Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Potomac Mid-Air Collision, Kash Patel, Designated Liar Adam Schiff, Tulsi Gabbard, Quiet Skies, Female Senators, Big Pharma Bankruptcy Potential, RFK Jr., Ultra-Processed Food, Bernie Sanders Donors, Trump Tariffs, Thomas Massie, Printed Money Inflation, Jaime Raskin, Debanked Conservatives, Biden Admin Debanked Conservatives, Birthright Citizenship, DOGE Reduction Objective, Elon Musk, AI Replacing Humans, Whale-Killing Offshore Turbines, Denmark, Poll: Teenager #1 Concern, 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.
do do do good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization and It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm sure you've never had a better time in your whole life.
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 gumper, margarita glass, a tank of chalice, a stein, a canteen, jerga, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens.
That's right.
Right now.
Go.
Oh, delicious.
All right, the Dilbert comic will be published as soon as I'm done with the show today.
Had a little hiccup, and it was a file problem, but it was fixed.
And you will be delighted at the current topic in Dilbert.
That's all I can tell you.
You'll just be delighted.
Well, let's talk about the news.
The jet crash with the helicopter in D.C. is creating a massive fog of war, as in, what the heck is going on, and can we trust the news, and who's lying, and what's what?
So, we'll give you a few of the things we know.
There's some new video angles, which would show to a non-pilot such as myself, it would look like it was an easily avoidable problem.
Because when you see the video, it looks like the helicopter is heading straight for the airplane.
Had to be aware of it.
You know, seems like the visibility was good.
And was also flying hundreds of feet higher than allowed with an instructor on board.
How do you fly in illegal space in a crowded area, in illegal space?
It wasn't legal to be where it was.
How do you do that with an instructor on board in the context of instructions?
So we got questions.
It may be that we have lots of things wrong.
Countering the narrative that it was easy to see, which kind of suggests that there was some intentionality there, that's not proven.
But I saw another expert saying that if you think it's easy to spot airplanes coming toward you, it's harder than you think.
And it depends on whether you're seeing the landing lights or fitting in with the city lights.
The direction you're going, whether or not there's any lateral movement.
So apparently, there are situations in which if you're looking at it from a distance, as we are, you'd say to yourself, how could you not see that?
You're heading right for it for, I don't know, five seconds in a row.
Five seconds is a pretty long time to not react.
But if you were in the pilot seat, and especially if you were testing out some night vision goggles, The night vision goggles will interfere with your peripheral vision a little bit.
And there's just a ton of things going on at that particular airport.
And it was a training flight.
So if you don't have the most trained person for a night flight in that area, and there's a lot going on, and it might be just a coincidence about the lights from the vehicles, not the vehicles, the aircraft lined up.
It's possible it was nothing but a mistake.
But even Trump is having trouble believing that you could be flying hundreds of feet above the altitude that's legal and allowed when you're an extreme rule-following entity.
I would think that a military aircraft in this civilian space would be not just a rule follower, but an extreme rule follower.
Am I wrong?
I can't imagine anybody being more extreme about following every rule.
And the altitude rule isn't like every rule.
That's really, really important.
The where are you?
You can't get the where are you wrong.
That's the most important thing.
Where are you?
In relationship to the other planes.
So there's certainly some question about the intention of the pilot.
There's questions about how could you possibly be doing something so out of the norm in terms of the altitude.
And then there's talk about Trump, of course, mentioned DEI. And he also mentioned that the helicopter was now where it belonged.
It was too high.
And he said, not too complicated to understand, is it?
Well, he's right about one thing.
If you can see so clearly that there was a mistake of piloting, and DEI is sort of the baseline for a lot of our understanding of what's wrong with the world, doesn't mean every single situation is a DEI problem.
Does not mean...
That this is a DEI problem.
What it does mean is that whenever there's a system problem, and this appears to be, we're not sure, it might be an individual problem, but it seems even more likely there's a system problem, as in there were far too few people working in the tower, which meant that one person was doing the job of two in a number of cases.
So it's the hardest airport, the most dangerous airport.
It's getting busier and more complicated every day, while the staffing that handles it is going down, while the DEI requirements are probably what keeps them from staffing up.
Because if they have to stick to the DEI rules, they have to say no to some large pool of people who might have been qualified.
So DEI definitely is crippling the maximum effectiveness of any group that's going hard at it.
We just don't know if it affects some specific case.
