Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 2, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:32:53

Episode 2585 CWSA 09/02/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Jason Calacanis, Jason All-In Podcast, RFK Jr., President Trump, J6 Event Intent, J6 Violence, Mark Cuban Character Poll, Robert Reich Pro-Censorship, Elon Musk, Human vs AI Art, Harris Non-Stop Hoaxes Strategy, Policy-Free Harris Campaign, Kamala Harris, Bathtub Collard Greens, Tim Walz Detractors, Trump New Messaging, Election Integrity, Venezuelan Gangs Colorado, Judge Alexandre de Moraes, Oregon Hard Drugs Treatment Plan, Fentanyl Vaccine, 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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Or something different.
	I don't know.
	Anything could happen today.
	Anything could happen.
	Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
	It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and there's never been a better time in your whole life.
	But if you'd like to take this up to levels that you can't even understand with your tiny, shiny human brain, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
	It's the dopamine hit of the day.
	The thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens just about now.
	Go.
	Oh, what's happening to my muscles?
	Oh, they seem to be growing.
	First story, lightly roasted coffee.
	Benefits for overweight individuals.
	Can lower your body fat and increase your muscle mass.
	That must be what I'm feeling.
	I feel my muscle mass increasing.
	Do you feel that too?
	Probably.
	Yeah, is there anything that coffee can't do?
	I have not discovered it yet.
	If you were attacked by a Venezuelan gang and you had a hot cup of coffee, you could use it as a weapon.
	If you didn't want to use it as a weapon and it cooled too much, you could take a sip.
	It would increase your muscles, decrease your muscle mass or your weight.
	You could run faster.
	You could fight harder.
	Coffee.
	There's nothing it can't do.
	Happy Labor Day!
	Or as I say, the day off for lazy podcasters.
	If you're a lazy podcaster, enjoy your time in bed today.
	No, I'm working.
	You know why I'm working?
	It's called Labor Day.
	It's not called Day Off Day.
	They called it Labor Day.
	For goodness sakes, don't get it backwards.
	Well, I was expecting I might have a surprise guest today, but there's a little uncertainty about that.
	So if that happens, I'll let you know.
	But there is one thing happening that I'm pretty certain about, and I'm pretty excited about.
	If you're listening to this on video, you cannot see me holding up the Dilbert 2025 calendar, which is available today, but only At the link you can find at Dilbert.com.
	You won't be able to get it on Amazon.
	You won't be able to get it anywhere else, and there's a reason for that.
	Would you like to see it?
	It's a 2025 calendar.
	We had to skip a year because, you know, things came up.
	But we're back by popular demand!
	And this time... So here's the thing.
	In order to make the calendar in America... So this is the first time.
	It's American-made.
	For literally decades, people have been writing to me and saying, you know, I love your calendar, but I don't like that it's printed in China.
	I didn't like that either.
	So one of the benefits of being a free agent is I can say, what would it take to not make it in China?
	Here's the answer.
	It's really expensive to not do it in China, but I could compensate for that in two ways.
	Number one, get rid of the traditional publisher.
	So I get rid of the whole publisher cut.
	Number two, get rid of Amazon.
	So if Amazon is in it, they're going to take a bunch.
	If you add together the publisher's cut and Amazon's cut, do you know how much that is of the retail price?
	It could be around 90% of the retail price.
	That's before shipping.
	So I got rid of the traditional publisher and I got rid of Amazon.
	So the only place you can get it is the link that you will see at Dilbert.com.
	And it takes you to a purchase page, but because shipping is way too high these days, you all know that, right?
	Shipping's crazy for everything.
	I'm going to give you twice the comics this time.
	So on the front will be the traditional Dilbert comic.
	Like you're, you're used to things that have been published before, but now are in comic form, but watch this.
	Here's something you've never seen before.
	On the back of every page is Dilbert Reborn.
	Dilbert Reborn is the comics that have only been published after cancellation.
	And they're the spicy ones, the edgy ones.
	If your co-workers are kind of prickly and maybe a little bit of Karen-ish, you don't want to take this to work.
	Or if you do, make sure they only see the top.
	Don't let them turn it over and see the edgy ones.
	You might want to use this in your home office.
	So let me make a pitch for it.
	If you want to lower your shipping costs, get more than one.
	It's not exactly proportional, but it'll greatly lower your costs if you're buying them as gifts.
	And if you pre-order them now, they don't get made until later.
	The pre-order will allow me not to lose a tremendous amount of money in case nobody buys it.
	So because I got rid of a publisher, the publisher acts like a bank, so they're the ones that take the financial risk for the author.
	But since I got rid of the publisher, I'm taking the financial risk myself.
	So if you pre-order it, It makes a big difference to me.
	So, that's my pitch.
	If you want to help me out, if you'd like to see the calendar next year, pre-order.
	That makes all the difference.
	I'll tell you more about it.
	I'll give you a little bit more about how to make it in America, because that's kind of fun.
	There's a little bit of a background to that.
	I'll show you literally how it's made.
	But, enough on that.
	The media.
	It's having a fun time trying to explain why Republicans keep suggesting that people should have kids.
	The Guardian, they've got an article here, an opinion, says the right's obsession with childless women isn't just ideology, it's essential to the capitalist machine.
	What?
	They're saying that the reason that Republicans want to have more children is just that it's necessary for capitalism.
	That's true.
	It's also necessary to survive.
	It's also necessary to defend your country against foreign invaders.
	In fact, having children is necessary for literally everything.
	Literally everything.
	But yes, capitalism would be one of those things.
	It's on the list.
	Fortune, which used to be a publication, but now it's God knows what it is now, says this.
	This is also a headline.
	Elon Musk and others urging people to have more kids are essentially calling for a Ponzi scheme, experts say.
	A Ponzi scheme?
	Is having children a Ponzi scheme?
	Yeah, it totally is.
	It's totally a Ponzi scheme, but it's one you need if you want to survive.
	Hey, look, it looks like my guest is here.
	I'm going to accept my guest, and then I'll introduce him if I can actually get him to come on here.
	Let's check our technology.
	Oh, that didn't work.
	Okay.
	I accepted a guest, but then my guest disappeared.
	Okay.
	We'll see if that works again.
	Hey, there you are!
	Maybe it's working.
	I think we're in.
	How are you doing, Scott?
	I'm doing great, Jason.
	If you don't recognize Jason, that means you haven't seen the All In pod.
	The number one podcast in the whole world?
	Is that still true?
	Yeah, number one.
	Well, you know, I have a persuasion coach, and if you say something on repeat, People believe it.
	So I've been saying we're the number one tech podcast for a while, and then I added business, and now I added politics.
	And so I joke I'm manifesting.
	But did we do the simultaneous sip yet?
	Did I miss it?
	Well, we can do another one.
	Okay, well, all you need is a cup or a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
	That's roughly it, yes.
	Roughly it.
	Well, I'm a big fan.
	Do you feel stronger?
	Do you feel your muscles increasing with the coffee?
	I do.
	I do.
	And you know, there was a study today.
	I don't know if you saw this, but maybe you can guess the percentage of people who believe that if you read a study about coffee, you're going to lean towards the ones that make it better.
	It's roughly, maybe in the comments, they'll tell us what percentage that is.
	You know, this might be my imagination, but as you sip your coffee, you look to be better looking, possibly healthier.
	You look a little younger yourself, actually.
	Do I?
	Try that again.
	Try one more time.
	Good stuff.
	Man, it's the good stuff.
	I feel younger.
	I feel younger.
	So I wanted to have you on because I wanted to see where you're at with this presidential stuff.
	Have you picked a winner yet?
	Do you like anybody from the president?
	I'm still a bit of a double hater.
	I hate to tell folks that.
	I'm a moderate.
	I would say a left-leaning moderate.
	I'm very left on social issues.
	I think people should be allowed to do whatever they do.
	And I'm kind of conservative on fiscal issues.
	So I guess I would be described best as like a Clinton Democrat is what people tell me.
	But on the pod, I kind of get Pushed a little left because a couple of my friends are very right as you know like keynote idea at the RNC, right?
	So, you know if I ask You know some probing questions people kind of assume I'm left but I'm here on my horse ranch in Texas.
	I left, California and And, you know, I was just shooting my pistol the other day here, and people are very like, are you left or right?
	I'm so confused.
	Well, now you having such an influential podcast, you realize that the Spider-Man problem is upon you.
	With great power comes great responsibility.
	And I feel that it might be time for you to come off the fence and say, you know what?
	We all have to choose.
	We all have to choose.
	And now you're going to you're going to hypnotize me.
	I did promise that I would hypnotize you to support Trump.
	Well, no, you know, I really appreciate what you do.
	I found I have like two Scott Adams eras.
	You know, I'm part of the IT generation.
	I was an IT guy in the early 90s.
	And so we grew up on Dilbert.
	And, you know, some of my friends and we kind of have Dilbert rules or, you know, it's in our industry.
	It's a big part of the culture.
	And then during COVID or slightly before COVID, I think you had my friend Naval on from AngelList.
	And I was like, what is this thing that Scott Adams is doing on Periscope?
