe.
Or maybe the next wave of polls are going to be shocking, meaning that Trump has infirmed command.
Now, I'm not predicting that.
I'm just saying that this is the implication of Rasmussen having a poll and the others not having one for some reason that we can't explain.
All right.
I saw back in November 2022, Walsh was on a radio program and the videos going around of him being asked about closing schools because his state was pretty aggressive in keeping schools closed.
And the interviewer, the host, pointed out that the kids lost a lot of learning by the homeschooling.
And Wall said, I don't buy it.
These kids learned resiliency.
They had to figure out how to get online.
So he's actually arguing that school children were not damaged in terms of their development.
By the closures.
And that you have to look at all the people whose lives he saved, he would claim.
Alright.
So, to me again, that is more half-pinioned.
The half-pinion is you can just ignore the damage to the children, and just look at the thing that you claim worked, which is maybe you saved some lives.
Don't know about that.
But I would also say that conservatives have a problem with the same argument, but a different problem.
Here's what I hear mostly from conservatives when they talk about school closings.
The school closing hurt the children.
So it was all bad.
But I don't think schools were closed because people thought the children would die from the COVID.
Unless I was in a different country than you were.
My understanding is that the problem with kids being exposed is that they would take it home and grandma would die.
So the school closure was never about the benefit of the kids.
Did you hear a different story than I did?
So, it seems like it changed into the story was that the kids needed to be protected, but indeed, they were worse off, because the vaccinations allegedly caused more problems than benefits, and the school closing caused more problems than benefits.
But the whole point of that was to keep Grandma alive, wasn't it?
I mean, I watched the news the same as you did, and what I saw was, we're going to sacrifice the kids to save the older people.
So if at the end of it, you see that the kids were in fact sacrificed, but the claim would be that more old people lived, that would be what they were trying to do.
They were sacrificing the children's well-being to keep people alive who are older.
But I don't see people acknowledging that that was the plan.
Rather, they'll say, the children were sacrificed, you must go to jail.
And then those people will say, no, we sacrificed the children to save the old people and they succeeded.
Now the children can adjust, but the old people, if they had died, they can't come back to life.
Now, I'm not saying that was a good trade-off.
Somebody on 4chan's already writing a meme that says that I'm in favor of close-downs.
Nothing like that's happening.
I was never in favor of the close-downs.
I'm just saying that if you're going to talk about it, it's not really legitimate to just leave out half of the argument.
You can certainly have an opinion that the closing was worse than not closing.
That would be a legitimate opinion.
It's not legitimate to pretend that it was always about protecting the children, because it never was.
It was always about sacrificing the children.
So, you've got to be honest about that.
It was about... and I think the government was pretty honest that they were going to sacrifice the kids to save the older people.
Now, they might have been wrong about all the science.
That's a different question.
But at least don't change the history of what they were trying to do and, you know, what they clearly stated they were trying to do.
Oh, also the teachers.
Yeah, the teachers were part of the conversation trying to protect themselves.
They being also older people.
Well, Trump's plane had an emergency landing because of mechanical issues.
Could have been too bad because the landing looked normal.
But apparently during the landing, allegedly, Trump was arguing with the New York Times because they were trying to sort out the fact that Trump had claimed that he had once been in a helicopter that had an emergency landing, and he was on the helicopter with Willie Brown, who he knows well, or he used to know well.
Well, apparently Willie Brown has denied that anything like that ever happened.
And at the same time, there's another black politician from another local place who says, no, that was me.
That was me on the plane.
That was not Willie Brown.
So given that Willie Brown says he wasn't on the plane or on the helicopter that had the problems, but there is another black politician Who says it was him?
That's pretty persuasive.
So that would suggest that Trump just mixed up or misremembered who was where to and what, which is not that unusual.
Now, does it worry me that he's a certain age and maybe it would be the first sign of dementia?
Yes.
Yes, it does.
Yeah.
I think if you're a Democrat and you're saying, Scott, I don't think you can ignore the fact that he has a complete opposite memory of what happened.
It wasn't Willie Brown, it was something else.
The first thing I would say is, that's happened to all of us.
Has that never happened to you?
Where you had a strong memory of somebody being in a story, and then somebody says, I wasn't even there.
And you find out, oh, okay, I was mixing you up with one of my other friends.
It's a very normal mistake to make.
But it's also fair to say, If your president is a certain age, is it fair to say, let's put this in the watch list?
