All Episodes
Nov. 21, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:27:56
Episode 2666 CWSA 11/21/24

Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/ Scott Adams Merchandise: https://scottadams.companyistores.com/ God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Tighten your socks.
They're going to come right off.
As soon as I've got my comments going here, there we go.
All systems functioning perfectly.
Do-do-do-do-do-do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
But 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 for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen, a 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 that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Oh, so good.
So good.
So apparently if you're a gamer, one of the ways you can tell that your video game is a video game is that you'll see what's called a server line in your landscape.
So if it's one of those games where you can explore large territories, your video game back office might not be able to handle all the complexity on the same server.
So you might have to go from a part of the game that's handled by one server to a part that's handled by the other server.
And sometimes you can see the line.
It's like a straight line, like, say, in a forest or a desert or the ocean or something.
And it would be this unusual little straight line, and then there'd be a little game lag as you go from one server to the other.
So one way you could tell if we live in a simulation, if our reality is a simulation, is if you could find one of those server lines.
So if you could find a huge straight line in nature that didn't seem to have any explanation, And that means that we have a server line.
A different server handles it if you walk over the line.
Well, it turns out we found one of those in the Amazon.
There's a 10-mile straight line through the forest that nobody has an explanation for.
Looks like a server line.
So, maybe.
Now, this is in my recreational belief category.
You know, up there with UFOs and other fun stuff like that.
I don't necessarily think that we found a server line in the Amazon.
But maybe.
Maybe.
Wouldn't that be fun?
All right.
Well, the bomb cyclone is hidden.
That's a bizarre and unusual weather situation that is so dire that they call it a bomb.
It's a bomb cyclone.
And I'm at the edge of that bomb cyclone.
So far, not so bad.
But if the bomb cyclone gets me, I've already prepared my backup plan.
Turns out that according to CNN Travel, there's an Italian village that's offering homes for one dollar to Americans.
Now, non-Americans can also go there, but they say they really want the Americans.
And the reason that the homes cost $1 is that they're worth $1.
They're just dilapidated crap homes that you wouldn't want to live in.
So you'd have to fix them up.
So I guess I'd rather have taxpayers than have a bunch of dilapidated, empty $1 homes.
So there you go.
That's my backup plan.
If the bomb cyclone gets me, I'll be heading to Italy, and I only need to take one dollar to get myself a house.
Well, there was a study, Scientific America is writing about it, where they put a little electrical stimulation on the corner of people's mouths and they would turn it on and it would make them artificially smile because they'd be activating the little smile muscles on the side of their mouth.
And guess what?
They found that if they make you smile, you will get happier.
That's right.
Your mouth can control your brain.
Now, you know what's interesting about that?
I wrote about that phenomenon in 2012 or so, when I was writing my book that came out in 2013, How to Feel.
Almost everything still went big.
And at the time, I considered it common knowledge that science has found that if you tell yourself to smile...
If you're not happy, it will improve your happiness chemistry in your brain.
So if you just fake a smile and just make yourself do it, it might be able to improve your brain.
But then later, I saw a story that says that was debunked.
And so science said, no, those studies are fake.
There's no science that says if you do a fake smile, it can make you actually happier.
And when I redid the book, I said to myself, I wonder if I should take that out.
And I left it in.
Do you know why?
Because I think I know more than science.
My experience as a hypnotist is that that would totally work.
Like, I don't need a scientific study if you force somebody to smile because, as I tell you often, your body and your brain are the same tool.
We only artificially think there's a brain and then there's a body.
They're connected.
It's part of one machine.
So it's not terribly...
That it's a two-way machine.
You know, happiness makes you smile.
Smiling makes you happy.
Because there are a whole bunch of mechanisms like that in your body that work that way.
I was telling you the other day that if you were not aroused sexually, but if somebody gave you a Viagra and it just did its thing, and suddenly you look down and you're like, hey, what's going on here?
You would start having sexual thoughts.
So your body can make your brain feel a certain way.
Your brain can make your body feel a certain way.
It's just always been that.
So what was the result of the test?
Just what I thought it would be, which is artificially making somebody smile makes them actually happier.
Their happiness chemistry increases.
Now, there might be something else going on in this test because this is also a hypnotist insight.
If you do something that makes somebody feel unusual, it will also make them smile and be happy.
So when you're a hypnotist and you're putting somebody under in what they call a trance, when a person feels something happening that they know they're not causing directly, But rather that it's being caused by your suggestion.
For example, if you said, and this is a common thing to do with hypnosis, if you said your arm is getting light and it's starting to float, if your hand starts going up, you can't get the smile off your face under hypnosis because you're reacting to your body doing an action that you didn't control.
It would just make you smile.
Likewise, I would imagine if you put stimulants on my mouth and said, hey, we're going to test your mouth, and then the stimulants turned on, and then my mouth smiled like the joker, How in the world would that not make me actually happy in the real world?
Of course it would.
It would be just like the hypnosis.
If you felt your body doing something that you didn't do, your first just automatic reflex would be to laugh and to get happy.
So I'm not sure that the science is, you know, airtight in this case, but I do feel that fake smile probably makes you happier.
Probably does.
Well, according to James O'Donnell in the MIT Technology Review, AI can now create a replica of your personality just by talking to you.
So a two-hour interview where the AI asks you questions, according to some research from Stanford and Google DeepMind, is enough for it to recreate basically a virtual replica of you with your values and your preferences with stunning accuracy.
Hello!
Because you all know what I'm waiting for, right?
I'm already arranging my trust, my state, to have a trust to maintain the digital version of me in perpetuity.
Now, I've been saying it for 30 years that this was always my plan.
It's real.
I'm actually going to preserve myself in a digital form.
Now, what will become of it?
I don't know.
Well, my organic body will not know.
Because my organic body will be gone by then.
But yes, I'm absolutely, positively going to recreate myself in digital form.
And this is telling me it's all possible.
Because this is the part I was waiting for.
I wasn't sure if I could train it well enough that it could reproduce something like me.
But now imagine somebody like me who's interested in putting in a lot of time.
So they did this in two hours.
How much better would it be if you talked to it for two days or two weeks?
Just imagine how good it could get at reproducing you.
Then imagine it could read all of my books.
So know everything I thought was important enough to put in a book.
Then it reads all of the text anyway from all of my YouTubes and all my live streams.
Two hours a day for 10 years.
It's pretty much every thought I've ever had.
And yes, you'll be able to reproduce me in scary detail.
So that's coming.
There's an article in The Federalist by Grayson G. It says, how can Trump make the Nixonian dream of a thousand nuclear power plants a reality?
Did you know that Nixon once said he wanted a thousand nuclear power plants?
And that Nixon, despite being the disgraced ex-president who had to leave office for his shifty behavior...
In many ways, he was one of the smartest presidents.
History has sort of got this grudging feeling about Nixon.
Well, he did some bad things, had to leave office, but he also said some really smart things.
And one of the things he said is we would get in fewer wars if we had our own secure energy.
And he was right.