	And I started watching it.
	And then I saw what you're doing on Locals and I subscribed because I study media.
	And I think what you've done here is Like very interesting for the audience and the community you've built.
	And I kind of feel like you're becoming, you ever see the Truman Show or the documentary We Live in Public?
	Right.
	I feel like we're all witnessing your third act of like, this is the, this is the Scott Adams Truman Show.
	You're putting yourself under a microscope for four hours a day and speaking for three to four hours a day.
	Like it's a bit, it's a bit spicy.
	It's also ironic because you may know I had the RFK Jr.
	voice problem for several years.
	I literally couldn't speak.
	Yeah.
	And now the irony is that it's all I do.
	It's my job to speak.
	It's really interesting, RFK, because when we had this week's pod, and I know you listen to the pod once in a while, we had Hoffman scheduled.
	And then at the last minute, RFK dropped out of the race, and we had had him on before any other podcast.
	And I think we were maybe the second to have the VEC on.
	And he was very complimentary of us and told everybody.
	It really helped him kick it off.
	So we said, hey, you know, now that his campaign's ending, maybe come back on.
	And we had them on at the same time.
	And people were like, you guys keep interrupting Hoffman, but you let RFK speak.
	And I realize now in talking to you, you kind of have to let RFK speak because he's got this condition with his voice, you're leaning in.
	I mean, not Hoffman level leaning in.
	But, you know, like, regular level of leaning in.
	I saw your man cave on that.
	Don't get too close to the camera, folks.
	And you put it up a little bit, yeah.
	But he was, you know, it's actually kind of a gift when you speak that way.
	And if I were to slow my voice down right now and lower it to 50%, everybody in the comments now has doubled their attention.
	And I think with him, you kind of triple your attention because you're like, I feel so bad that he's got this condition and he's very smart, clearly, and he's got... I really need to listen to this.
	And so I do think I don't interrupt him or move the conversation on because of the condition.
	You want to make sure you give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he can get his point across.
	I think there's another thing going on, which is if you're willing to listen to him, it better be good.
	In other words, he can't be just another guy talking about politics because that's everybody.
	But he is way more interesting and provocative and makes your brain go... So the investment is worth it.
	And then if you pay for something, like with your attention, and then you get a value, that's so sticky.
	That's like persuasion in turbo right there.
	Absolutely, yeah.
	And if it was just another politician, you know, reading whatever talking points, you'd be like, well, this is kind of a waste of time.
	It's painful.
	And I've heard this before.
	There's nothing unique here.
	I'm trying to figure out who writes his stuff.
	Does he write it himself?
	And he's got that Kennedy magic?
	Because, I mean, it sounds like it came out of that magic Kennedy stream.
	I'm Irish Catholic.
	And when I sat around my grandmother, God rest her soul's table with my grandfather in Brooklyn, they had Jesus, Bobby Kennedy, and John Kennedy on the wall.
	That was the order in which, like, You know, you thought about the world as a framing.
	And Irish people stay up late into the night.
	We might have a libation in a vessel of any kind.
	And we talk and we make people laugh.
	And I'm also Greek and I grew up in the restaurant business.
	And so my superpower is talking.
	And, you know, I think he's got that superpower.
	Irish people will sit there and they'll orate, they'll tell stories, they'll You know, try to make each other laugh, to try to make each other think.
	I think that's like the Kennedy superpower in a way, you know, and you were on this early.
	Trump's a insult comic, you know, audience work comic at his core.
	And I grew up in New York, so I kind of watched it in person.
	So my view of Trump is the 80s and 90s, early 2000s Trump before Apprentice, which I would put as the Howard Stern New York Post.
	Trump, and he learned this technique from Howard Stern.
	He was obsessed with Stern, and Stern was the peak communicator in that period, as you probably remember, even being in California.
	And he would go on that show, and there's a key moment where he said, and it's in the movie, where the guy who's working at NBC who has to deal with Howard Stern is like, Howard, why are they listening to him?
	And they say, oh, well, his fans are listening for 74 minutes.
	And they're like, 74 minutes in the morning commute?
	That's longer than people's commute.
	Why are they listening?
	And they said, they want to see what he says next.
	They say, OK, tell me about the haters.
	Tell me about the people who absolutely hate him.
	And they're like, yeah, they listen for 92 minutes.
	He loses his mind.
	What?
	Why do the people who hate him listen to him for 20 minutes?
	Number one reason given, they want to see what he's going to say next.
	You know, this is one of the things I say about Trump is that he brought a talent stack to the job that we haven't seen before.
	And people sort of dismiss, oh, he's like this TV actor BS guy.
	You know, like that isn't vital to being a politician.
	I mean, it's the most powerful thing he has.
	And it got dismissed early on as the not important part.
	Yeah, I do wonder if, like, sometimes what your greatest skill is is also, you know, like in any superhero movie, your greatest weakness at times.
	And I think he's going to lose.
	I'm sorry to the, I know Mac's going to lose their minds right now.
	I think he's heading towards a loss right now.
	And I'm curious what you think.
	I think he needs to be Trump 2.0 or what people were calling all in Trump.
	I don't know if you saw him when he was on our pod.
	But I think he matches, and you know, I was a psychology major, by the way, it's one of the reasons I have an affinity for what you do.
	I think, you know, the concept of pacing, you know, and so he will pace with whoever he's with.
	And then he mirrors them.
	And you obviously know about mirror neurons, and I'm sure some of the audience know.
	So when he was on iPod, and I started talking to him, I was getting hypnotized by him.
	You can see it.
	I'm going, and I couldn't understand why Chamath, I mean, and even Sachs, I couldn't understand why these guys flipped to Trump.
	They were never Trumpers.
	You can listen to the early episodes of the pod.
	They were like, Sachs was like, January 6th is disqualifying.
	He can never be president.
	He's not my preferred candidate.
	And Sachs tried on DeSantis.
	RFK, Vivek, and then Trump.
	Like, he literally, I think, held fundraisers for each of those.
	I know he did DeSantis, and I know he did RFK.
	So, you know, you had, you know, Sachs doing, and I get it now, you know, he will pace with you, he'll mirror you.
	And I was like, I have two questions I need to, I have like two or three questions I need to get in there.
	Now, I'm only 25% of the pod, even if I'm, although I'm the executive producer for life and moderator.
	I still can't monopolize it.
	So I was like, how do I use my questions?
	And my strategy was, I'm going to wear a suit.
	I'm going to wear a tie.
	Damn it.
	And I'm going to mirror him.
	And so I went in and I said, I'm going to mirror Mr. Trump.
	And, oh, President Trump.
	I apologize.
	So at some point during the pod, I called him Mr. Trump and I said, oh, I'm sorry, President Trump.
	I made the mistake on purpose, because I wanted to connect.
	And I wanted him to answer my question about abortion, and I wanted him to answer my question about January 6th.
	I didn't get to January 6th, but I did get the abortion one.
	And that one went viral and is now the canonical answer when people say, isn't Trump for a national ban?
	And I made him, three times I went back to him.
	So the way to handle Trump in an interview is to pace him, respect him, And then he will not answer your question on the first two tries, but he will on the third.
	He's cognizant enough of the dynamic in an interview that he knows this is what a genius he is on a media and communication basis.
	He knows this person's been respectful to me.
	They're asking for the third time.
	I got to give him something.
	I got to give him something.
	He's an entertainer.
	He's got to give me something.
	And I did it to him twice.
	I got him to do the abortion and I got him to answer about green cards.
	No, it seems to me that he's always been forthcoming about his opinion, though.
	You felt you had to drag it out of him?
	Yeah, so it's more nuanced.
	It's a great question.
	He will take your question, answer a little bit of it, He will then do crowd work.
	He will then pick a tangent to go on.
	Again, back to Howard Stern.
	What will he say next?
	So he will specifically give you a little taste of an answer and then, you know, kind of go off Hannibal Lecter, crowd size, you know, getting shot, whatever.
	And by the way, that was incredible move on your part to do the live stream.
	I found out about Trump being shot on my Peloton treadmill.
	through a locals notification and a YouTube notification.
	Putting that aside, he will meander and he'll go for three or four minutes. So the problem is, when he goes into a hostile environment, the huge mistake the woman at the Black Journalist Conference made, CNN has made, is they try to fact check him in real time and attack him.
	You said this, you said that. It's like, he says everything.
	He says every permutation of an answer.
	You could find an answer that agrees with you in a Trump speech.
	You could find the two minutes later the one that disagrees with you.
	All that matters is are you listening to Howard Stern lesson, right?
	He doesn't care what the position is.
	He cares you're paying attention to it.
	No, that's not what I see.
	You're aware of the, you know, The two movies on one screen.
	Of course.
	You explain it to people that we all see a different movie, but I know you know this is Akira Kurosawa and the movie Rashomon, where there's a sexual assault that occurs and everybody tells the story from three different positions, but you dumb it down for your audience.
	So one of the things I've noticed is that the Smartest, most reasonable people are starting to move toward Trump.
	And it seems very clear, you know, people under your pod, for example.