Let's just keep an eye on this.
Because if you get more of it, maybe it does mean something.
If you don't get more of it, well, it's just normal stuff.
But to ignore it, I think that's too far.
I think if you're going to promote a president who's a certain age, you've got to be honest about it.
Don't be a Democrat.
You don't pretend you can't see it.
If you can see it, you're gonna have to call it out.
I don't see it yet.
So I don't see that as alarming.
I definitely see it as put it on your watch list.
Because if there's more of it, then it means a different thing than if it just is like a little weird story.
So we'll see how that goes. Axios has a headline on Ax pointing to their own story, and here's their headline.
Report, Trump calls Harris a quote, bitch.
And I said to myself, what?
Seriously?
So I clicked on that story to read about all the evidence that he called her a biatch.
And it wasn't even mentioned.
I don't mean that the source wasn't mentioned.
I mean there was nothing in the story about anybody calling anybody a bitch.
What the hell is up with that?
Am I crazy?
Because the story was very short and none of it mentioned anything that was in the headline.
But most people are going to see the headline and never click on it.
Is it as obvious as it looks that they're just trying to create a rumor and they'll act like it was just a mistake or something?
Or is there more to the story?
Is there actually any evidence that he did say that?
And by the way, I don't care if he did.
You know, if I found out that Kamala Harris privately or even talking to donors said that Trump was a big old asshole, would that bother me?
No.
Suppose you called him a narcissist or a dictator or whatever, would that bother me?
Nah.
No.
If I found out that Trump really did call Kamala Harris a bitch in some context, probably more private than public, would that bother me?
No.
Not even a little.
But it would bother, I imagine, the base of supporters of Kamala Harris.
But no, I don't care what anybody calls anybody in the political context, especially if it's more private than public.
Even if they're just talking to donors, I'd call that private-ish, but not really.
He did call her nasty, and he did say she wasn't smart, and that's why they're not letting her talk to reporters, but those are normal things that Trump says in public.
All right, let's talk about Kamala now being Many days into having her vice president and many days now into being the presumptive and actual nominee.
And there's still been no serious interview or press gaggle or press, whatever it is, press, presser, let's call it a presser.
Um, and of course the debates are, are not until September.
So is this a good strategy?
Do you think that Kamala Harris has a strong strategy by just avoiding doing the things that everybody wants a president to show that they can do?
Well, I think it works.
The total domination of the news by one side allows them to tell you that not talking to the press makes perfect sense, and of course she'll get around to it.
Oh, makes perfect sense.
She'll totally get around to that.
Yeah, don't worry about it.
Oh, it's coming later.
Yeah, later.
And how about the fact that she has no policies written on her website?
No policies and no direct interaction.
So you won't know her personality and her personal capabilities.
And you won't know her policies.
So even if you say to yourself, but don't worry about her because it's, it's her supporter.
Well, it's her advisors and it's the bureaucracy that makes everything happen.
Makes a lot happen.
We don't know what she wants to do, and we don't know how capable she would be at doing it.
But, they're selling the excitement.
Oh, there's excitement.
There does seem to be genuine excitement.
I think it is, strangely enough, it's the right strategy.
Here's why it's the right strategy.
A lot of people don't know who Kamala Harris is, really.
You know, a lot of people don't pay too much attention to the Vice President.
So in a way, she's being introduced for the first time to some portion of the public.
The longer you can go by giving people a positive impression of her, the less they will believe any negative story in the future.
Let me say that again, because this is like a really vital persuasion point.
The longer people go, Democrats, getting only positive indications, positive, positive, positive, she's amazing, she's the best, oh, look at all the things she can do.
The longer they can keep that up, when she does finally do a presser, and it doesn't go well, nobody's minds will change.
Because once their minds are made up, and they've decided she's a good one, and they're gonna back her, and they've told all their friends, She could advocate for slaying babies and murdering your dog, and you would say, okay, but overall she's really good, and she's better than Trump.
So in order for your confirmation bias and your cognitive dissonance to lock you into your irrational choice, you need to have an extended period where you're buying into the narrative.
And the more they can Keep her a blank slate and just say, it's exciting.
It's not Trump.
She might win.
She's black and she's Indian and she's a woman.
Whoa, that's good enough.
So I think their strategy is, I hate to say it, perfect.
It's perfect.
And I'm going to give Kamala another compliment.
You didn't see this coming.