Now, we didn't get to that because of just tons of problems with approvals and technology and whatnot.
Safety, all that stuff.
But those things are largely solved or solvable.
So the real test would be, can the federal government under Trump, and by the way, Trump does like nuclear.
He doesn't think it's the only thing, but he likes it.
Do you think that the Trump slash Musk slash Ramaswamy government can figure out enough of the regulatory burden from nuclear power plants so that you could somehow make this all work?
I don't know.
But apparently there's a group, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and I think that's what Grace and Gee is part of.
And they came up with an idea to accelerate nuclear in the United States, nuclear power.
And they recommend that the U.S. military, with its significant energy demands and presence in Texas, should lead some kind of nuclear technology development through microreactor pilot projects.
So while Texas streamlines the permitting and centralized contact, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So Texas, under this plan, would...
Would consolidate regulations so you have fewer entities to deal with and maybe fewer regulations.
And the military would take the lead because they already do nuclear and they need a lot of it themselves.
I saw a really old video with...
Friedman, an economist from years and years ago, when he was asked about the Department of Energy, whether you should get rid of it, his immediate reaction was that energy is military.
And he thought that energy maybe should be part of the military department that you do keep.
And he was in favor of getting rid of as much of the government as you can.
So Milton Friedman was basically, get rid of as much government as you can.
The less, the better.
But even he said that you want an energy department and you roll it under the military because that's how you stay safe.
We think of energy as keeping us warm and powering our cars, but way more important than that is it keeps the wolves away.
So yes, I'm not 100% sure that this is the best way to go, but I love the thinking The thinking that went into it just tracks.
So I like it.
According to New Atlas publication and Michael Franco, regular nut consumption after the age of 70 wards off dementia and disease.
So I eat nuts and coffee every day because I believe everything I read.
So yeah, it's good for your nuts.
So, if you want to be long-lasting people, eat a lot of nuts.
Now, interestingly, and this is probably a coincidence, most of the news today is about nuts.
I don't know why.
Maybe it's the curse of that peanut squirrel that got executed for politics.
So, I think peanut the squirrel is maybe haunting us and making all of our news today about nuts.
For example, The next story is from SciPost, and it says that they tested that chronic alcohol consumption reduces your sperm quality by altering testicular proteins.
Now, they only tested it in rats, but it was not good for the rats' nuts.
So if you want your rats to have really, really good testicles, like I'm talking about the good stuff, Not just ordinarily rat testicles, like who cares about them, but I'm talking about like a big bag of nuts I'm talking about.
So if you've got a pet rat and you want your pet rat to have the healthiest sperm-producing balls, don't let it drink.
You probably shouldn't drink either because I'm just guessing it's bad for your balls too, but they only tested it on the rats.
So keep your rats' balls healthy.
Stay away from alcohol.
Speaking of nuts, Instagram has a new feature to keep people from going nuts.
You can now reset your algorithm.
So you know how your algorithm slowly learns who you are, and then it starts feeding you more of the things that it thinks you like until you're just watching, you know, the same thing all day, which happens to me a lot.
Apparently now they have a thing where you can give it a fresh start, they call it.
And especially for teens, you can just clear all the user recommendations and it will act like you're a brand new user who had never used it before.
Now, I'm going to give Meta and Instagram a big thumbs up for that.
Does that answer all of your questions?
No.
But to have that option, That feels really good.
Like, I would think that this is the kind of option that probably saves lives.
I'll bet there are some people who, if they didn't reset their timeline, it might actually kill them, you know, because they'll take a bad, it'll put them in a bad, you know, frame of mind or who knows what.
So I'm very up on this.
There's a lot more that we need to do to protect people's health, I think, from social media.
But yeah, a button to get rid of the algorithm.
Why not?
Now, I would go a step further.
I would rather see a checklist of what the algorithm has decided I would want to see more of, and then I would just deselect some things.
Right?
Because there might have been that one day, there was something in the news, and you looked it up, but it's awesome.
It's awful.
Like, you don't want to see it ever again, but you were curious that one day.
I want to deselect that.
I want to never see it again.
So, let's do that.
MIT News says that MIT is going to be giving away their education for basically free if you're below a certain income level.
So if your family income is below $200,000, you can attend MIT tuition-free starting in 2025. MIT. Free.
What?
Now, if you don't follow college things, MIT is where the smartest of the smart go.
MIT is literally the college that my Dilbert cartoon character graduated from.
It's the Thomas Massey School.
It's the school where if somebody says they graduated from MIT, then you should listen to everything they say after that.
Because it's going to be smarter than whatever dumbass thing you were thinking.
Right?
MIT is the real deal.
Like, I once gave a speech at MIT early in the Dilbert years, and I remember looking into the audience, and I've never seen so many people in one audience that wore corrective lenses.
Now, I'm sure it's different now because of LASIK and everything else.
But I looked into the audience and it was just a sea of people with corrective lenses looking back at me with my corrective lenses.
I remember standing there and saying, I found my people.
I found my home.
If I could just go live at MIT, if I didn't have to take classes that I couldn't pass, just hang out with all the nerds with their corrective lenses, it'd be like my heaven.
So very, very pleasant place to be.
Anyway, so if you're under a certain income, under $200,000, you will pay nothing for tuition.
You'd still have to pay to, you know, cover your cost of living.
But if you're even less well off under, let's see, if you're under $100,000, that's combined, you're both of your parents, if they make less than $100,000 a year, you pay nothing at all toward the full cost.
How is this even possible?
How do they do that?
You can actually attend and go there, and it's just free.
So, now, if this were not MIT, do you know what I'd say about it?
I would say, I'm not sure they thought this through.
But it's MIT. So I'm going to say the opposite.
Oh, whatever I think is a bad idea is probably stupid because everybody who thought about this at MIT, every one of them is smarter than me.
Every one of them.
Like 100% of the people who worked on this policy, every one of them, they're all smarter than me.
So it would feel weird for me to say it's a bad idea.
So I'm not going to do that.
It's probably brilliant.
And it's probably getting ahead of what is obvious.
And here's what I think is obvious.
The cost of higher education is going to approach zero.
So they're probably just getting ahead of it in the way that's best for society, you know, helping the lower end people first.
Now, of course, this doesn't help everybody because getting into MIT at all is just about the hardest thing in the world.
So it's not like it's free college for everybody.
It's still very selective.
But if you said to me, Scott, Under the ear of Trump, what's he going to do about DEI and CRT and ESG? And I would say, get rid of all those things.
And then you would say to me, but that wouldn't be fair.
And I would say, you know what?
Look what MIT is doing.
There are now zero poor people of any color who, if they could qualify for MIT, which would be very hard, Free education.
So that's one way to get there.
SciBlog has a study written by Jeremy Dean.
He's talking about it.
Dr. Jeremy Dean.
Apparently, if you think that your ideas are better than other people's, you might be right.
So they did a study to find out if smart people can tell they're smart.
How do you think that turned out?
Do you think that the smartest people in the world are aware that they're smarter than other people?