	Now, so the question that I have is, what would be the biggest issue that would prevent you from saying, you know what, Trump should be the better choice this time?
	He might actually be the better choice.
	But what's your top One or two things that are preventing you from saying that.
	Yeah, sure.
	I think character matters.
	And I think I have some character issues with him.
	I believe, like, January 6th was, I know you have said it's a hoax, and we'll talk about your use of the word hoax.
	Very, very, very clever.
	Because you say, January 6th, insurrection, hoax, hoax.
	By the 50th time, you actually get people to believe it's a hoax.
	Even though they've seen police officers beaten.
	Even though the Oath Keepers brought all those guns to the hotels near it.
	But you have convinced people it's a hoax!
	Hold on, let's talk about January 6th.
	I have some questions for you.
	Go ahead.
	What percentage of the protesters were violent, do you think?
	I would say there were, I believe there were low thousands.
	I've seen reports of 2,500 to 10,000.
	So let's just call it 5,000.
	We'll pick another one.
	Wait, you believe the 5,000?
	Of the 5,000, I would say, according to the number of people who have been, it's basically 800 to 1,200 people who have been indicted and or, you know, Not for violence though.
	Not for violence, right.
	There's vandalism in there too.
	So I would say it's low hundreds, probably 200 maybe of that group of 800.
	You think hundreds of people were violent?
	Yeah, I would say it's probably, yeah, low, low hundreds.
	And I would include in violence like, Spraying bear spray.
	I don't know.
	Breaking through a barricade.
	Would you agree that breaking a barricade would be violent?
	Or would we not count that?
	Is it only violence towards another human?
	Well, if you're talking about the fencing, there's some ambiguity about who exactly was removing the barricades.
	In that case, it's both.
	There are people who remove the barricades and there are barricades that are torn down.
	So it's both.
	Yes, a little.
	Sorry to be nuanced, Scott.
	But the truth is, I would say 90, high 90 percent were peaceful.
	I put it into three boxes.
	High 90s peaceful.
	Another group were opportunistically violent and some were planned violence, right?
	I've heard that the number was as high as 20,000.
	Is 5,000 the number you've heard?
	I was literally on the Wikipedia page the other day and they said something like 3,000 or 4,000 people entered the Capitol.
	So now we have another nuance.
	There's entered the Capitol and who are outside.
	But I think we would both agree that the overwhelming were peaceful.
	Yeah, so I think let's say 20,000 were involved but didn't enter.
	Okay.
	I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% were People that we would both say, you shouldn't have done that, you should go to jail if you did that.
	Would you agree?
	I would agree that beating a cop or spraying pepper on them, they should not have done that.
	I mean, you're a normal human being on planet Earth, so I think we can agree.
	So the beatings and the violence are sort of the shiny object that is hard for us to look away.
	But would it be fair To say that, let's say, Black Lives Matter or even the Palestinian protesters, would you judge them by the few who are violent or by the 98% or 90% who had a completely different intention?
	I would judge each group individually.
	Right.
	So, which group do you think more is associated with Trump's point of view?
	The peaceful ones, because he did ask for peace.
	Or do you think that the violent ones were doing what he wanted them to do?
	Yeah, I believe Trump is an expert at going right to the line and then pulling back.
	So, you know, he does it with race.
	He does it with gender.
	He does it with violence.
	He does it with crimes.
	You know, it would.
	And it's just like, you know, I think Michael Cohen, who, listen, I mean, obviously, he's He's as much part of, like, you know, the criminal element as anybody else.
	But, you know, he explained it like a mafia boss would be like, hey, it'd be terrible if something happened, or it'd be good if that went away.
	If you watch The Sopranos, the boss never says, kill that guy.
	He said, you know, that guy's gotta go.
	That guy's gotta go is how you would phrase it, right?
	But let me ask you specifically.
	Do you think Trump was in favor of, was he happy with any violence that happened?
	Well, that's what I wanted to ask him, actually.
	Because what I wanted to ask him was, will you— Stop it.
	Stop it.
	What?
	You're burying me.
	Put your hand down.
	Scott's like, wait a second.
	Oh, did I wear glasses today?
	Good try.
	Good try.
	I know, it's literally like two Jedi Knights trying to get inside each other's brains.
	But no, I think it's a good question.
	Do I think Trump wanted them to hang Mike Pence?
	No.
	Do I think Trump wanted them to go down there and cause chaos?
	And do I think he has a higher responsibility as the President of the United States to not go near that line?
	Yes.
	Do you think he has a higher moral obligation as president than a normal person?
	A higher moral obligation to avoid danger?
	Knowing his words could be misconstrued by the small percentage of his audience who are very activated, do you think he has a higher?
	Just like you do, in terms of great power has great responsibility.
	You just told me before, great power has great responsibility.
	Do you think that applies to Trump?
	Yeah, he has greater responsibility, but not greater moral authority, because none of us should be in favor of violence.
	Yeah, it's pretty obvious, right?
	So, would you have said that?
	Would you have said on January 6th, you gotta fight like hell?
	If you had been the warm-up speaker, would you tell them, go down there and fight like hell?
	I might, if I had thought in terms of protest was fight like hell.
	If my mental model was, we're really going to have to fight against this, that's what everybody says in politics.
	So if they had not been violent, nobody would have ever noticed he said that, because politicians say it all the time.
	So look, but let me ask this specific question.
	Sure.
	Of the 98% who were non-violent, What do you think they were trying to accomplish?
	What was their goal and what was Trump's goal?
	It's stated, so we know what it was.
	What do you think it was?
	I would take people at their word.
	They wanted Mike Pence, I think a portion of them wanted Mike Pence to not certify the election.
	They wanted to push that out and not certify the election.
	And why?
	Why?
	But why?
	Because they felt that it was stolen from them, was the stated reason.
	I think they actually even had a really good slogan, Stop the Steal.
	Right.
	Now, so the frame on this that I think affects everybody is if you start with the idea that they were trying to protect the public and protect the republic by making sure that the election had not been stolen, which is what it looked like to all of them, and still does, by the way.
	They haven't changed their mind that it looked like it was stolen.
	Now, I would agree that no court has demonstrated anything was stolen.
	So we don't have that.
	You always give that disclaimer, yeah.
	You need to say that, because that's just a fact.
	And then right after that you say, all systems can be hacked.
	So obviously, you know, I'm not saying it's stolen, but would you agree that all systems can be hacked?
	But let me just drill down in the system.
	If you knew that their intentions, both Trump's and the peaceful people at least, was to make sure that the republic was protected, but things went wrong, how do you feel about that?
	Yeah, so that's an interesting framing.
	If that was the case, then Trump, I would have great respect for Trump and yourself to come out and say, what happened that day was abhorrent.
	It should never have happened.
	We all say that.
	He says they're heroes and he says they're heroes and he will... Not the violent ones, not the violent ones.
	He says that the people who are there were heroes and that he will... He doesn't do the nuance and he understands what he's doing.
	Remember I said he's like a mob boss.
	So he understands the nuance of what he's doing.
	He's dog whistling to the people who will not separate and have nuance like we're having here today.
	So this is where I think he needs to be more nuanced.
	Hold on, be specific.
	What would be to his advantage to be backing anybody who was violent?
	How would that be his advantage?
	That's absolutely not his advantage, and he would know that.
	No, I think it actually, the threat of violence is a huge advantage to him.
	I think having a passionate base is why he wins the primaries.
	Having that incredibly passionate base, that will go to war for him.
	Well, but you're conflating that.
	Passion?
	Passion's okay.
	Ashton's okay.
	And then when he says, Oath Keepers, you know, hey, stand by.
	Like, he kind of knows what he's doing here.
	That's a group of people who are ex-military.
	The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters.
	We'll put them all in the group of violent... Proud Boys are the only ones.
	Proud Boys are the only ones he said that about.
	Right.
	But you can put in this group, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters are all part of a group of malicious military individuals.
	who are very passionate and who will bring large caches of guns to the city where Trump tells them to because they did.
	And so this is where Trump could be nuanced.
	And I think he would win the election if he took my advice here.
	So if you'll give me permission to give you the strategy to win the same way you have taught Trump how to win, I will tell you how Trump can win right now.
	He's got a large group of moderates who are absolutely disgusted by what happened on January And then he's got folks like you, or David Sachs, diminishing what happened there.
	And you're trying to diminish it right here in this conversation with me.
	Hold on, now that's mind reading.
	Okay, I will say, I feel my interpretation as a moderate, and when I talk to moderates, they feel what you're doing is trying to diminish it.
	That's how we interpret what you're doing.
	So now take that for what it is.
	We could be wrong.
	But that's how we interpret it.
	Okay.
	We interpret that Saks is taking an episode where police, and I come from a family of law enforcement, when a family in law enforcement or the military or people who believe in law and order, which is the majority of the country, see you guys diminishing, or we believe you're diminishing what happened that day, we say, you know what?
	We believe this could happen again because you won't even take any amount of ownership of it.
	And Trump certainly won't take ownership of it.
	If Trump came out and he said, listen, I want to talk about January 6th.