So I'm going to be as scrupulous as I can in not saying that this specific case is a DEI problem unless we get to a point where it's overwhelmingly obvious.
We're not there.
However, as of this morning, I was unable to identify for sure whether we even know the names of the pilots in the helicopter.
To know, was there any weird DEI thing happening that could have had some element?
So as long as I don't know, as long as I don't know, I don't know.
So not knowing is okay.
You don't have to have an opinion.
So I'm going to hold my opinion on any DEI stuff until we know what's happening.
Now, some people said that the reason we don't know the name of the third member of the helicopter...
Some are speculating that it's a trans pilot and that that might be somehow connected to the main mystery.
Maybe it's a trans.
Maybe the trans was mad.
The trans pilot was mad because Trump is going to get rid of trans members of the military.
And maybe it was like a terrorist attack or maybe it was a suicide.
That's way too soon.
Way too soon.
So I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon yet.
And if I had to guess, based on what people have told me in the comments, the reason that we don't know the names of all three helicopter pilots is because only the families have told us the first two.
Meaning that there might be one family who just doesn't want to make it public, but that doesn't mean there's any bad reason for it.
It just means they don't want to be public.
The military itself, Apparently has not released any of them.
Now, I need to fact check on all of this because the news is so unreliable in this fog of war phase of anything.
Just so unreliable.
And social media isn't much better.
Or maybe worse.
I don't even know.
So don't trust anything that's about a specific pilot.
I would say it's way too fast for that.
Now, when Trump...
Puts out the DEI red meat.
There was a time when I would have said, oh, Trump, that's a mistake.
Too soon.
Too soon.
But you know what?
I don't feel like that anymore.
Because I think DEI is such a critical threat to the country that every time you can bring it up to tell people what a disaster it is and how quickly we have to fix it, I'm on board with that.
Now, of course, because politics is politics, The slimy and hypocritical Democrats decided that Trump bringing up DEI while the disaster was still sort of in its warm phase, that it was too soon and it was terrible and he's being a terrible person because he's politicizing a tragedy.
Now, am I wrong that the people criticizing him for politicizing a tragedy are also...
Politicizing the tragedy, and at the same time, am I blind and deaf and stupid?
Because to me, it looks like they're doing, actively doing, the thing they're complaining about.
It'd be like, I'm going to complain about your complaints.
Nobody should be complaining now.
God, I hate it when people complain.
Are you doing the thing?
You're doing the thing now.
You're doing the complaining.
About the complaining.
That's not the high ground.
The high ground is not complaining about somebody's complaining during the tragedy.
Those are equally political.
Equally political.
And you know what?
When the stakes are high, and this is life and death because the DEI actually could kill people, I don't have any problem with politicizing the tragedy.
I don't have any problem with it.
There are definitely cases where politicizing a tragedy is just wrong because there's no real political element to it.
But this does have one.
The DEI question is a yes, this is the right question.
Yes, we want to know what went wrong.
Yes, it's a valid hypothesis.
And it's not just a valid hypothesis.
You could put it in the top five, right?
There are at least five different ways.
We could end up understanding what happened.
They might be completely different.
So we don't know how this is going to roll out.
But if you're not including one of the most obvious baseline causes of any kind of breakdown of any kind of system in the United States, well, I don't think you're being honest.
You're not being honest at all.
Now, let me be clear.
I am currently, right now as I speak, politicizing the tragedy.
Well, it's too soon.
Does that make me better or worse than the Democrats who are politicizing the tragedy by saying that Trump is politicizing the tragedy?
No, we're all equal.
We're all equal.
We all politicize the tragedy.
The only thing I'll say in my defense is, I don't think I'm better than you.
I don't think I'm better than the Democrats.
I don't think I'm better than Trump.
It's just not in my mind.
It's not a contest.
What's his name?
David Axelrod, one of the complainers about the complaining, does he really not think that he's part of the problem and politicizing it?
Of course he knows he's politicizing it.
So it's just so dumb when Democrats come out with this.
Axelrod said Trump's craven remarks.
So let me think.
Have the Democrats learned nothing?
Have they learned nothing?
Because didn't they learn all of this last year that if the only thing you have is insults, like, he's a racist, he's a dummy, he's craven, he's politicizing.
If that's all you have, Did you not learn that that's not enough?
And that it doesn't work?
And that maybe you need popular policies for once?
Maybe you should try that common sense thing that's doing so well?
Maybe.
Anyway, Trump had a little interaction with CNN's Caitlin Collins on the question about the air disaster.