Well, they did a study to find out, and it turns out they did know.
Do you know why they knew?
I may have mentioned this.
They're the smart people.
So let me think.
Could I have predicted this ahead of time?
Is it possible that smart people...
Get the smart answer more often than dumb people.
Smart people versus dumb people.
Smart people.
I don't know.
It's a toss-up, but I'm going to go with smart people are smart.
And they can even tell that they're smart.
When I pet my dog...
I don't need to give her any calculus tests because I know she cannot solve a calculus problem.
Now I also know that I can't.
But if it were an easier problem than that, I might be able to solve it and she couldn't.
So that was a bad example.
But I'm just saying that neither my dog nor I can do calculus.
That's the point.
Anyway, I saw a study.
So there's some study that says that, I'm going to call it a study, but then I'm going to insult it so you won't think it's a study when I'm done, that the COVID vaccine saved 20 million lives.
Does that sound right to you?
Do you think the vaccination saved net?
Some people obviously would die from any chemistry.
Put it in their body?
There's always going to be somebody who's going to have adverse effects.
But do you think it netted 20 million?
Does that sound right to you?
Here's a better question.
How would they calculate that?
Would they count all the people who died from it?
And would they have accurate data?
Do you think they'd have accurate data?
And if they compared the data from, let's say, different states and from different hospitals and from different countries, do you think all that data would be apples and apples?
Do you think there would be any assumptions involved?
Do you think that the assumptions that are put into the study would drive the study entirely?
Or do you think that the assumptions weren't important?
Well, it turns out that this thing you think was a study was nothing but somebody came up with a bullshit algorithm that if you plug in your assumptions, it'll tell you how many people lived or died.
That's right.
It's just a formula like a climate model.
It's like a climate model that you make your own assumptions about what was true, and then you put your assumptions in it, and then it tells you, based on your assumptions, and a climate model that presumably is not accurate.
No, this is complete bullshit.
Now, Professor Norman Fenton does a good job of explaining why it's complete bullshit, and you have to see the degree to which I'm going to say science is laundered.
It's almost like money laundering.
So they launder science through these weird algorithms and projection models.
And if you're not tuned into what is science and what is bullshit...
You would think it's just more science.
It's like, oh, they did some science and they made a vaccination.
Then they did some more science to study how well it did.
And now we know.
Saved 20 million.
Good job, science.
No, that's not what happened.
They used some science and they made a vaccination.
And then they have no way to know if it worked, basically.
You wouldn't need the algorithm if you could just count it.
So apparently you can't count it.
The data doesn't allow that.
There's no data from the pandemic that's good.
I'm going to tell you this a million times until every one of you knows it.
There's no data related to the pandemic that you should trust.
None.
None.
Not if it says it killed everybody.
Not if it says it saved everybody.
Not if it says it's somewhere in between.
There's nothing.
There's nothing that's even a little bit believable about what came out of the pandemic.
And honestly, I don't even have...
I'm not even leaning one direction or the other.
I would say it's obvious at this point that there were more damage, especially to young people, than was told the public.
So that part's pretty clear.
But I'm still not entirely clear if even super old people got some extra years of life.
I don't really know because I don't believe anything I read about the topic.
All right.
So there's a story RFK Jr. was talking about his voice issues called spasmodic dysphonia.
But what he added to the mix was he thinks it's possible he got the condition as a result of taking a flu shot.
Because it happened apparently around the time he got a flu shot.
And then he looked at the list of just, I think there were just hundreds of possible side effects, and it's actually listed as a side effect.
I'd never heard of that before.
I mean, I had spasmodic dysphonia.
I had it for three and a half years, and I got rid of it with surgery.
It's incurable, but I cured it.
Well, let's give the surgeon some credit for that.
So do you think, given that it's one of the side effects, and that he got the shot, and then he got that, are you convinced?
Well, here's what I do know.
So the people who are deeply into this world of spasmodic dysphonia, as I am and have been, Know that almost every person you talk to will tell you that it came to them after a normal respiratory problem.
So they got something like a normal cold or a normal flu.
And then they used their voice incorrectly.
So this is exactly what happened to me.
So I got some kind of bug that gave me laryngitis.
So I got a normal laryngitis.
You know laryngitis where you just go...
I'm trying to talk.
I can't talk.
Now, that doesn't sound like spasmodic dysphonia at all.
Spasmodic dysphonia is where you're clipping words.
This would be spasmodic dysphonia.
If you're trying to order a Diet Coke, you might say...
That doesn't sound anything like laryngitis, which is...
I want to do this.
But...
Normal laryngitis, if you keep trying to talk through it, as I did because I was on a vacation, and I kept trying to yell to stepkids and yell over noise and talk in restaurants.
By the time I was done, it had triggered a full-on spasmodic dysphonia that lasted for three and a half years until I searched the planet and found the one surgeon in the world who had a surgery that could fix it, and he did.
I also got the condition at age 49. And unless it's changed, it used to be that age 49 is actually the most normal age that happens.
It's the median age.
I got it at exactly the median age that the literature says that's when it happens.
Exactly then.
And it also came after a respiratory problem.
And then when I checked with other people who have it, because, you know, you end up meeting a lot of other people with the same condition, they all have the same story.
I was, oh yeah, I had this respiratory problem, and next thing you know, I've got this.
So, you've got two possible hypotheses, and there might be more than that.
I guess RFK Jr. was 42. So 49 is sort of the most normal place that happens.
He was 42. So he was definitely within that range of when it happens, no matter what you're doing.
Now, could it be that it's caused by more than one thing?
I think so.
To me, that sounds reasonable.
There's no reason that only one thing could cause it.
And his doesn't sound exactly like mine.
And there are a few flavors of it, so maybe.
But the only thing I want to add is that if you think that it's all caused by vax injury, I'm close to certain that that's not true.
If the question is, could it have caused it in one case?
Because spasmodic dysphonia existed long before the vaccinations did.
So...
Or did it?
Hmm.
Well, actually, you know, I need to check that.
I don't know when the name spasmodic dysphonia was first introduced to the public.
Hmm.
What did come first?
The shots or the...
I guess I should look that up.
Anyway, it is uncertain what is the cause, but there might be more than one.
And for those who are looking for the surgical cure, I posted on X, the contact that cured me, Dr. Gerald S. Burke, MD at UCLA's head and neck surgery.
So if you're listening to this and you know somebody who has spasmodic dysphonia and you want to get them help, You would go to Google and you would search for Dr. Gerald Burke.
Gerald is spelled G-E-R-A-L-D. Burke is spelled with an E on the end.
B-E-R-K-E. If you just search for him, and you could probably search for head and neck surgery, he'll pop right up.
There's a phone number there.
You can call the office and book your interview.
All right, according to Zero Hedge, 63% of voters in my area, my county, demanded a recall of our Soros-backed Bay Area District Attorney, Pamela Price, and she has just now conceded that she lost, and she's stepping down.
Wow.
Talk about the golden age.