	And he did what he's doing on abortion right now, which is a masterclass, a masterclass in terms of working both sides.
	He could work both sides of the January 6th issue.
	All he's got to do is say, listen, given a lot of thought to January 6th, I know some of you have a problem with it.
	I want to address it today.
	Number one, what those violent people did, they should get the books thrown at them.
	Number two, the people who weren't violent, we should give them a speeding ticket and let them out.
	But I am promising you now, none of this will ever happen again.
	And when I told people, hey, you know, to go down there and fight like hell, I understand some people misinterpreted that.
	And I am now in my playbook, gonna be really careful about the fact and be really thoughtful about the fact that there are some people who are either mentally ill or so angry about politics that they might actually do something You know, abhorrent.
	And I just want to assure everybody, everybody, all Americans, that this will never happen again on my watch.
	And I'm not taking ownership of it.
	People are responsible for their individual behavior.
	But we're moving to a strictly nonviolent, everybody's going to sing Kumbaya, bring your guitars, and we're going to do sit-ins like the 60s.
	I don't want to ever hear violence again.
	And if he said something like that, and if you said something like that, and you stopped calling January 6th a hoax, you would actually win the moderates who are going to determine the election the same way Trump is almost winning women who are now believing him when he says, you know, let me say where you want to win.
	Or do you want to be persuasive and pander to your MAGA audience is what you have to ask yourself, Scott.
	Interesting.
	The thing I'm diminishing is the hoax part, not the violence.
	But your point is well taken.
	So let me do what you said.
	Good.
	I usually say nobody is in favor of the violence.
	We all agree on that.
	So I always dismiss it as the thing that we're all agreed on, so we don't need to talk about it.
	But if it would be better for people who are listening to feel what the inner feelings are, it was 100% unproductive to be violent.
	There was no way it could have led to anything good.
	It was nothing but destruction and chaos.
	So I would be 100% against any kind of violence against the Capitol or anybody who's working officially in any way, and they absolutely should be in jail.
	Now that happens to be the opinion of pretty much every Republican, but you're right.
	We don't say it.
	The reason we don't say it is we don't want to feed into the hoax.
	You know, you don't want to say something that could be taken out of context.
	It's like, well, even Adam says it was an insurrection.
	Look at him.
	Here's this clip.
	So, but your point is well taken.
	I believe that I would agree with you that if Trump was explicitly clear that the violent parts could never happen again, And that he maybe wishes you'd said it differently.
	That would make a difference.
	Look at the comments here.
	If you look at the comments, everybody's saying, I have TDS.
	And so this is the insult.
	This is also where I think the right is going to lose the election.
	When you diminish thoughtful people and just tell them they have TDS and that they're not actually thinking this through, you shut down the argument.
	Now, it could be true that people have TDS.
	And it could be true that Trump people have Kamala or Biden or Democratic derangement syndrome.
	But, you know, these discussions that we've gotten to now, abortion on January 6th and the border, are very nuanced, actually.
	And if you can, and that's what I try to do on All In Pod, and I think it's the reason why it's the number one podcast in the world, is because it's opened up this opportunity for nuance.
	Now, sometimes we get into it, but nuance is important.
	And if you look at abortion and you parallel what he did with abortion, he bragged, he told everybody, evangelicals who needed to win that first nomination, I'm going to stack two or three people on the Supreme Court and I'm going to overturn Roe v. Wade for you.
	He told them that.
	Then he did it.
	Then he bragged about it.
	I did it for you.
	Nobody could ever do it.
	It's a beautiful thing.
	Then, a year later, after literally bragging, I alone did that.
	I take ownership of it and it was a beautiful thing.
	He said, you know what?
	This week, he said, I think six weeks is a little too short.
	We probably want to get that number up a little bit.
	We want women to have a little more choice, don't we?
	And by the way, IVF is a beautiful thing.
	I think I should pay for IVF.
	IVF is like one of the most expensive procedures in the world.
	I have a friend who spent a quarter million dollars to have two kids and like, you know, a half dozen miscarriages.
	It is unbelievably torturous for a couple to go through it and unbelievably expensive.
	Look at what he did there.
	He's able to, at the same time, take ownership of overturning Roe v. Wade, which 80% of the country did not want.
	And then, he's not losing any MAGA votes by saying, you know what?
	You gotta have more than six weeks when you wanna kill a baby.
	No, he doesn't say kill a baby.
	No, actually, I am hearing people who are bailing out.
	At least people are saying that he lost their vote.
	I'm not sure I believe it.
	You think they're gonna go click Kamala?
	You really think?
	The people?
	You name for a minute the person who is pro-life.
	I think that Trump could take it to a level that is incredible if he frames it as getting him out of the conversation.
	Not happening.
	Sorry.
	That's his genius.
	I think that Trump could take it to a level that is incredible if he frames it as getting him out of the conversation.
	So he took himself out of the conversation of abortion and the response is, would you want me to make your personal health care choices?
	I just took the federal government completely out of it.
	Women are the majority in every state and you've already got half the men on your side.
	All you need is to convince the women and you can have any government you want.
	That's how our system works.
	It is the ultimate gaslighting.
	It is gaslighting level 1,000.
	What's the gaslighting?
	The gaslighting is to say, I alone, I will... Do you know how hard it is to change the Supreme Court?
	The Supreme Court, as you've talked about on this very program, wouldn't you agree?
	Well, no, that's just luck, and you just happen to be there at the right time.
	Okay, it's luck.
	But he also luckily picked people who have the chutzpah, the wherewithal to overturn Roe v. Wade.
	Most conservatives know enough to say, including yourself, let's leave that alone.
	It's a woman's body.
	Women have long memories.
	Women are going to remember this.
	And 80% of the country doesn't want to touch it?
	99% of politicians wouldn't go near it.
	He had the vision to say, if I get those lunatic evangelicals, they vote in primaries.
	I can beat the establishment.
	I could beat Mitt Romney.
	I could beat any Republican if I get them.
	That was so genius.
	Did you just call them lunatics?
	What, did you call them weird?
	I mean, I think religious people, I think religious people are a little bit much.
	I'm an atheist.
	I'm an agnostic.
	There's something, there's some higher power out there, but I, you know, when I see religious people like basing their decisions on a book that was written 2000 years ago, that's been kind of edited to death.
	Not exactly my operating system.
	So I'm a non-believer.
	But what I've discovered is that the Republicans who live by code—in other words, they have a set of rules—it's like, okay, I got my Bible, I got my Constitution, I'm kind of done.
	Like, if I just adhere to these, I'm going to be a good citizen, pay my taxes, and my kids are going to come out pretty well.
	They are completely right about that.
	I'm a big fan of the Constitution these days.
	Well, let me go further.
	I'm a big fan of the religious people in this country, even though I don't have exactly the same view.
	It's a good way to live.
	I mean, I think the science supports them.
	Nice to have tradition.
	The correlation is actually, you know, correlation and causation, as you know very well.
	The correlation is community.
	And this is why I'm a little worried about you, Scott.
	Back to the Truman Show and what we're watching happened to Scott Adams over the last couple years.
	People need community.
	And community makes you live longer and gives you purpose, right?
	And laughing and socializing.
	And I think the You know, praying in church is one thing, but I think the pie after church and going out to the backyard and hanging out, that's actually the magic sauce.
	Yeah.
	Is the community aspect of it.
	And then meeting people and having that social fabric to give you something to live for.
	It's a system that works.
	Yes, you're forced.
	It's like you going to Starbucks every day.
	It forces you to not just have this online community of us on Locals, but you have to interact.
	And once in a while, somebody recognizes you, which I know as a micro celebrity as well, somebody recognizes you and they say, I really appreciate Dilbert.
	Boop, boop, boop, boop, boop!
	Battery gets filled, right?
	You and I are of the exact perfect level of fame, which is 99% of people don't know us, but 1 out of 100 recognize us.
	And it just fills your heart with joy when they say, like, I have your calendar, or I watch the all-in pod.
	Like, I get stopped.
	You know, once or twice, that's perfect.
	Elon gets stopped by 100% of people.
	So it's impossible to have dinner now.
	But let me bring you back to a couple of things.
	Okay, sure.
	You want me to vote for Trump?
	No, but now that I've heard your description of January 6th, I have confidence that there's nothing unusual about that understanding, that you understand it factually, as well as the motivations of the people.
	That's all I ask.
	Yeah.
	And with abortion, you're also understanding that it's being tossed to the states, and at the moment, people are not getting what they want everywhere.
	But over time, they should.
	It's a better system.
	I actually think we might look back on moving it back to the States as the way we resolve the issue.
	So I said, independent of Trump, at one point on the pod, I have to go look it up.
	We have a new database that we're indexed the whole thing, which we should get for you.
	I have a company I invested in that indexes your entire archive and then makes a full search AI index.
	So I'll do it for your archive if you want.
	I would love that, yeah.
	Yeah, because then you could ask him a question like, when did Scott, you know, talk about COVID for the first time?
	When did he talk about whatever?