So, there were some protestors at her rally, and the protestors were pro-Palestinian protestors, and they started to make a lot of noise.
Now, traditionally, when somebody's giving a speech, and the protestors make a lot of noise, you maybe pause, and you have security do their thing, and then you get back to business.
What she did, was she stopped what she was doing, She gave them direct attention, which caused them to be quieter.
And then here's the best part.
She, uh, she promised them something that she wasn't going to give her.
She said, she said, quote, now is the time to get a ceasefire deal and get the hostage deal done.
Now is the time.
And suddenly the protesters and the whole, the whole stadium went wild.
They're like, yes.
Yes, she understands what we want.
She heard our protests.
She gave us the respect of listening.
She repeated what we wanted, which is a ceasefire.
Yes.
Now, here's why this is brilliant.
She didn't give them anything.
She gave them nothing.
And she made them stand up and cheer like train seals with Parkinson's, as I said on X. She made them love her, and she gave them nothing.
Because everybody wants a ceasefire.
But everybody wants it on their terms.
Right?
Everybody wants a ceasefire.
I want a ceasefire as soon as all the Hostages are released, and all of the Hamas leadership has surrendered and given up all their weapons.
It's a ceasefire.
I want an immediate ceasefire under those conditions.
Now, other people want different conditions.
Maybe no conditions.
But she basically promised them literally nothing, because everybody wants a ceasefire.
And they're all like, yay!
Yay, my hero!
It's kind of brilliant.
So, You really need to watch out, because Kamala Harris has more game than you think, because she can have moments like that.
She's more dangerous than you think, as a politician.
Let's talk about Great Britain's, or Britain's, speech laws.
I'm not going to call them great anymore.
But apparently, and I wasn't sure I was hearing this right, But apparently Britain will arrest an American who said something on social media if it was against their new laws about drumming up trouble or hate.
And since it's obviously subjective, whether you've gone too far in your hate speech, it's a very dangerous situation.
And they've even said they would arrest Americans even for doing things in America.
So if you were to say something that looked like it was promoting, let's say, violent protest, and you were an American, and you were just sitting in America, the Brits say that they can arrest you and put you in jail in Great Britain.
Now, America would have to agree to that, I suppose, and they'd have to get custody of you, which isn't likely.
But if you were to travel to there, and they found out you did it, and they found out you were there in person, they could put you in jail.
For being an American who posted something online.
Now, here's the thing.
Shouldn't there be a travel advisory from the United States government telling us that if you go to Great Britain, you could be arrested for something you posted in the past?
See, that's the scary part.
It's not even what you're doing today.
It's anything you've ever posted.
And you travel to Britain, and they find out, let's say they pick you up for littering or something, and they run a check on your social media, and they find out you said something five years ago that looked like it was generating trouble for the UK, and they put you in jail!
Now, are you telling me that the government of the United States doesn't need to warn travelers, That they could be jailed in Great Britain for things they said five years ago on their social media?
That feels like it's really important to tell people.
I would never travel to England under these conditions.
And I would advise anybody who was thinking about it to immediately cancel their plans.
How is this not a really, really big issue with our government telling us whether or not it makes sense to travel there?
I think a travel advisory has to be demanded.
Or at the very least, the people in the news need to ask the appropriate government entities, and I guess it would be Kamala Harris, why not?
And also ask, are we heading in that direction?
That's what I want to know.
And indeed, there was a young man who just got three years in prison for some posts on social media.
All right, Speaker Mike Johnson does a post, he says, remember, 198 House Democrats voted against the SAVE Act, which ensures that only American citizens can vote in American elections.
And Speaker Johnson says, why?
And then he answers his own question with, they are perfectly fine with non-citizens voting in our election.
Yeah, you know, it's really hard to come up with a second reason.
What would be the other reason that they turned down a law that would be to guarantee that only citizens vote?
There's no other reason, is there?
Was there a poison pill in that bill that I don't know about?
Now, you always have to wonder, is there like a secret part of the bill that's just good for Republicans?
If that's the case, then I would remove my objection.
But if it was a straightforward attempt to make sure it's illegal, To have non-citizens voting.
How do you vote against that?
Unless you want non-citizens to vote.
It's exactly what it looks like.
There's also allegations that in Michigan, there are still 26,000 dead people on the voter rolls.
But apparently, if that's true, and I think that's disputed, there's not going to be any effort to remove them.
Why would that be?