What could be better than having a Soros-funded DA Removed by the public.
By the public.
The government was never able to do this.
The government failed us completely.
But you know who did not fail us?
Apparently the founders.
Because the founders created a system which allowed this direct recall thing to become a law.
And then the voters decided, we're not going to put up with this.
And they got rid of her.
By 63%.
Now, keep in mind, this is the bluest of blue.
We're talking super blue here.
We're in California.
The bluest of blue, almost two-thirds of them said, you got to get this shit out of here.
This is no good.
And they did.
Now, what could make me more optimistic...
And what could be a bigger deal than finding out that George Soros' DA thing might be crumbling under its own weight?
Oh, I got something for you.
I'm now going to tell you the most important story in the world that maybe you haven't heard yet.
Now, you're not going to necessarily think this is the most important story in the world.
But I'm going to tell you with that complete confidence that we heard about earlier, you know, where smart people think their opinions are better than other people.
This is one of those cases.
Yeah, I think my opinion on this is better than maybe yours, unless you agree with me.
And then you're brilliant.
If you agree with me, you're brilliant.
This is the biggest story in the world.
And Fox News is reporting it.
Elon Musk expressed interest in meeting Alex Soros.
And Alex Soros said, on X, I believe, quote, oh, so Musk said to Alex, I would be curious to meet and understand your goals better.
So that's what Musk wrote to Soros on X. And Alex Soros said, quote, also on X, I often learn most from people whose views are different from my own.
Open to meeting.
There it is.
Elon Musk just searched the world to find the keyhole to stick his key, and he just found it.
He found the keyhole to the world.
You know, I've been telling you for a while that if the Soros organization is so influential, why are they not on the news every single day?
Why isn't Alex Soros on The View?
Why isn't he on Fox News explaining what he's doing?
If he's the one whose, his money anyway, is one of the biggest influences in America, don't we need to hear from him?
But here's what's different.
If I said, Alex Soros, do you want to go on a tough, hard-hitting interview for Fox News?
I would expect him to say no.
There's not much in it for him.
If I said, but how about we send Michael Schellenberger to ask you some tough investigative journalist questions?
I would expect him to say no.
Again, because what's in it for him?
Because you know it's not going to go his way.
So you've got this keyhole that basically is the thing that turns on the engine of the world, apparently.
It seems to be affecting everything we care about.
And nobody can get near the keyhole.
Unless you're the richest guy in the world, you're Elon Musk, and you're everyone's dad, and it's very clear that you don't have bad intentions.
You're not trying to be the dictator.
You're not trying to be the next president.
You're not trying to win any election.
He's not going to run for any election.
He simply is one of the smartest people we know, and he's looking to solve a problem, and there's a mystery to it, and Alex Soros is the center of that mystery.
Why are you doing this, Alex?
And this is a question I've been asking, you know, on his X account and other places.
Why are you doing this to us?
Because he's doing something to us.
He's not really doing something for us.
Or at least it doesn't strike me that he's doing something for me.
It looks like he's doing something to me.
And I think, you know, I don't want to read Elon Musk's mind, but he seems to be as puzzled to understand his motivations.
Because usually you understand people's motivations.
You might not know their strategy, but you know what they want.
Right?
Right.
Alex Soros is the only person that I can say unambiguously, I don't have a clue.
I have no idea why he does what he does or why the Soros organization does what it does.
The only thing I can imagine is that they're captured by the intelligence entities and they just do what they're told to do.
But would he say that?
And if he were asked directly, would he admit it?
This isn't the fun part yet.
You want to get to the fun part?
Probably nobody has more dad energy than Elon Musk.
And if I were Alex Soros, I don't know how much dad love I'm getting.
You know what I mean?
Does Soros Sr. give a lot of dad love to his children?
Does he look like he's full of empathy and I don't know.
I've got a feeling that Alex Soros may have been under-parented.
It's just a feeling.
And if you introduce Elon Musk, the ultimate, well-meaning, smart, credible dad figure, what happens to the two of them?
Do they have one conversation and then that's over?
I don't think so.
I think they stay in touch.
I think they touch bases often.
And then I think Alex realizes that he can't defend some of his actions to his good friend and dad replacement, Elon Musk.
Here's what I don't think anybody fully understands about Elon Musk.
He apparently has powers of persuasion That are unbelievable.
Like, I don't know exactly what tools and techniques he uses, but he's clearly studied it, you know, as he has many other domains and mastered them.
He has kind of mastered persuasion.
Now, he'll still say things that get people buzzing, but even those work because they bring energy to him and then we listen to him, blah, blah, blah.
So he became so credible that That he could become partners with the elected president of the United States, and the entire country goes, hey, you can't just...
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, why not?
Who else could have done that?
Who else could have pulled off Doge?
I mean, it hasn't been pulled off yet, but the fact that it's maybe the top thing that the country is looking at.
Who else could have done that?
Nobody else.
That's not just being able to do it.
It's not just having the capabilities.
It's not just being smart or patriotic.
You've got to be really persuasive.
The level of persuasion that Elon has now, because part of it is based on his credibility of doing things that are good for the world.
You know, if he hadn't built Tesla, if he hadn't built SpaceX, he'd have a lot less credibility.
But you take his level of credibility, you take the persuasion powers that I know he has accumulated, his talent stack for persuasion is probably incredible now.
You put him in a room with Alex, who in my opinion is lost.
Now, I'm seeing it from a distance, and I can't read any minds, so, I mean, I could be way off.
But Alex Soros looks like somebody who could use a big brother.
You know, maybe it's a father figure, maybe it's a big brother, but he seems like somebody who could use some good advice.
And I don't think we can fully predict what happens when the matter and the entry matter meet, because they couldn't be more opposite.
But if you put him in a room and wait two hours and then leave the room, do you think that Elon Musk will have adopted some of Alex Soros' beliefs?
Or will Alex Soros leave the room saying, you know what, I've got to think about this.
You know the answer to that.
Alex Soros will walk into that meeting saying, I really have to rethink this.
Elon Musk will walk into the meeting, Elon Musk.
He's not going to change a bit.
Why?
Because he already got to all of his opinions from, you know, first principles, start at the bottom.
How does this make sense?
He didn't have any opinions given to him.
Like nobody gave him an opinion that he uncritically accepted and then got surprised later.
But I've got a feeling that Alex Soros grew up in an environment in which right and wrong were just sort of assigned.
And he's just taking the legacy forward.
So the oil and water of that is incredible.
But here's the other thing that might be important.
What if they're both nice guys?
I don't know if that's true.
I mean, I've never met either of them personally.
But what if in person...
They just get along.
That would change the entire world.
Everything would change if they just like each other.
And they might.
Because when I see pictures of Alex Soros just hanging out and partying and stuff, I have two thoughts.
Number one, I don't want him controlling my country because he looks like he's having a good time and the good time looks like it's more important to him.
Number two, I think he'd be fun to hang out with.
It looks like he's just a fun guy.
I've got a feeling if you were partying with him, you'd be glad you were.