	And so what would be very, what I had said was, you know, I wonder if in this great operating system we have, where we have 50 testbeds, we have 50 ways of testing things, if we actually moved it down to the testbed, we could actually get to what would be truth.
	And in Europe, the EU is essentially like the United States in that way.
	You have this collection of states.
	And when we actually double-clicked on it, when Roe v. Wade was being overturned, and Sachs was shocked by it, by the way.
	He did not want it overturned.
	Even though he thought it was bad law, he was like, don't touch that.
	He was smart enough to know.
	80% of people don't want this, probably don't want to do that.
	But we might look at it as a very brave stance in the future, and that we get to a number of weeks that's palatable for both sides.
	And that's such an uncomfortable discussion.
	At what number of weeks are you willing to kill a baby is how it's framed, right?
	So how do you frame that part of the discussion?
	Yeah, you've heard my take a million times probably, which is that I think the people who have, given that there's no way to solve abortion so everybody's happy, and it's life and death, you know, in both cases, the mother as well as the child.
	So when you've got life and death and you know for sure you're not going to get, you know, a 90% agreement, your best case scenario is that the way it's decided looks credible to the losers, the people on the wrong side of it.
	And if you can get down to the state and it was really voters wanted it, et cetera, that's better.
	But even better than that, you and I should just stay the fuck out of it because we're guys.
	Amen.
	Amen.
	You've had serial long-term relationships with women.
	You may have learned along the way that, yeah, they might want some autonomy and to be respected and make their own decisions on certain issues.
	And this would be one of the ultimate ones, in my experience.
	So I'm with you on that.
	But this is just you and the other foot business, right?
	If men were the only ones who had babies, I would not listen to anyone's opinion about it.
	How about women deciding on circumcision?
	I think we can make our own decision.
	If circumcision was an adult decision, like if you weren't allowed to circumcise kids under the age of 18, which actually is an interesting thought process, maybe that should be the rule.
	Because it is mutilation.
	Maybe men should be able to make that decision for themselves when they're of age.
	I actually just thought about that for the first time.
	Maybe that shouldn't be a parental decision, mutilation of genitals.
	No tax on tips.
	No tax on tips.
	That's the one, Scott.
	That's all I got for that.
	That's all I got.
	Thank you for coming, people.
	Try the VL and take care of your surfers.
	Scott will be here for 3,000 more episodes.
	Are you exhausted from doing this?
	How do you do it?
	How do you, I mean, you're on time.
	You do the 7am, you do the pre-show, you do the man cave, you do a micro lesson.
	By the way, I bought micro, the second I heard you say micro lessons, I was like, brilliant.
	And I bought the domain name microlessons.com.
	Did you?
	For $3,000.
	I was like, somebody's making that into a business.
	And you can have it.
	I'll give it to you if you want it.
	But I think micro lessons is just such a brilliant idea.
	It's almost like TikTok for education.
	It's such a smart idea.
	It's something you can learn while you're doing number two in the bathroom.
	That's sort of been my guiding principle.
	Same duration, yes.
	I mean, everybody needs... You know what they say about great art?
	It's about constraint.
	I'm all about it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, if you think about trying to make people laugh in three pans and set something up, that is the ultimate constraint, right?
	But to answer your question, I'm at that point in life where I only do things that energize me.
	So if I spend even one minute doing this and not liking it, I'd make it short or I wouldn't do it.
	So I only do the things that fill me.
	So doing the comic now, When I don't have newspaper editors telling me, you can't do that joke, it's a whole different creative process.
	It's just so energizing, not like anything I've experienced in the past.
	So I'm in kind of an ideal career situation where it's just the fun part, I guess.
	Well, you know, having the FU money as one layer and then also having, like, being on the back nine and knowing, like, there's a certain amount of time left, no Fs given.
	And I think, like, you You know, before you got cancelled, you kind of predicted it was going to happen.
	Like, you were like, I'm going to get cancelled at some point doing this lunacy.
	It's an inevitability.
	I'm talking for three hours a day.
	I'm going to say something.
	They're going to cancel me.
	And I always joke with my kids.
	I have a joke with my daughters of like, I'm going to get cancelled because of the pods.
	And when I do, instead of skiing 30 or 40 days a year, I'm going to ski 50 or 60.
	And it's going to be awesome.
	So I'm trying to get cancelled.
	So, we do, when I'm in the car, we do almost cancelled, and I do the first part of a sentence, and then I do the second part.
	So I say, I think, insert, you know, a press group here, I think these people, I don't think they're good, dot dot dot, I think they're great.
	Yeah, I think they're great.
	And so they're all like, you can't say that, Dan!
	And then I go, I think they're great.
	We just laugh about the nature of being, but you're like, I think the last one.
	You were the guy, you got canceled and you pulled up the drawbridge behind you.
	Last one canceled.
	Well, I hope so.
	We'll see.
	You know, I was thinking if X didn't exist, I would have no second act.
	It was entirely based on X. You know, it is, you know, you, there is a, It's a joke we have internally.
	You know the price of free speech?
	What?
	$44 billion.
	Yeah.
	And counting.
	And counting.
	You can put a price on it, actually.
	$44 billion and you probably can't go to France anymore.
	You'll get picked up.
	Yeah, you can't go to France.
	Oh my God.
	Or Argentina.
	So let me see if we can wrap this up for my viewers.
	Oh, they're having a party in the comments, by the way.
	Woo!
	Yeah, I'm monitoring them.
	They're having all kinds of fun there.
	All right, so, if you had to pick, and you had to vote, and your only choices are the ones that are given, and you're thinking, damn it, this isn't ideal for me, but I've got to make a choice.
	Pull the lever.
	What's it going to be, Jason?
	Yeah, RFK.
	RFK, of course.
	Come on!
	You get him for free.
	You get him for free.
	I'll be completely candid.
	I have been waiting to understand the Democratic ticket, right?
	In order to make a choice, you have to understand where everybody's coming from.
	And part of understanding where everybody's coming from is seeing who Trump would pick as his running mate, understanding their positions, how things have changed, how they've evolved since the first term, etc.
	And I'm pleased with some of the things.
	I hate the insult comic, race-baiting part of Trump.
	But I don't know Kamala's position.
	I think she's a socialist and a communist.
	So if you ask me who I could vote for, a socialist, a communist, or a lunatic, I might take the lunatic.
	I might take the chance of another January 6th going worse over the communist.
	Let me test you this way.
	Great.
	Trump 1.0, the 2016 Trump, by his own confession, didn't know who to hire, didn't have access to the right people.
	Trump 2024 has a Vivek, a JD Vance, an Elon Musk, an RFK Jr., a Nicole Shanahan, and me.
	And at least half of your podcast.
	The most watched one in the world, I hear.
	And that's not normal.
	That's not normal.
	That's what I call the pirate ship.
	The people who might have all kinds of things not in common, but say, you know what?
	There is a certain way to do things right.
	They're all systems people.
	If you look at RFK Jr., he's not about a goal.
	Give reparations.
	That's sort of a goal.
	He's like, we need to change the way we approve things, the way our regulators are captured.
	These are pure systems things.
	Vivek, pure systems guy.
	Musk wants to look at maybe reducing the government.
	That's a systems approach.
	He's good at it too!
	85% less than Twitter.
	If you give me a president who can deliver that pirate ship of people who have extraordinary talents, they're system-based, they're pure patriots.
	By the way, how much lying did you see from RFK Jr.?
	None.
	Nicole Shanahan?
	None.
	Vivek?
	None.
	You know?
	I mean, this is not even common in any kind of political So, I think that Trump might have, if you look at the package, the strongest presidency we've ever had.
	It's an interesting framing.
	He has, I like the pirate framing.
	He does have like the outsiders now and he's bringing them inside.
	Picking JD, probably a mistake in hindsight given the hot swap, which obviously I predicted.
	So I have my Scott Adams moment where I predicted that would happen.
	So, you know, I think in the case of going up against Biden, it doesn't matter who the VP is.
	He's up 10, 15, 20 points.
	I mean, you're up against somebody who's in cognitive decline, clearly.
	Nobody's voting for somebody in cognitive decline.
	If now, you know, it looks like he should have picked Nikki Haley and gotten all those moderates and women, he would have definitely been further ahead.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Moderates love Nikki Haley.
	No, Nikki wouldn't have worked for the base.
	It wouldn't have worked for the base, but do you think they would have voted for Kamala and Waltz over Trump?
	Haley, no.
	They would have just trusted them.
	Oh, that's a good point.
	Yeah.
	But they wouldn't want what they got, so that's a problem.
	I think you picked J.D.
	I'm going to watch the debates.
	that I'm going to make a decision, and I'll be public about it. Yeah. You know, when I list, I listed on my like eight issues that I care about, Trump checks off more than Kamala right now. So, you know.
	But if the debate happened and Kamala made a real good argument for communism, you might go for it?
	Of course.
	I mean, can't vote for a communist.
	I mean, socialism and communism, I think, you know, the problem with socialism is it just leads to communism, like, by default.
	And, you know, like, it was the Socialist Party in Germany.
	They didn't call it the Communist Party.
	But you can see where it goes.