Now again, this story may have some missing elements, but every time you see that the government is consistently against anything that would prevent non-citizens from voting, it's got to be exactly the reason you think.
The Democrats want non-citizens to vote because it'll make a difference.
Well, in tragic news, the ex-YouTube CEO, who was the CEO until 2023, Susan Wojcicki, she died at age 56.
Cancer, I believe.
But this is, you know, doubly bad because her 19-year-old son died in his dorm room at UC Berkeley in February.
So in one year, her husband lost a son and a wife.
That's one of the worst things I've ever heard in my life.
Now, a lot of people want to give her a hard time.
Because her legacy would include what many people say would be censorship on YouTube.
And I don't really want to get into that, especially since I'm broadcasting on YouTube, because it feels too disrespectful to the surviving family.
I think today we just have to say, this is really terrible and hope it doesn't happen to you.
So I'm not going to get political on that today.
We'll just, let's just be human about that today.
Well, here's an update on the Stolen Valor.
Mike Cernovich and others have been quite active in making sure that you know that Walsh, the VP choice, did what some are calling Stolen Valor.
But CNN did an interview last night Which maybe didn't go the way they hoped, but it did show Walsh's superior officer in the National Guard who said that Walsh definitely knew that they were going to be shipping out to Iraq.
when he decided to retire.
So he definitely knew, and there had even been an order to prepare.
Now, according to the superior officer, if orders to prepare to ship out have already arrived, it wouldn't be uncommon for the superior officer to say, it's too late to retire, because you need my approval to do that, and you're not going to retire right after they say you're going to deploy.
So, his suggestion was maybe he wouldn't have been able to do it if he talked to his superior officer, but somehow he went above his superior officer, and he got the superior officer's superior to say yes, to agree to the retirement, and then the superior officer had to live with it.
He's not too happy about it.
But, it did clearly show that he knew he was at risk of being deployed when he decided to retire, which is a bad look.
Here again, I'm going to say as clearly as I can that if we're talking about the respect we give members of the military, that I've not been in the military, and so whatever respect I give either J.D.
Vance or Walls would be more than I have.
So I put both of them above me in terms of service to the country.
So I don't feel like I'm I'm the right person to criticize them.
But I do recognize that this is something very important to a great number of people and that they can judge it and they might vote differently.
I would argue that there are very few topics that change people's minds in politics, especially at this late stage.
This might be one of them.
And it might really just be close family members and people who are in the army or the military and have a problem with it.
Um, so if you were thinking that this was a wasted attack, that it wouldn't change the vote, I would argue that it's one of those rare things that would, but for a sliver.
But remember, we have an election where a sliver is going to be the difference between winning and losing.
So this is a pretty big deal, even though it's only a sliver of voters.
It's just, what's unique is that it's a sliver that might change their mind.
And that's unique.
Usually nothing changes anybody's minds.
Yeah All right There's video of Kamala Harris's Arizona rally, which was gigantic.
15,000 people attended.
The energy was high.
Now, of course, there are reports There's some number of them were shipped in, you know, like professional fans or something.
Maybe, you know, maybe both sides do it.
I don't know.
I'm not too concerned about that.
Um, but what was interesting is there were hardly any men in the whole stadium.
You have to look at the video, the sort of the closeups of the audience.
It's almost all white women, probably nine out of 10 white women.
Which means something like two-thirds of all the people in that stadium were mentally ill.
Now I say that because we know that liberal women specifically have the highest rate of mental illness.
It's over 60%.
Now, if you were to take the people who also are so enthusiastic about Kamala Harris that they would go through the trouble of going to an event, which is a lot to take into your day, it's probably a higher percentage.
So my guess would be maybe 70% or so of the attendees had mental illness.
So there are 15,000 people attended, but if you've used the smaller number of 62% have mental illness, that would mean that 9,300 people in that stadium had mental illness.
So, by the way, I don't think that's an exaggeration.
And like I said, if they were that into politics, and they were also Democrats, and they cared enough to go to this event, It probably was higher than 62% have mental illness.
And we're supposed to continue ignoring this, right?
I'm supposed to continue ignoring that Kamala Harris looks to me like she's inebriated in public fairly often.
I'm just supposed to ignore that.
I'm supposed to ignore that her base is literally the mentally ill.
We're supposed to ignore that?
Do you know why we ignore that?
It's because the press hasn't decided that's a big story.