And so Caitlin Collins...
Trump pressed Trump about, quote, blaming Democrats and DEI for the air crash.
And so Colin says, quote, don't you think you're getting ahead of the investigation right now?
And Trump says, don't think so at all.
And he said, I don't think the names of the people, you mean the names of the people that are on the plane, you think that's going to make a difference?
Trump says, you think that's going to make a difference?
I don't know how it would make a difference, but it gets better.
Then Caitlin Collins said, does it comfort their family to hear you blaming DEI policies?
Here was Trump's answer.
I think that's not a very smart question.
There you go.
That is how you handle a not smart question.
You got to go after the question.
And you probably heard, some of you, if you watched The Five yesterday, you saw Greg Gutfeld talking about a good way to answer these dumb questions, these stupid gotcha questions, is ask a better question.
This is Trump's version of ask a better question.
I think that's not a very smart question.
I love that.
I love that.
Oh, don't you think you're being political?
That's not a very smart question.
Next question.
Very, very good technique to criticize the question.
And not answer it, by the way.
I don't think the not smart questions deserve answers.
I think you should say, in the interest of everybody's time, could you ask a question that's sort of on point?
And then just run out their time.
So you might see some of the confirmation people doing that, because it's really good.
Kash Patel did a version of that.
He did a version of it by asking for clarification on, I don't know, some rules.
And I think what he was doing is essentially calling attention to the fact that the questions were ridiculous.
So, I like that.
Let's burn up all their time telling them that their questions are ridiculous.
Because that's the truth.
I mean, that's far more on point and useful than simply trying to answer an unanswerable gotcha question.
Anyway, so do you think that the Democrats have learned anything about their approach, that basically it's just yelling at people and calling them names?
Well, according to End Wokeness, there was a recent event, looked like an MSNBC-hosted event, in which the candidates for the DNC chairmanship So that would be the head of the Democratic Party, at least organizationally head.
And every single candidate, I think there were maybe 10 of them or so on stage, every one of them raised their hand when asked if they thought that racism and misogyny were partly to blame for Kamala Harris losing.
And they're all like, oh yeah, oh yeah, it was the racism and the misogyny.
Yep, that's why Kamala Harris Now, think about this.
These are the people who are running to be the guiding, strategic heads of the party.
And every one of them thinks that the problem, the reason that Kamala Harris lost was racism and misogyny.
They're not even close.
Now, I'm not saying that racism and misogyny don't exist.
I'm saying that if she'd been qualified, she would have...
Already be president like Obama.
No matter what you want to say about Obama, politically he's gifted.
Right?
So if you're good, like Trump is, Trump is politically gifted.
Bill Clinton was politically gifted.
We keep watching the politically gifted people win, no matter what else they got going for them.
Trump could be a felon, but politically gifted, so he's your president.
Obama could be the worst.
Person in the world, but politically gifted, he's your president.
Kamala Harris could have done everything wrong as long as she was politically gifted, as in could talk in public.
The female thing and the minority thing were absolutely an advantage.
I mean, it's the one thing that gets people to cross over to the other party more than anything.
I mean, Obama proved that by winning nearly all the black votes.
So, yeah.
The fact that Kamala Harris couldn't turn her gender and her ethnicity into a plus shows the weakest political gifts we've seen in a long time.
So anyway, apparently the Democrats have learned nothing.
So Kash Patel is going through the confirmation process, as is Tulsi Gabbard, as is RFK Jr. I'm not sure when the votes happen for any of them, but it should be soon.
But I'm here, the Democrats seem really worried about Kash Patel.
And I think the problem is that he's dedicated to find out what's true, which looks like an existential threat to a lot of the Democrat Party.
Knowing that somebody's going to go for the truth, no matter what it costs, that would be the scariest thing for the Democrats, because, wow, the things we're going to find.
Cash mentioned the FBI lying to the FISA, lying to get FISA approvals.
How the assassination attempt doesn't appear to be as transparent as you think you should be.
There's something going on there.
So we've got lots of questions.
But remember I always tell you, if you only know what happened, you don't know anything.
If you know who is involved, well, then you might know everything.
So if I told you that there was a senator who pushed really hard on Kash Patel because he didn't think he was the right person for the job, what would that tell you?
There's a senator who pushed really hard against Kash Patel because he didn't think he was the right person for the job.
If the only thing you knew is what happened, and that's what happened, you'd say to yourself, huh?
I guess I would question whether he's the right person.