	You know, once people start seizing people's assets, once they start limiting their speech, once they take their weapons, like, it's a very weird operating system here.
	Number one, freedom.
	Number two, guns.
	I mean, as I tell people, like, if you don't like that operating system, you need to move because they put them one and two for a reason.
	You can go further down the amendments and like maybe change some on the margins.
	You're not changing those two.
	Not happening in our lifetime or our kids.
	So just accept it.
	I got guns.
	I got a gun range on my ranch here in Texas.
	My daughters know how to fire guns.
	Somebody hops the fence.
	You know, good luck to you.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Like, it's not changing in America.
	And so, you know, the thing I think Friedberg has said in our pod a lot that, you know, is very important to me is the last two administrations spent like drunken sailors.
	And at some point you got to stop spending money and you got to make the machine smaller and more efficient.
	And this is why, as annoying and abrasive as Vivec is to people, He, to me, would have been the best vice president candidate.
	I think he just shines a little too bright.
	Both Kamala and Trump didn't want somebody who shines too bright in that second position, I think, is the logic that they chose their VPs with.
	But I think Shapiro versus Vivek.
	Can you imagine Shapiro-Vivek VP debate?
	You'd be like, why can't these be the presidents?
	Like Vivek would go in there.
	He said the best thing he ever said was, yeah, I mean, if your birthday is an odd date, you're fired.
	If your birthday is an even date, you can stay.
	Or he might have done it by vocabulary.
	Basically, we're going to randomly cut half the people in this organization and get this smaller.
	That's actually the most existential thing.
	The border needs to be closed.
	Abortion needs to be legal with some, you know, constraints.
	Like, we all know what has to be done.
	If we don't stop adding to this debt, it's existential.
	Look at any of your friends.
	Look at all your friends who overspend.
	You know, you have that friend in your family who stretches and buys like the house on an arm mortgage and then they get two Mercedes and you're like, but you're a teacher and a lawyer.
	Like, how do you afford this?
	I don't have that.
	And then they go bankrupt.
	Like that's our country.
	We can do it.
	In my estimation, we can do it for, we can do it between two and three more times.
	We can put eight, I agree.
	trillion, which is what Trump and Biden did.
	They're equally drunken sailors.
	There's no debate about that.
	You can take a partisan approach.
	Truth is, they're drunken sailors.
	We have to have somebody who's sober, and you just can't win doing that.
	And that's why I think maybe Trump has a modest advantage in that way, because Vivek, Elon, and a lot of folks are on his pirate team, as you call it.
	They actually understand this issue.
	We can do it for one or two more terms.
	Definitely can't do it for a third.
	Well, I think that's a good summary.
	I got some other stuff I need to talk to.
	Yes!
	I will be tuning in.
	It's an honor to be here.
	Oh, and just on the Scott Adams Truman Show thing, before I left, I was going to reach out to you because I was going to tell you, listen, let's get a pickleball game going here.
	You need human socialization, Scott.
	I understand you love talking to everybody in the man cave.
	I understand this is like a great community.
	You just need to have eight people over.
	I know it's hard because people can't get along, but Saks and I get along.
	We still have dinner.
	We still look like great best friends and everything.
	We need like seven people in the East Bay to play pickleball with Scott every Saturday, Sunday.
	Let's get it going, folks.
	You cannot be alone in that giant, incredible Dilbert house.
	I got my dog.
	She was great.
	Let's get a couple people in there, okay?
	Maybe you get on Tinder, you start swiping a little bit.
	Maybe we can make a little connection there.
	There's gotta be some divorcee.
	You can't go for another Instagram model.
	You gotta get a divorcee.
	Kids are in college.
	You know, 45, 55, you know, a little bit older, you know.
	No more of these, like, hot Instagram models for you, Scott.
	Let's get, like, a little bit of a, you know... All right.
	Your advice is noted.
	I'll change my life immediately.
	Just get a little bit more human interaction.
	I'm a huge fan.
	Can I just get my daughter to AI?
	I'm six months away from being able to put a chip on my daughter's collar so she can just talk to me.
	Yeah, exactly, exactly.
	I mean, it does feel, the Neuralink stuff is very, very real.
	You know, if you start thinking about the exponential nature of technology, which you understand very well, having lampooned it for decades, that's one thing that's very real.
	And, you know, you get one or two people using the chips, and then all of a sudden it's 1020, and then it's 1000, 2000, and they're going to figure it out.
	And it's going to be very interesting when you and I are talking here, And instead of asking questions, you're talking, and it's pulling up All the fact-checking we were doing.
	It's going to literally, in the middle of the screen, will be some AI saying, January 6, there were 4,722 people, according to this video camera at the front of the building.
	I just double-checked it.
	It's going to literally give us the stats here.
	Pretty brave new world.
	It's going to be interesting.
	I hope we make it, Scott.
	You and I are older.
	If we make it another 30 years, the change in the next 20 or 30 years is going to make the change we saw look Completely like Stone Age, like we created fire in a wheel and then everything from this point forward is going to be mind-blowing.
	Yeah, I feel like I'm in this weird generation that was pre-computers.
	And I'm also going to experience post-AI.
	Like, that's the full trip right there.
	It is.
	I'm part of the group where I got my first PCjr as 13 years old in 1983.
	And yeah, we were the first online generation.
	Like, we remember before online, and we remember AOL.
	And now you've got this whole generations that Well, they know.
	There's a whole generation that, you know, doesn't remember a time before these.
	That's really weird.
	Really weird.
	All right.
	I'll let you get the rest of the docket.
	Thank you, Jason.
	All right.
	See you soon, Sippers.
	Okay.
	Bye-bye.
	All right, ladies and gentlemen.
	Hope you enjoyed that.
	I got some more stuff to talk about if you want to stay around.
	It's Labor Day.
	You got nothing else to do.
	Let's do this.
	All right, a few other things.
	Did you see that Mark Cuban did a poll on X, and he asked people who would they prefer their children would be more like?
	I'm paraphrasing, but did they want their children to have the character and persona of Harris or of Trump?
	And Trump got 75% of the vote.
	Or was it two-thirds?
	Anyway, Trump won easily.
	People would rather have their children more like Trump.
	And then it got funnier, because Mark complained that the poll might not be copacetic, and that there were too many anonymous people voting, so it looked sketchy.
	That's right.
	Mark Cuban complained that there wasn't a voter ID for the poll.
	Now, does it get any better than that?
	It does not.
	That is just funny.
	I have nothing to say on that.
	Meanwhile, Robert Reich, according to Jonathan Turley, he's talking about Reich, wants foreign governments to censor or silence American citizens and maybe arrest Elon Musk.
	So I guess Reich said this, quote, regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn't stop disseminating lies and hate on X. Who gets to decide what the lies and the hate are?
	Does he not understand how anything about free speech works?
	If you get to decide what the lie and the hate is, I don't have free speech.
	Well, I guess that was literally true in my case.
	If somebody else got to decide what was a lie and what was hate, and then I got cancelled.
	So, no, that's a bad idea.
	There's a Reagan movie out.
	I think it's called Reagan.
	And would you be surprised, Isabella Maria DeLuca is reporting this, that the critics gave it 18%.
	So that's not very good.
	Only 18% liked it.
	But 98% of the audience liked it.
	This is so typical.
	The audience loved it.
	The critics hated it.
	It was about Reagan.
	Is there anything else you need to know?
	Basically, they just voted for their politics, it sounds like.
	Tim Urban was commenting on AI chess.
	He says we're more interested in a chess match between grandmasters, you know, human beings, than between AIs, even though AI is way better.
	He says he's noticing the same thing with video and art.
	Once you realize it's made by AI, you lose interest, no matter how good it is.
	And you will note that I've been saying this since the dawn of AI, that if you're worried about AI taking the job of artist, then you don't understand art.
	Art is not about the art.
	Art is about the artist.
	It always is and always will be.
	Because it's a mating instinct reflex.
	When you see that an artist can do something impressive in any domain, it signals that their genes are good for mating.
	They got something going on.
	Whatever it is.
	They're funny.
	They're musical.
	They're strong.
	Whatever it is.
	So if your AI does that, it doesn't trigger anything.
	You go, oh, computers can do things.
	That's it.
	There's no reason to even look at it after that.
	So now I agree with Tim.
	I think human art will continue, because it has that mating connection.
	There's a story in The Bite.
	There's some Facebook partner, a separate company, who's bragging about their app that lets your phone's microphone listen to what you're talking about so they can serve you ads.
	And they say that they worked with Facebook and Amazon and Google.
	Amazon's denied it.
	We're not so sure about the others.
	But didn't you all know that?
	You all knew that your phone listens to you and your other devices too, probably, and that it serves you ads based on what you're talking about.
	You all knew that, right?
	Have you yet had the experience where it serves you an ad that you have not talked about, not searched for, and have done not a single thing that would indicate you were interested, and something really specific?
	Have you had that yet?
	I've had that a lot, and I cannot figure that out.
	Is there something I do that suggests I would be ready to have this very specific thing I care about, but I've never mentioned it?
	Is it a coincidence?