So what happens if they just like each other and they just get along?
It could change everything.
Let's talk about some more personalities.
That's the biggest story in the world right now.
Can't wait for them to meet.
Do you remember when we were told by the news That Trump is a dictator with dictator personality.
He wants to do dictator things and the only thing that matters is what's good for Trump.
And it's Trump, Trump, Trump, dictator, a narcissist, dictator.
Does any of that sound familiar?
Like everything we heard every day?
Now here's your reality.
He just put together a team of pirates, most of which were not even Republican until recently.
So he's the one who has the most people who were opposed to him working for him.
That's your dictator.
They all volunteered.
He said yes.
It's the first time, I think in history, That we've ever seen a politician win the presidency and then say, by the way, this hugely credible, powerful, smart, influential person named Elon and this amazingly talented, brilliant force of nature called Vivek are going to do two of the most important things that need to be done, which is get our debt back in control and tame our government size, etc.
And he's going to let these two unelected people Do it.
Why?
Because they can.
Because they can.
Because they want to.
Because they have the skills.
And we've never seen this before.
Which dictator gives that much authority away?
Do you know how much credit Elon and Vivek will get if they pull this off?
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
How much will Trump get?
He'll get a big share.
He's sharing credit on his biggest play.
He's sharing credit.
Is that what the dictator does?
Do you ever hear Putin say, you know, I got to be honest.
A lot of the good work was done by my general over there.
I'd like to give him a call out.
No.
Does President Xi say, you know, honestly, a lot of this work was done by other people.
You know, I was in charge, so I get some credit, but really, really the other people.
And here's this private citizen who did so much that, you know, if he could run for president, I think he'd get elected.
Dictators don't do that.
So you're watching this dictator and Who is bringing people into the power structure in a way we've never seen?
And who else is in the inner circle of his power structure?
Barren.
Barren.
So we've got the President of the United States, this guy who only wants what he wants and everything's about him and he will not listen to anybody.
He's taking great advice from apparently a very bright team, I guess, you know, 18-ish, and He's taking advice from the smartest people we've ever seen in the public domain, Vivek and Elon.
He's got a pirate ship full of people who didn't agree with him until recently and realized that they can work with him to get some important stuff done.
He could not be more opposite of whatever that idea is, that everything's about him and only his ideas matter and it's all narcissism.
He has already delegated more power than I've ever seen.
So there's that.
Let's talk about some of the people.
There's a lot of talk about the nominees, so it's a lot of people heavy today.
So Pete Hegseth, I guess the criminal report became public.
Now, no charges were filed, and as somebody smarter, maybe it was Megyn Kelly said this, that part of the original complaint was that there was a woman who went to a hotel room with him, allegedly, and had some, what we think was probably consensual sex, but later she said it wasn't, and then she said she might have been drugged.
Now, did you see what the result of the toxicology was?
Did anybody see that?
I think they did confirm that she had, you know, DNA in her so that there was something physical to happen.
Now, but she claimed that she was drugged, you know, like a rape drug.
So do you remember what the toxicology report said about that?
No, you don't, because there was no toxicology report.
Do you know why the charges were not filed?
Because the police didn't believe it happened.
That's why.
Yeah, the police weren't convinced that happened.
Now, I don't know if they did a toxicology test and it came back negative.
I don't know that.
But if it came back positive, don't you think you'd heard about it by now?
No, it didn't come back positive.
So whatever her excuse was for not being consensual, Apparently the police just said you drank a lot and you just went and had sex with a really good-looking celebrity.
Okay.
Because your husband found out, right?
Maybe.
So you had to tell your husband that it wasn't because you were attracted to a super attractive celebrity.
It was because maybe he drugged you, right?
Well, I don't know.
I felt something.
Maybe he drugged me.
Okay.
If you can't convince the police, and I think that they want to be convinced, right?
I feel like I think the weight of evidence leans toward Pete.
So, you know, you and I can never know what's true, but if I had to give him the benefit of doubt, I could give it easily.
I can go further than innocent or proven guilty.
I can go all the way to there's no evidence.
Yeah, that's even better than no proof.
There's not really evidence, except one claim that even the police didn't believe.
Let's talk about some other people.
Did you know that there are governors that are organizing and some people organizing to be anti-Trump so that Trump is met with resistance no matter what it is that he tries to do?
Are you surprised to find out that there's a specific billionaire behind it?
Of course not.
Because every organized thing in politics that looks like it's, you know, the people getting together is never that.
There's always a billionaire behind it.
And according to Gabe Kaminsky in the DC Examiner, who looks like he got a scoop on this, it's billionaire Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, who doesn't like Elon Musk.
But interestingly, when he was at eBay, that's the company that bought PayPal.
Did they buy it from Elon Musk and his partners?
So I wonder if they have any bad blood because of some past transaction about PayPal.
I've never heard of that, but you never know.
Sometimes these things are personal.
So apparently this billionaire is maybe behind some of the Mark Elias legal work, might be behind organizing these governors that are going to be anti-Trump.
But And apparently he also organized the corporate boycotts against X. So you got a billionaire who really, really doesn't like Elon Musk or Trump.
And he owns The Intercept.
Isn't The Intercept where Greenwald...
The Intercept was founded by Glenn Greenwald, right?
And then Greenwald left because they turned into something he didn't want to be associated with.
Is that because it was bought by this eBay billionaire guy?
Omidyar.
So all of these rich people connections, they always have multiple connections, don't they?
It's like there's always more than one thing that they've clashed on.
So it makes you wonder how much of this is just personal.
You know, anti-ELON. Then there was a very strange post I saw from Mark Benioff, founder of Salesforce.
Now, you might know Mark Benioff.
As being very pro-Harris and pro-Democrat, big funder, and also a great guy.
So I met him once and I was impressed.
What I say about Benioff is he's the real deal.
So when he talks about helping people but also making money and stuff, he sells that completely.
Like, that seems completely sincere to me.
And that's rare.
So he's more like a, almost like a Buddha, but an entrepreneur.
He's got a real incredible energy about him that, and I've told you this story before, he's one of the first, maybe one of the only people who ever told me to my face I did a bad job at something.
I gave a speech for Salesforce when I wasn't doing speeches, and I wasn't really prepared.
But their speaker had canceled, so I said, I'll sub in.
I wasn't prepared, and I did the best I could.
But afterwards, he told me it was bad.
And the funny thing was, he was right.
And, you know, I don't like hearing that I did a bad job.
Normally, my speeches were quite good, but I had the same opinion, actually.
I thought, oh, that didn't go too well.
So the fact that he gave me that honest feedback, it kind of made me like him also because it was just honest and it was right.
He wasn't lying.
I did a bad job.
So he's got a comment about Ray Dalio.
Ray Dalio is one of these famous investor guys, writes books.
People think he's a quite brilliant mind in addition to being a brilliant investor.
And he wrote in Time magazine, which is owned by Benioff.
You need to know that.
So he may be boosting the magazine, or he may be agreeing with the writer.