On social media, we like to point it out because it seems pretty important to me.
So I see it on social media, but you won't see it in the news.
So as long as the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, as long as they say it's not a story, that a huge percentage of Harris supporters are literally mentally ill.
Then it won't be, because your masters have told you it's not a story.
So individually, you might think it is, but it's never going to be a big story.
I can't imagine what would be more important than that.
Anyway, and then Harris, of course, in the total gaslighting way, Now, do I need to complete my comments on this?
the immigration, you know, the current immigration process is broken, but we know what to do to fix it. So if you elect her, she knows the immigration is broken and how to fix it. Now, do I need to complete my comments on this?
Because every one of you just completed it for me, and you just said in your minds, wait a minute, wasn't she in charge of that?
If she knows it's broken and she knows how to fix it, why isn't it already fixed?
Now, I think their argument is that they just needed those darn Republicans to vote for that bill that totally wouldn't have fixed it, but would have hired more people to process more people through a legal asylum process.
and make it much, much worse. But technically, on paper, it would look like fewer illegal people because they would simply hire more people to process people through a legal doorway.
So it would have no impact whatsoever on the number of people coming in. In fact, they might be more, but the number that they would define as illegal might be smaller.
So they can sell that to the uninformed Democrat base by saying, hey, we have a solution.
And the Republicans said no, because they wanted to keep it as a campaign issue, which is what they're doing.
Can they sell that ridiculous message to their base?
Yes, they can.
Because their base will never have access to any news that tells them the opposite.
They'll never see the context.
And they'll just never have to think about the fact that Harris was in charge and couldn't fix it then.
Glenn Greenwald and a number of other people were pointing out that it's kind of weird and creepy when the Democrat press and all the pundits start using the same language like they were all informed to use the same language.
So apparently they're calling Walsh, you know, a joyful messenger and everything's joyful and joyful and joyful and hey, it's so joyful.
And he's a regular Midwestern guy.
He's a moderate.
He's just a good guy.
He's a normal rural guy.
He hunts, he hunts, he hunts.
Normal, regular, hunting, joyful, ordinary guy.
And it's so creepy to watch people use the same language because you know, it's been, you know, it came from the top, use, use these words.
But I would ask you this, isn't it the same on the right?
Doesn't the right also land on a few little attack words and then use them forever?
Have we not heard stolen valor a million times from everybody on the right?
Could the Democrats not make a compilation thing showing all the right-leaning pundits saying, stolen valor, stolen valor, stolen valor?
Yes, they could.
Do you know why it doesn't look the same?
Because most of the press leans left.
So when it happens on the left that they're using the same language, it's really easy to put together an interesting compilation, because you could say, all right, here's CNN saying it, here's MSNBC saying it, here's the New York Times saying it, here's the Washington Post saying it, and on and on and on.
So you can really clearly see that they're conforming to a certain message, and we know with certainty that the message comes from the top, and then everybody gets it.
But on the right, I think it's exactly the same.
What's different is where the message comes from.
On the right, I think people pick up messages that look like they're sticky.
So if you follow a big account like Cernovich, and you see that he's hammering hard on the Stolen Valor message, you're far more likely to bring it up when you do your show.
Because you think, well, people are talking about it, I'll talk about it too.
Because people are interested, because they're talking about it.
So I'm pretty sure That there's a very similar thing happening on both sides.
It's only the source is different.
I think the Republicans just look to other influencers and they say, oh, you're making a good point over there.
I'm going to emphasize that too.
And then on the Democrat side, literally the party sends out a memo and says, let's frame it this way.
And then the news does it.
So that's, that's the difference.
But the number of times somebody uses that similar language is probably the same on both sides.
Well, I saw Elon Musk just say true to a post that was pretty provocative.
So let me tell you what Elon felt comfortable saying is true.
There was a post by I am yes you or no, that's the name of the user, saying that white guilt is a mind virus that needs to be eradicated.
White guilt is a mind virus that needs to be eradicated.
Now that was attached to A quote from somebody else, another user, that said this, white people have been taught that white people are evil and everyone else is good, and non-white people have also been taught that white people are evil and everyone else is good.
And then that user said, that's not divide and conquer, that's quote, kill whitey.
Whoa.
And that was the two posts that were together that Elon Musk said true.
Is Elon Musk agreeing only to the first part that says white guilt is a mind virus that needs to be eradicated, which would be not too controversial?