	It could be confirmation bias, right?
	Because you're thinking as you notice it, it could be just reticular activation.
	So maybe you just notice it more.
	But boy, does it feel like they somehow know what you're thinking.
	Now, I don't think they have that technology.
	But imagine the large language models.
	They're looking for patterns.
	If they can build a large language model that knows how to complete a sentence, so it would make sense in a conversation, it can predict.
	Can it also predict, based on all the other things I talk about, that I would be in the market for a new toothbrush?
	You know, just picking some random.
	I think it might.
	I think there's a possibility that all the other things you talk about Would somehow give it a hint of what specific thing you've never mentioned you might also be interested in.
	So, it feels like it.
	I don't know if that's the case.
	Anyway, let me give you a review of the Harris versus Trump messaging at the moment.
	So, Harris has some ads.
	One of them says that Trump vows to be a dictator on day one.
	Do you think that Trump vowed to be a dictator on day one?
	As a joke he did, answering a question once.
	Does it sound serious at all to be a dictator on day one?
	No, he said a dictator for one day, so he could do some things, but he didn't mean it literally as a dictator, because you don't be a dictator for one day.
	But she's going to act like he meant it seriously.
	She makes an ad where he looks all scary.
	Then she also had an ad that said These are quotes that she's attributing to Trump.
	He said, we should punish women who have abortion.
	He did say that once because he thought it was against the law.
	So of course the law would deal with people who break it.
	He very quickly reversed that totally after thinking it through and people got to him and said, no, you can't put the woman in jail.
	You know, she's sort of the victim of this.
	So he just completely changed.
	So it's a lie.
	Um, he did say it.
	But it's a lie to say that that's his view.
	He said he is proud of his role in ending Roe.
	Well, almost.
	What's really true is he was proud of moving it to the states so that the Constitution can do its job the way it was designed.
	They say he unleashed extreme abortion bans across the country.
	Well, that's one way to say it.
	Another way to say it is he took the decision away from the federal government and away from himself and put it closer to the public in the states.
	Now the states have not worked it all out yet, so definitely there's some people not getting what they want in some states.
	But it's not exactly like he unleashed the bans.
	What he did was change how they were decided.
	So, why is it that Harris has to use non-stop hoaxes to attack Trump?
	The reason is that they don't have policies that work out.
	So if Harris had real clean and clear policies that were just better than Trump's, that's all she would talk about.
	Because people would say, well, that's a better policy.
	If you don't have clear policies, or the policies you have are bad, all you have is hoaxes.
	So this is a deliberate Harris attempt to make sure that all you think about is defending against many hoaxes, because it takes away your time from asking what her policies are.
	So, yeah, if all you have is hoaxes, you're in bad shape.
	Did you see the, there's a few videos of Kamala Harris talking about her love of cooking collard greens?
	And as she makes so many of them, she once had to wash them in a bathtub.
	Now, I don't know exactly what she meant by washing them in a bathtub.
	I like to think that she had individual containers that she was using for washing and they were just in the bathtub because there were a lot of them and it was water splashing around.
	I'd like to think that she did not put them just natively in the bathtub because I would not be eating at her house if I knew I had bathroom food.
	Hmm.
	So, how long has that bathtub been marinating in there after Doug got done?
	That's what I'd ask.
	I'd say, uh, I don't want any of those, uh, no collard greens, please.
	Anyway.
	Um, but she picked a good vice president in Tim Walz.
	Um, he only has a few people that are against him.
	Uh, that would include his brother and all the men he served with in the military.
	But on the good side, people who don't know anything about him like him a lot.
	It's just the people who know him who don't like him.
	But to be fair, his son likes him.
	And we think the rest of the family, we're not sure about the wife, but we think his daughter likes him as well, probably.
	So it's not every person who knows him well, it's just his wife shakes hands with him instead of hugging him, his brother says he would be the worst person to be in charge, and the men he served with think he's a traitor, or something like that.
	Not a traitor, a traitor's too strong.
	But a shirker of responsibility, something along those lines.
	But the people who don't know him, very positive thoughts about him.
	Meanwhile, Trump's messaging.
	He had what looked like an AI-designed ad where there was a dangerous-looking person who was following a young woman in an alley at night, you know, with a knife, I think.
	And the statement says, know it is safe with Kamala's open border.
	That's pretty scary and direct and fair.
	Now, is that a hoax?
	Is it a hoax that dangerous people are coming into the country?
	Well, if you say they're mostly dangerous, then you're a big ol' racist.
	But some of them are.
	And there are people who didn't need to come in, and there are people dying because of the people who did not come in legally.
	Now, how many of them is a fair question, but one would be a lot, right?
	You don't want anybody being killed if you don't need it.
	But then he also has one more provocative.
	I don't know if it's AI generated or a photo from some event, but it's men dressed in what looks like Islamic traditional wear, and they're burning an American flag.
	And the text on it that Trump was sending around was, meet your new neighbors if Kamala wins.
	Your new neighbors.
	Just an Islamic garb and burning the flag.
	Now is that too far?
	Not really, because she's got more of an open border policy.
	She would say they're not illegal because she wants to let them in for asylum and she would not have any kind of ban on any particular country, it looks like.
	So yeah, it would look It would look a lot more like that.
	So I would say that Trump uses his typical hyperbole to say that there's a real problem.
	It's definitely a real problem.
	But that, you know, maybe looking like it's bigger than it is, as big as it is.
	It's plenty big, but maybe exaggerates a little.
	Harris just makes up hoaxes.
	So literally it's hoaxes versus hyperbole.
	That shouldn't be hard to decide between those two.
	All right, here's an idea that is not mine, but I like it.
	Suppose Trump, this came from somebody who's watching right now.
	Somebody who's watching this, this is their idea, not mine.
	Suppose Trump made an announcement, and he invited Harris to join him in this, and said the announcement is, and you know, she doesn't have to be there at the same time, but just asking you to agree, that no matter who wins the election, The president-elect will aggressively pursue any claims of election fraud, no matter whether they came from the left or the right.
	Now, if Harris declines to be part of that, that would mean that she is not agreeing you should aggressively prosecute people who cheated in the election, and that's going to look really sketchy.
	But if she does agree, Then it would put the fear in the cheaters.
	And that might be good for Trump.
	At least he would think so.
	That would be his belief.
	So, and then you add to that the large whistleblower awards.
	So imagine Trump doing an announcement that if I win, I will aggressively pursue any cheating accusations.
	And there will be whistleblower rewards, so if anybody saw you do it, you can pretty much count on them turning you in because they're going to make a lot of money from it.
	And you simply make it a bigger issue.
	You simply make people think more about the penalty.
	So if you are hypothetically, we don't know that such people exist in the real world, but hypothetically, if there are any little groups of people who are planning to cheat in the election, you want them to think a lot more about the penalty and getting caught, and a lot less about just changing the election.
	So remember, your reality is what you spend most time thinking about.
	So if Trump could make this the thing they think about, how much they're going to go to jail, how easily they'll be caught, how the whistleblowers will certainly turn them in, you could put a real chill in their ability to cheat.
	And that could be good.
	That could be good.
	Adam Schiff was on TV and he was asked about Kamala Harris and fracking.
	Now Schiff himself has a bill that he's backing that would ban fracking.
	So Schiff is against fracking and thinks it's important for climate change.
	But when asked about the fact that Kamala Harris used to be in favor of banning fracking, but now she's not, Schiff said that her values are consistent.
	So he wanted to know that Kamala Harris's values have not changed.
	Um, that's a weird defense, isn't it?
	He's literally saying that her policy is wrong, but that's okay because it's consistent with her principles, which actually she's had both opinions with the same principles.
	That is the most absurd defense.
	You never want somebody to come out and defend you by saying that you're making the wrong policy decision.
	He's on her team.
	He's on her team, and he's saying pretty directly she's making the wrong policy decision because he has a bill in Congress that's the opposite of her opinion.
	That's as opposite as you can get.
	He didn't just say it.
	He's sponsoring a bill in Congress that's the opposite of her current stated policy.
	And he's still willing to say that her values are consistent, even when she used to agree with him, but now she doesn't.
	What he said was that when you become the vice president, you have a different perspective.
	Okay, that's one way to say that you're a lying weasel flip-flopper.
	In other words, she has to lie about what she wants to get elected.
	That's how I hear it.
	She has a different perspective.
	Yeah, the perspective is that she can't get elected if she has a dumbass policy.
	Well, Elon Musk is fighting back against Brazil.
	You know, there's that Brazilian judge who's trying to get, who's banning X and threatening Elon and everything.
	And Elon's response is he's created a file, an account on X called the Alexander Files.
	The Alexandre is the judge's name.
	And it's files which has lots of posts Of about him breaking the law, the judge in Brazil breaking the law.
	So these are things which are public knowledge because you can tell what the law is and then you can see what he did because he does it publicly.
	He's a judge and you can see that what he does publicly seems very illegal according to Brazil's law and not just in one way, but in a whole variety of ways.
	So much so that creating an account where you can post on it every day was the best way to go.
	Now, Will this embarrass or pressure the judge?