It's unclear.
But Dalio said, quote, It is now clear that Trump will reform government and the country like a corporate raider, engaging in a hostile takeover of an inefficient company, making huge reforms by changing people, slashing costs, and infusing new technologies.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't that a huge endorsement of what Trump is doing?
Is there a second way to read that?
Because it's not an insult, right?
He's not saying it's an insult because you're like a corporate raider.
He's saying that he's doing to the government what needs to be done in an efficient free market, which is come in and fix things.
But what is amazing is That it was reposted by Benioff, who owns Time Magazine, which was in the article.
And he just said, amazing Ray Dalio!
Is he agreeing?
Did that really happen?
I don't know what's going on now.
I'm confused.
Did Mark Benioff, who again is the real deal, Did he just back Ray Dalio saying that what Trump's doing is necessary and good and important and it's like the biggest thing he's doing?
Or am I misreading this?
Because you know what would be a good sign of the Golden Age?
Would be Mark Benioff saying, hey people, We had an election.
We got a winner.
And there's some things that this president wants to do that we all want.
Is he doing that?
Because that would be incredible.
You just don't see important people...
Being this directly useful.
You know, I mean, Elon Musk is useful, of course.
But I hope that's what I'm seeing.
Because this would be like a huge thing in my world.
That would seem like a huge symbol of the golden age coming together.
But we'll see.
I don't know.
I still have a question mark on that one.
Rand Paul says that Trump using the military for mass deportations would be a huge mistake.
Just News is reporting that.
I'm going to slightly disagree with that.
I will agree that if the citizens see the military on the streets taking the nanny away, oh, that's a big mistake.
If you see the U.S. military, let's say the National Guard, take somebody out of their home who is just a citizen who maybe has been working, if I ever see that, I'm going to go fucking nuts because I don't want to see that.
That's not the country I'm living in.
Not good, right?
But nobody's going to do that.
Why does Rand Paul think any of that's going to happen?
My understanding is the following.
The military would help transport.
So you wouldn't even see them on the streets.
They would just be, you know, after the people get rounded up, they might guard them.
Some facility that there's no public around, so the military maybe helps guard them.
Military helps transport them back to the country.
And you, the citizen, never know that the military was involved unless the press tells you because they're just staying in their own domain and, you know, letting the ICE and those guys do their job.
Would you be okay with that?
You'd be okay with that, right?
As long as they're just doing a support thing and you don't see them on the streets.
Definitely don't want to see them knocking on doors.
I don't want to see anybody in the real military knocking on doors.
Now, I'm going to completely change my opinion.
You ready?
Unless they're going after the Venezuelan gangs.
If there's a Venezuelan gang...
In an apartment building and they have numbers and they have weapons.
Bring the military.
Please bring the military.
All of it.
Bring as much as you want.
Bring heavy equipment.
Whatever it takes.
I want as much muscle around that place as possible.
And I want the public to know That these are not your regular immigrants.
This is a criminal gang.
But what I don't want is to artificially restrict how much firepower we bring to the fucking gangs.
If I ever hear that there's a shootout with, let's say, ICE and the gang, and somebody in ICE gets shot, and I find out that they could have brought the military, but they didn't want to make it look bad, I'm going to be so pissed, I think my head will explode.
No, don't put the ICE guys at risk anymore, and they have a dangerous enough job.
If you need backup, and you need it to be the military, bring it all.
Bring it all.
Bring 10,000 soldiers.
I don't care.
But no.
We've got to do what we want to do.
And do I think that the public will object if we bring the military in to solve a military problem domestically?
No.
I don't think anybody serious will complain about using the U.S. military to get rid of the fucking gangs.
And if they do, I don't care.
I'm willing to listen to their complaints.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Just do it anyway.
You got to do what you got to do, right?
I mean, let's not be fucking idiots, right?
The smart way to go is to get rid of the criminals first.
If you need the military because it's the gangs, you use the military.
Don't be stupid, right?
This is supposed to be the common sense government.
You know, what we're looking for is more common sense and less wokeism.
Common sense says you bring the muscle you need for the job.
Bring the muscle that you need for the job.
Just don't overdo it.
It's simple.
So, Rand Paul, I agree with him that there's a wrong way to do it.
So, I like agreeing with Rand Paul because he's a straight shooter and he's smart and you can rely on him to disagree with the powers that be if there's a reason to do it.
So, I like to be on the same side with him whenever I can.
All right, we're hearing more pushback about the idea of Mike Rogers being head of FBI. J. Michael Waller, who's a senior analyst for strategy and author on intel subjects and stuff, he thinks that Chris Wray, the current FBI head, is what he calls the palace eunuch, meaning he doesn't run the bureau, the bureau runs him.
And he thinks that Mike Rogers at best would be more of the same, meaning sort of a figurehead, but the FBI would run him.
And then he says, he claims, does J. Michael Waller, that Mike Rogers covered for Hillary on Benghazi, promoted the Russia collusion conspiracy theory, and is part of the surveillance industrial complex.
Now, you can't get much more unqualified than that.
I mean, those are all hard no's for Republicans.
I'm a little confused why he's even in the mix.
But then here's Glenn Greenwald.
On the same topic, he said there's literally no worse appointment possible than choosing Mike Rogers for FBI director or for any government position.
He's the single most devoted loyalist to the U.S. security state and all of its multifaceted abuses.
It doesn't get worse than Mike Rogers.
Now, also, Mike Benz has been weighing in with a similar opinion, that it's an absurd choice.
Now, here's my question.
Does Trump not know that?
By now, of course he knows it.
I mean, if he didn't know it on any day one, he obviously knows it now.
Why is he still in the mix?
Is the whole thing that he's going to tease that it'll be this guy, but then he'll slot in somebody that, you know, maybe like Kash Patel or something?
Is he really just positioning?
Because I don't think so.
I mean, it would be kind of a ballsy play to sacrifice this Mike Rogers guy and not really be serious about it.
So I don't know about that.
But if I see that Greenwald and Benz, and I don't know Michael Waller, but if I see Greenwald and Benz have the same opinion, I'm convinced.
So, remember I've been telling you that we used to watch the news, and then if the news said something, we thought it was true.
But now we know that watching the news is not really about the truth.
So you have to get your truth somewhere else.
I'm finding that the most persuasive elements in the world are podcasters.
Meaning that if I hear somebody who is high credibility in general, you know, it could be Elon or Vivek, it could be Mike Benz, it could be Greenwald, it could be Mike Schellenberger, it could be, you know, I could name ten more.
Those are the people I trust.
So those are the people who change my opinion in real time.
Like if I have an opinion and I read any one of those names that I just mentioned and they disagree with me, I almost changed my opinion in real time.
Like, I don't even have to go think about it.
And that's because they've earned it.
That's something they've earned through...
They've earned it through pure work, delivering, not falling for hoaxes, covering the important stories, and having good sources and good takes.
So I'm...
I would have to say that I'm solidly against Mike Rogers for FBI, but not based on my own reporting, based on the credibility of the people who are.