Or is he saying true to the fact that both white people and non-white people have been taught that white people are evil and everyone else is good, and that that's the same as kill whitey?
Do you know what's interesting about this story to me?
Has anybody picked up on this yet?
Do you know why I'm talking about it?
This is what I got cancelled for.
I got cancelled for saying the environment is such that white people are demonized, and if you happen to be in any category that's being demonized, your best strategy for success and survival is to go where that doesn't happen.
You should stay away from anybody demonizing you.
Why are people being demonized?
It's because they're taught that in school.
D-I-C-R-T-E-S-G.
White people are responsible for all your problems.
If you could simply give them less and take their stuff and give it to yourself, problem solved!
So, does that sound like Kill Whitey?
Yes, it does.
Did I say exactly the same thing, but I said it in words that were far more provocative?
Yes.
This is what I got cancelled for.
I got cancelled for saying that the current system and culture is demonizing one group of people, and if somebody is demonizing you, you need to get the fuck away from that, because that's not safe.
Now, your first choice would be to change it, you know, and improve it, but if it reaches a certain point, you have to run.
Now, there is no practical way in America to run from it, because the country's similar enough everywhere that there's nothing really to run from.
It's not a real suggestion, but it's a real warning.
It's a real warning that you can't survive in the long term if one part of the country is being taught in school, taught in school, and trained in your corporations, and you have to sign documents to say you agree to it.
That the white people are evil, and everybody else is not evil, and that needs to be rebalanced.
You gotta get away from that, any way you can.
Anyway, H. Pearl Davis, social media influencer type, who has very provocative things to say about men and women, I was talking about how women are almost always the ones who initiate divorces and breakups.
Did you know that?
One of the data points that Pearl gives is that college-educated women initiate divorces 90% of the time.
So, well, 90% of the divorces are initiated by the woman if she's a college-educated woman.
Is that surprising?
No.
Because a college-educated woman probably can make her own money.
So she doesn't need to put up with any imperfect situation for money.
Because she can, first of all, get some money from the divorce, maybe.
Or she maybe already has her own job.
So follow the money suggests that the more likely you can make your own money, the less likely you need to be married for money.
So it makes sense to me.
I think follow the money explains the entire drop in population and everything else.
But here's my take.
This is exactly why, well, the larger point that Pearl makes is that women don't provide value to men anymore.
Do you buy that?
That women don't provide value to men.
Now the argument would go, and this is not my argument, I'm just explaining it, The argument would go that in the old days, the man provided the protection and the income, the woman provided children and support and love and the family unit and kept things together, and that that was a good deal for everybody.
But, and then part of that was virginity.
At least at one point in time, you were getting this virgin who was totally committed to only you, and less likely to cheat, and maybe hadn't experienced anything better, so that helped the marriage stay together.
I'm not sure that's a good thing.
I'm just saying it is what it is.
So, is it true That if you're a man looking for a woman, you say to yourself, okay, this woman who looks good, so looks are part of what men select on, has been with a lot of different guys and she's not going to be too impressed with me.
So the sexual benefit of a wife is way down, because you wouldn't have that exclusive domain.
Now, should you?
Should you have some exclusive domain?
Maybe that's just sexist.
Maybe you shouldn't have that.
So I'm not arguing what's right or wrong.
I'm just describing the current situation.
So the men feel that they're not getting this, you know, loyal sexual virgin.
So that lowers the, you know, the value of the proposition.
And then the men know that if the woman divorces, they're going to lose their kids and they're going to lose their money and they won't have enough to start over again.
But the woman might.
The woman might take some of your money.
Your kids and then meet another guy who will take care of her.
So she could get all the benefits.
So I would say that follow the money as a way of predicting the future largely guarantees that our reproductive possibilities are just going to continue into a death spiral.
And I think it's why so many men are going to prefer robots as life partners.
Let me say that again.
I think men will prefer robots as life partners.
Your robot is going to have all your interests, is going to know you well, will not cheat on you, and will always be attentive and respectful and maybe even complimentary.
Will it feel just as good when a robot compliments you?
Yes, it will.
I know you think it won't, but yes, it will.
I guarantee it.
Now, maybe not on day one, but you'll just get used to it.
And if the robot says good things to you, you're going to get a little dopamine hit.
Now, that doesn't mean you're going to have sex with the robot, although a lot of people will.
It could be that men just buy their sex on the open market.