	I don't think so, because he looks like he's kind of a hard ass.
	But I love how hard Elon is going at him.
	So we'll keep an eye on that.
	Remember I told you that Venezuelan gangs had taken over an apartment building in Colorado?
	I think at one point I'd said some other town.
	Well, I saw a video on social media from somebody who lives there.
	Who claims that that never happened?
	There's no such thing as a Venezuelan gang who took over an apartment building.
	And that the local police, when they saw the reports, they also went and looked for such a place and found no place that any citizens think the Venezuelans are charging them rent or took over.
	What do you think?
	Is that a real story?
	Or is there just sort of a general problem with Venezuelan gangs there and somebody took it too far?
	Yeah, why haven't we seen the police swarming the apartment?
	Maybe because it's a fake story?
	So I'm doing a mea culpa here.
	I think I may have forwarded a fake story.
	So I feel that for my own credibility, I need to admit that.
	It's a pretty common thing on social media, you think something's real, looks like it came from a good source, and you forward it.
	Now, I'm also not saying, I'm not saying that it's debunked, because I only saw one person say it.
	But I don't know, because I don't trust the news, but I don't trust random guy talking about it on social media.
	So I'm seeing my trusted sources saying it's a real story.
	Interesting.
	All right.
	So I'm going to say I'll look into it a little bit more, but you should be on the guard about stories that your observation is not matching the information.
	My observation is, if that were real, you'd expect to see more police response and there'd be a bigger story, etc.
	So there's something wrong with the story.
	But there might be something that's real-ish about it.
	So, I'm going to stick a pin in that one and say, don't believe anything I've said about it.
	Let's look into that a little more.
	All right.
	There's, you know, I hate this story, but I'll just mention it because it's in the news.
	You know, Trump and Harris going back and forth about who's disrespecting the military more.
	Is it Walsh?
	Or is it Trump going to the cemetery to Honor the dead from the Afghanistan withdrawal.
	And the only thing I'm going to say about this is it's really icky.
	And I'm going to take a pass on giving my opinion, because I think the only opinion that matters are the Gold Star families and the people who are directly involved.
	People have been in the military.
	Uh, I think they absolutely have a right to a strong opinion on this and I'll take their, I'll take their lead on this.
	Right.
	So my take is that my, my personal level of honor is below all of them.
	So, you know, I didn't, I wasn't in the military.
	I'm not a gold star family.
	So let, let the people who have earned their right to be part of this conversation, tell us what to think.
	And then I will simply observe whether they, you know, whether it changes the polling or anybody's opinion, but it's happening.
	Meanwhile, in Oregon, they became the first state in the country to re-criminalize hard drugs, which had been decriminalized.
	Now, we're not talking about marijuana.
	We're talking about the hard stuff, the hard drugs.
	And apparently that didn't work out.
	So now there's a, there's, they've reversed it.
	So if you get caught with a small amount, you will get a choice of jail or some kind of program, treatment program.
	Now, the way I read this is that it's not exactly recriminalizing it in the typical way.
	To me, it looks like the recriminalizing is simply a hammer to make them get treatment.
	So if I were reporting the story, I would have reported it differently.
	I would say that instead of recriminalizing it, although technically that's true, I would have said they've changed it to force you into a treatment program, the alternative being jail.
	So I would have explained it as treatment first, because who's going to take the jail?
	Are people going to say, yes, I'll take the jail when they have a treatment program option that they could, you know, pretend they're in but not?
	I'd call it a treatment.
	I'd call that a treatment plan.
	And, and, you know, I'm going to give Oregon a, uh, more of a compliment here than you expected.
	Uh, I say it all the time that a system is better than a goal.
	The goal is to, you know, nobody does drugs and nobody dies from it.
	But the system is you're going to have to try some stuff.
	So they tried some stuff.
	It didn't work out.
	If they had never tried another thing, I'd be really mad at them.
	But they tried something.
	It didn't work out.
	Now they're tweaking it.
	Still with the emphasis on treatment.
	Still okay with it.
	Will this work out?
	Probably not.
	Because nothing seems to work out in this domain.
	But was it smart to try it?
	I'm going to say yes.
	Because the rest of us got to watch.
	And you know, it cost them something.
	And we didn't have to do it.
	So we got to watch and we go, OK, there's a whole bunch of other states that just got a real big benefit out of that, because now it takes the pressure off them from decriminalizing if they were thinking about it.
	So I'm going to say this put us ahead, if only in what we know.
	It didn't actually make anything better yet, but it might.
	It might.
	Well, the UK is going to have their first AI teacherless classroom.
	So only AI will be teaching the kids.
	It's just one private school in London.
	And we'll all be watching that.
	So very much like the Oregon example, my personal opinion is that it won't work.
	But do I think they should try it?
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Because we won't know if it doesn't work unless somebody goes and tries it.
	So yeah, give it a try.
	I think that the AI teacher would be better on day one than the worst 20% of teachers.
	How many would agree with me?
	If you had bad luck and you were in a bad school with bad teachers, I'll bet the AI teacher is already better.
	But this isn't a private school.
	The private school probably had pretty good teachers.
	So I don't know that this is going to be better for a private school, but certainly better than a public school in many cases.
	So we'll keep an eye on that.
	I think it'll end up being some kind of a hybrid model where there's a human teacher, but AI does the heavy lifting, you know, but the human is there to give it a salience, etc.
	Meanwhile, there's a fentanyl vaccine going into clinical trials, according to TribLive.
	Developed by researchers at the University of Houston.
	Now, are you having the same experience I am?
	My experience of this is, of all the things that we could do to solve this fentanyl problem, of all the things you could think of that would be ways to approach this, did it have to be a vaccine?
	It's the only thing I'm not crazy about.
	Like, even if it had just been a pill, you know, maybe that would have its own medical risk, but there's just something about the fact that it's this day and age, and it's 2024, and the solution for this might be a vaccine.
	Now, presumably every young person would end up getting the vaccine, Because you don't know when the fentanyl is going to be in something that you didn't think was that thing.
	So, is this going to be mandatory, if it works?
	You could very easily imagine this becomes mandatory, couldn't you?
	Because if children don't know they're getting the fentanyl, it's not a lifestyle problem, it's a health problem.
	It's like an environmental problem.
	Now, when I say they don't know it, you know, let's say it's They thought they got Xanax, which they shouldn't be doing, right?
	So it would be an illegal activity in any case.
	But if they thought they were getting some Xanax from their friend, but ended up being fentanyl and killed him, do you want to protect that kid?
	But do you want to force them to get a vaccination in today's day and age?
	I don't know.
	Of all the things, there had to be a vaccination.
	Anyway, in Tel Aviv, mass demonstrations because The six hostages were killed by Hamas and the protesters say, I guess you should have been negotiating harder.
	Should have negotiated harder.
	But my question for the protesters is this, what was your plan?
	So I get it.
	You don't like what Netanyahu did.
	You don't like how he's handling it.
	I get it.
	All right.
	I hear you.
	People, people got killed.
	Don't like that.
	Okay, great.
	I got it.
	You don't like it.
	What's your plan?
	We'll negotiate to do a ceasefire and get the hostages back.
	So, how long is the ceasefire?
	Well, temporary ceasefire.
	Well, temporary ceasefire is not going to get anything done.
	Hamas isn't going to agree to a temporary ceasefire.
	What would be the point of even having hostages if you were just going to give them back?
	And then they would say, well, not a temporary ceasefire, but rather just a ceasefire.
	And then, you know, we rebuild Hamas and, or we rebuild Gaza.
	And then all the misplaced people get, you know, fed and they get to live somewhere.
	To which I say, that wasn't one of the options.
	What made you think that was an option?
	There is no way that Israel is going to rebuild the town and let Hamas just take over again.
	So whatever it is, it's not going to be peace until Hamas is gone.
	So my question to the protesters is, do you even have any reasonable idea what they should have done instead of what happened?
	And the answer is, I feel like they're just mad that they're not really asking for anything that would make any sense at all.
	So, one also wonders who are the organizers for any protests anywhere around the world.
	And now, the most important thing, if you missed the start, the Dilbert calendar for 2025 is now available.
	If you go to Dilbert.com, you'll see the link to the purchase page, and you could pre-order it now.
	If you pre-order it, it's good for me.
	Because then I don't have to put up a bunch of money because I skipped the regular publisher this year and it's not available on Amazon because they take a lot of it.
	And I couldn't really, I couldn't give you the price I wanted to give you, uh, unless I cut out the publisher and Amazon as well.
	So it's only available from one, one site.
	And, uh, hope you hope you pick it up and, uh, Yeah, you'll see.
	Yeah, the shipping turns out to be a big part of it.
	But if you order more than one, the shipping will look reasonable.
	And as I said earlier, it's double the comics this time, because there's a comic on the back as well as the front.
	So that includes the Dilbert Reborn, the spicy ones that are the newer ones will be on the backs.
	All right.
	That's all for now, people.
	Thanks for joining.
	I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Jason.
	And, uh, I will see you in the man cave tonight.
	And, uh, thanks for joining.

▲