Nikki Haley took a run at Tulsi Gabbard.
Jim Sciuto at CNN is reporting this.
So Nikki Haley had what's called a blistering critique of Tulsi Gabbard.
And he calls her a sympathizer with, I guess, some variety of Putin and Putin-like people.
And she's not qualified, says Nikki Haley, because of her close ties to Russia and, quote, other foreign adversaries.
She says, quote, this is not a place for a Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese sympathizer.
D&I, that would be the job that Tulsi's up for, Director of National Intelligence, has to analyze real threats, Haley said on her radio program.
Are we comfortable with someone like that at the top of our national intelligence agencies?
All right, here is one of my tips for BS. So write this one down.
This is a BS detector tip.
If Nikki Haley had said, I'm worried that she is a sympathizer with Russia, I would say to myself, hmm, maybe.
Maybe that's something I should look into.
That's a pretty dire claim.
You know, I'd like to see if maybe there's a counter to that.
But, you know, if Nikki Haley, who's well-connected and certainly experienced, if she thinks that...
That Tulsi having what she calls a close tie to Russia is bad.
I'll take that seriously.
Oh, wait.
But also the Iranians.
Oh wait, but also the Syrians.
Oh wait, but also the Chinese.
And now you lost me.
Do I believe that Tulsi is a sympathizer with Russia, Iran, Syria, and China?
Seriously?
I mean seriously.
Does that sound like anything you should take seriously?
Literally nobody has that opinion.
These are four different countries with four different challenges and It's kind of absurd.
And so this is sort of the laundry list tip.
When you see a laundry list of problems, it means that they don't have one problem that they can rely on to make their case.
They're hoping that you look at the list and you go, oh, well, I'm not sure she's a Russian asset, but I didn't know about this Iranian thing.
Or, no, the Syrian thing is just more of the Russian thing, and I don't believe that, and she doesn't really have any connections to China.
But wait a minute.
What if the Iranian thing is real?
So that's how the laundry list persuasion works.
It relies on you to say, well, a few of these aren't true, but if even one of these is true, that would be disqualifying.
Probably none of them are true, right?
And when you use words like sympathizer, what are you trying to do?
Well, that leads me to my next point.
Do you think that Democrats have learned their lesson?
About what messages they can sell, what they can't.
Do you remember, you've seen a bunch of Democrats say recently, and they all act like they're the first ones who thought of it.
Hey, I don't know if anybody's thought of this, but maybe we should have concentrated on the price of eggs.
And then you'll see somebody else say it like it was also the first time they thought of it.
Hey, you know what?
I'm starting to think we should have concentrated on the price of eggs.
But instead, they tried to sell Trump as Hitler and a fascist, and the public just said, seriously, we just keep hearing these words.
They don't mean anything anymore.
But did they learn their lesson?
So are we now seeing that the Democrats are solidly Nope.
They're calling various Trump people sympathizers.
They're stealing democracy.
Maybe the Gates nomination is about humiliating Republicans because Trump is that kind of a personality.
That broad-based tariffs, which of course will not be used, that's just a threat, that you've got to worry about those broad-based tariffs.
He's going to deport 20 million people.
That's never going to happen.
And he's going to use the military to deport him, which means the military will be knocking on your doors.
None of these are true.
These are the biggest complaints about Trump.
None of these are true.
They just went right back to where they were.
Now, in this case, you've got two Republicans, Nikki Haley, and in the case of Rand Paul, in the military use of the deportations.
You've got even a couple of Republicans who are veering into the not-the-price-of-eggs territory.
So let me try to explain it in a way that every Democrat can understand it.
Are you ready?
There's the price of eggs.
Very important.
Now here, eggs are a stand-in for things you need to buy to stay alive.
Eggs.
The price of eggs.
Very important.
Here's what's not important.
Sympathizers stealing democracy, humiliating Republicans, broad-based tariffs that will never happen, 20 million deportations that will never happen, the military knocking on doors to get rid of your nanny who's worked for you for 10 years.
Never happened.
All the Trump critics went right back to where they were because he's not doing anything wrong.
If they had real things to bitch about, do you think that they would be coming up with this stuff?
No.
This is a sign of the emptiness.
This is total emptiness.
Maybe if I make up a word I saw, I could tie it to him with a laundry list.
I'll do some mind reading.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
I got it.
Now I can see his real intentions.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
He's not just trying to get an attorney general that will be loyal and get the job done.
He wants to humiliate the Republicans.
We're against him.
It's all batshit crazy.
They're not even real things.
Nobody's stealing your democracy.
There's no dictators happening.
There's no fascism happening.
There's no humiliating Republicans.
There's just shit he wants.
And he has a good reason for wanting it.
A really good reason.
To get a loyal FBI guy on his side.
A really, really, really good reason.
That's not...
So it's almost the imaginary world versus the real one.
It's just this complete imaginary, almost theatrical, fictional world of Trump.
Here's the funniest story of the day.
You know David Hogg?
He's an anti-gun activist.
He was one of the ones who survived the famous school shooting, whose name I don't remember, but you do.
Breitbart is reporting that David Hogg met with, quote, researchers and activists, and they're trying to figure out how to lure more young men back to the Democrat Party.
And Breitbart was asking, what advice would you give them?
I feel like this is Parkland.
Yes, the Parkland school shooting.
So David Hogg was a survivor of that.
Became a very effective activist.
I believe he went to Harvard.
Now he's at Harvard, so he's a smart guy.
Anyway, so he's going to try to figure out, how do we figure out how to lure the young men back to the Democrat Party?
Well, anybody got any advice?
Anybody got any ideas?
How to lure the anti-gun guy back to the Democrat Party?
All right, I've got some advice.
It has to do with the definition of a man.
Now, everybody has their own definition.
You know, what's a man?
Like, a man does this, and a man does this.
Here's my definition.
A man is what you get when you stop telling people how to be.
Yeah, let that sink in.
A man is what you get when you stop telling people how to act.
What's left is a man.
I just let that sink in for a little bit.
A man is what's left when you stop telling people how to act.
Yeah, just think about that one for a while.
And what do the Democrats do most?
They tell you how to act.
We're going to tell you how to talk.
No, you can't talk like that.
We're going to put a vaccination in your arm.
Now, Trump is part of that as well, of course.
We're going to tell you that you should be a Democrat, even though we're offering you nothing.
We're going to take away your guns, your free speech, and we're going to let...
We can take away your children.
Yeah, your children won't be yours anymore.
If the school says they should be taken away from you to be transitioned, we're going to do that.
So if you want men to come back, how about letting them be men?
So if the only people who can be Democrats are people who are willing to If you cosplay as women, then that's what you're going to get.
In my opinion, the biological males who identify as Democrat are just cosplaying as women because they found it easier.
And the Republicans are mostly people who said, you know what?
How about I am a man and you're not going to take all my shit and we're done with that.
That's a man.
The man says, no, you're not going to take all my shit.
You're not going to take my free speech.