I hate to say it, because they don't want to have sex with a robot, but that the robot is their life partner.
So they might go to bed and just snore and sleep well.
And if they need some sex, they'll go into the free market and buy some.
But then when they go home, they don't need the trouble of dealing with a difficult personality who's going to take their money and their kids.
So they just say, well, if I want a kid, I'll adopt one.
I'll get an extra robot to be a full-time nanny, and I won't even have to work too hard raising the kid, because the robot will be great at it.
So, it seems to me that robots as a replacement for women as life partners is largely guaranteed.
Not for everybody, of course, but for a large portion.
And I think it will work the other way as well.
Women are going to say, what am I getting from this guy besides a lot of trouble?
If I get a robot, The robot can protect me, the robot can lift heavy objects, the robot can put the dishes in the dishwasher.
I'm not so sure I need that guy.
And if I want to have a baby, I'll just get artificially inseminated, and I'll get a second robot, and the robot will raise the baby.
Now, let's look at the money of it.
I can get a robot for, let's say, $30,000, maybe a year from now.
What would it cost to be in a relationship?
Even if you're not married, it's over $30,000.
Like if you're doing some traveling and dating and stuff.
But if you're married, of course, it's way over $30,000.
And the robot you could get, maybe it lasts several years.
So amortized, it might be, you know, $5,000 to $10,000 a year.
And there's no way you could get a spouse for that price.
So the economics of relationships suggest Not suggest, really guarantee that robots will be partners for men and women at a very large percentage.
Well, the FDA has rejected MDMA, also known as ecstasy, the drug ecstasy, for PTSD.
I don't know why.
Obviously, concerns about health, I guess.
But we also wonder, wait a minute, are you just trying to protect some big pharma company that's selling a competing drug?
I don't know.
I'd worry about that.
But I also worry that the downside of ecstasy is that if you enjoy it too much, your regular life would seem horrible and boring.
So I've never experienced ecstasy as a drug.
And I'm pretty sure I'm not going to.
And it's not because I don't think it would be awesome.
It's because I think it would.
And I don't think I can handle that.
Because once you handle how good you could feel, it might change your point of reference for your everyday feelings.
And you might say, uh, I'm going to have to do this every day, or I'll just feel sad for the rest of my life.
All right.
Um, so we don't know enough about that.
Ukraine continues to bore me these days because the news has calmed down and all the news sounds the same.
Here's some generic news from the Ukraine war.
One of the sides made an incursion into the town of Klykplykply, and it looks like there's heavy fighting.
But in another place called Klykplykply, the other side seems to be making a push.
But all the news sounds like that.
There's a town you don't know of.
One side made a push into it.
The other side made a push into the other town.
But what is different is that Ukraine is attacking on traditional Russian territory.
Now, they can't really run a war without being able to attack across the artificial border.
So, I'm not sure that that's a real big escalation.
Because it just sort of comes along with the war.
So, if one side can just say, neener, neener, neener, you can't cross our border, they can just put all their weapons depots and all their resources right on your border, and then just, you know, hammer on you forever.
Because there's no similar restriction of them entering Ukraine, but they can just safely sit over there with their assets not being, you know, disturbed.
And Ukraine is saying, if your war assets are just on the other side of the border, Maybe we're going to take them out, which seems perfectly reasonable from a war perspective.
But it looks like Ukraine might be doing a different strategy in which they may be just trying to divert the Russian resources by attacking a lesser defended part and getting a little push into Russia.
And maybe all they're doing is grabbing some land they can trade back.
It could be that they're looking for negotiations, and they know they can't capture the well-defended parts that Russia captured of Ukraine, but they might be able to capture an unguarded or loosely guarded part of Russia.
So then if Ukraine has some Russia they don't want, And Russia asking Ukraine that they want, but maybe they could be flexible with.
They have something to bargain with.
So it might be that everybody's doing simply getting ready to negotiate.
That's what it looks like to me.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I've gone on too long.
This is the end of my show.
I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and people on X and Rumble.
I'm going to talk to my beloved, People on, uh, Locals.
By the way, if you didn't know, you can see the Dilbert Reborn comic, which is naughtier and, uh, funnier.
Um, you can subscribe to that on the X platform.
Just look for the button in my profile.
And if you wanted to see that plus a lot of fun legal, uh, not legal, a lot of fun content, mostly about politics and my other comic, Robots Read News, uh, you could do that in the Locals platform.