You're not going to take my gun.
You're not going to take my child.
You're not going to take all my taxes, tax money.
You're not going to take my job and ship it to another country.
You're not going to take my adult child and ship him to some dumb fuck war that we shouldn't be in.
How about you just leave me the fuck alone, and then I'll show you a man.
So, that's my advice, David Hogg.
Leave men alone.
Don't try to take all the shit.
Then you'll find the men.
They will be what's left.
Well, Joe Biden is apparently doing something called Trump-proofing his Hall Market Chips Act.
Now, that was where he's going to spend billions of dollars to bring chip building to America's shores so that we're not vulnerable to Taiwan specifically.
So Taiwan and their biggest chip company is going to build chip makers in the U.S., and that's part of a big deal there.
And I guess the Trump-proofing part is, I don't know, just making sure we've committed to the expense.
But why is this Trump-proofing?
What am I missing?
Does Trump not want highly important security military chips to be made in the United States?
Was Trump going to cancel this?
Do you think Elon Musk was going to say, nah, let's make all of our most important stuff in Taiwan?
Who exactly was going to be against this?
This is one of the very best things that the Biden administration did.
I remember being completely on board when I first heard it.
It's like, ah, yes, yes, yes, Joe Biden, that is correct.
You should incentivize the chip makers to come back to the US, even if it's really expensive, because this one's military.
Like, we can't really survive if we have to depend on Taiwan forever for chips.
So I'm just going to give a pat on the back.
Now, we have to be careful about waste.
Obviously, there could be a bad way and a good way to do it, and maybe there's some bumps in the road.
But no, this is exactly what we should be doing.
I can't criticize Biden for that.
So apparently enough votes have been counted that Trump did not get a majority of the votes.
Trump got more votes than Kamala Harris, but I guess when you throw in the third party people, both of them were below 50%.
So Trump did not, he got really close, but he did not win a majority of the voters.
He won the popular vote.
So it's still fair to say he won the popular vote.
But he didn't get over 50%.
And the Democrats are just going to ride that horse forever.
Well, you know, it was a tie, basically.
That's what they're going to say.
And they're not completely wrong.
So let's talk about Ukraine.
Ukraine.
As you know, Biden has approved the use of the more dangerous long-range missiles to be used inside Russia, which is the red line that Russia said, don't ever do that.
If you do that, we're at a war with the United States.
And so apparently we're at war with Russia.
But the part that bothers me the most is that the name of the missiles is Atakums.
Really?
Now, I get that they probably tried to make the, so it's an acronym, you know, A-T-A-E-C-M-S or something.
I get it that it's an acronym, and maybe they put some work into making it sound clever, but don't make your weapon sound cartoony.
Don't make your instruments of death, like, kind of lighthearted.
I don't need that.
No, I don't need them to be attackums.
Oh, and then all the people in the news are saying it.
It's like, ah, they sent the attackums.
It makes them sound like they understand something military.
Well, we'll use the attackums.
But if the attackums don't work, we'll use the shootums.
And then if that doesn't work, we'll use the bombums.
You just change the name.
That's all I'm asking.
I'm going to say again that I believe that the risk of nuclear war with Russia is exactly zero because they're not crazy.
They don't absolutely have to create a nuclear war.
There's no rule or law or, you know, there's no law of physics that says they have to do it.
They don't want it.
And all they have to do is wait a few weeks and Trump will come in and then they'll be talking and then they'll fix it up.
So literally, we've never had less risk.
Of nuclear war.
Now, your news wants to tell you you do have a risk because then you're going to click on it.
But no, this is the lowest risk you'll ever have in your life of nuclear war with Russia.
Because every single signal says, oh, we have rational people in charge now.
Let's talk.
And, you know, Trump's the big dog.
And when the big dog gets off the porch, the other dogs say, oh, big dog's here.
Let's act differently.
Meanwhile...
I do think that Putin might destroy much of Kiev just to position himself for negotiations.
So that's a problem.
Meanwhile, in Israel, not in Israel, but the International Criminal Court, which is not in Israel, issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant.
Alleging that they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the offensive in Gaza.
Now, if it makes you feel any better, the International Criminal Court also went after the October 7th people.
So they don't love Hamas, but they're not loving Israel's response.
Does that make any difference in the world?
Because I don't think it does.
But does it make it dangerous or impossible for Netanyahu to travel anywhere except the United States?
So the United States, of course, is not going to buy into this.
But what if Netanyahu just took a trip to Denmark?
What happens if he just goes to France?
Can he be arrested?
And then what would happen?
Somebody is saying that Jussie Smollett's conviction was overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court.
That doesn't sound real.
Is that real?
Did something happen with Jussie Smollett?
I'm going to say not real unless I see a confirmation of that.
Yeah, so I don't know what's going to happen with that, but Sort of awkward if you're traveling.
And your name is?
Oh, international criminal.
And by the way, I'm not saying that they're international criminals.
As you know, my view on Israel is that I don't support the Israeli government's position on any of this.
I simply observe it.
And as an observer, I think everybody would say, pretty much anybody would act the same way in that situation.
So you don't have to approve it or not approve it.
They're not listening to me.
They don't care what my opinion is.
I just observe it.
What's this happening?
Mayorkas and Ray skipped Senate hearing.
Huh.
So I guess they know they don't have to stick around too long.
Oh, it looks like that's real.
That Juicy Smollett's conviction was overturned.
I wonder why.
We'll find out about that.
Ukraine cannot fire the missile without direct involvement of the U.S. or other nations.
Well...
Yes.
It's possible that the whole who's firing those attack of missiles, they might be gaming it a little bit.
Because let's say America makes the missile, but there's nobody in Ukraine that knows how to program it to fire properly.
So let's say they also program it.
But somebody still has to approve it and push the button.
Do you think the NATO person pushes the button and approves it?
I say no.
I say the Ukrainian military pushes the button.
So I don't know.
Does it matter that the Americans programmed it?
It feels like the person who pushes the button is the one who's firing it.
Because building it in the first place...
Is more involvement than programming it.
Programming it is just another minor thing you do to make it a functional missile.
But you don't blame the person who made the missile and made it programmable.
Don't you blame the person who fired it?
So I'm not entirely sure that they can't fire it without the US or NATO. They can't fire it without NATO involvement.
NATO involvement might be just to say, here it is, all set up, push this button when you're ready.
So, I don't know.
I don't think Putin's going to launch a nuclear weapon over a technicality like that.
I think he'd be far more likely to say, if you fire one more of these attackums, I'm going to level Kiev with traditional weapons, and then just do it.
Now, if he did that, I hate to give him advice, but he probably should do that anyway if he wants a good deal.
Again, I hope he doesn't.
But if he wants the best deal he can get, he probably will turn up the pressure with conventional weapons as high as he can turn it up.
All right.
Trump thinks the money should go to American corporations.
I don't know what that's about.
I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately, my subscribers.
Thanks for joining, and I will see the rest of you tomorrow.
Export Selection