I mean, there are two sides to every story.
But if there's a senator, I mean, a senator, that's pretty credible.
A senator says he's not capable.
I mean, I'd listen to that, right?
And then you find out who the senator is.
It's Adam Schiff.
They only send Adam Schiff when they need the designated liars.
Now, I've told you this before.
There's a small clump of Democrats.
They only go out to lead the charge when it's a complete lie.
The regular Democrats will do the small lies and maybe the political stuff like, oh, we love climate hysteria.
They all do that.
So those are safe, safe political lies.
But if you need to do something that's just batshit crazy and the...
The most obvious lying that you could ever do.
You send Raskin.
You send Swalwell.
You send Adam Schiff.
You send Brennan.
You send Clapper.
And if that doesn't work, you get the worse than Watergate guys.
Because they'll reliably tell you that whatever the Republicans did lately is worse than Watergate.
So if you don't know that there's a designated liar group, That they only bring out when they have no truth on their side.
They just have no argument based on truth.
They have to just completely make something up.
Adam Schiff appears.
Every time.
Every time.
It's not like they use him once in a while.
No.
Every time they need to lie more than normal lies, he appears.
It's the same fucking guy.
If you haven't noticed by now...
That he's a designated liar and not like a regular politician?
Indeed, I think that's the only reason he gets support.
I think he's found his niche, which is he can do the serious lying, you know, not just the routine stuff.
So he goes after Cash, which makes me think Cash is exactly the right person for the job.
I'm done with my research.
If you tell me that Adam Schiff is trying to derail it, he's my man.
I'm done.
Honestly, I didn't know enough about Cash to have much of an opinion beyond the vibe I was getting that looked positive to me.
But as soon as you tell me Adam Schiff doesn't want him in that job and really, really doesn't want him in that job, yeah, he's my man.
That's the end of my thinking on that topic.
Well...
Tulsi Gabbard might be having a hard time with the confirmation process.
I think the Edwards-Nodden issue might be the thing that is a stopper.
We'll see.
So I don't know.
I don't know if people are going to go all the way to the wall for her.
I hope they do.
But we'll see.
I think the Democrats might want to feel like they got a win.
So they might.
They might kind of double down at whoever they think there's a little crack in the defense.
So they might just go hard at Tulsi because they would also fear any disclosures or honesty that she brought to the job.
And I saw a comment from Tristan Levitt on Axe who's talking about, you know how Tulsi was put on the, what's it called, the Quiet Skies program?
Which means if she tried to travel by air, she would get all kinds of extra attention to slow things down and might make it hard to even get on your flight.
So real pain in the ass.
Why do you think she was put on the Quiet Skies program?
Well, according to Tristan Leavitt, he says, so just to be clear, the New York Times is reporting that Tulsi Gabbard was subjected to enhanced screening in the Quiet Skies program because...
Checks notes.
That's what he wrote.
Checks notes.
She attended a meeting that Mick Mulvaney was in, and he invited her to go along to the Vatican, and it was being organized by the Pope's second-in-command.
So she traveled with a well-known American political person, Mick Mulvaney, Legal, right?
He's a legal citizen.
He's a public figure.
He was chief of staff at one point, right, for Trump.
This is a well-known public figure.
And he went to a meeting in the Vatican, which is one of the most common things that anybody does.
And it was arranged by the Pope's second command.
That's as up and up as you can get, unless, I suppose, the Pope scheduled it himself, which doesn't happen.
And that was it.
That was it.
They visited the Vatican.
And that was enough to put her on this program.
So clearly it was punitive.
It was using the government as a weapon.
I don't think there's any other way to see it.
She went postal.
So the thing we don't know...
Just to comment on your comments I'm seeing going by.
I have not seen confirmation that the pilot unnamed was a trans person.
I would say, and here's what I'd be afraid of.
I worry there's a kraken forming.
You know, a kraken is when you think you found, oh, I found how the election was rigged.
And then you find out that the thing you know is definitely not true.
It's called a kraken.
Could it be that the bad guys are trying to lure the Republicans into saying, it's a trans, it's a trans?
So here's what I'm going to tell you.
It is suspicious that we don't know the third name, if that's still true.
That would be suspicious.
That does not mean it's a trans pilot.
If I had to place a bet, I'd bet against it, but only 60-40.
So I'd say 60% chance it's not trans.
40% chance the simulation is giving you a story that is so on point with the times that it's hard to understand that it could be that on point.
So the whole two-on-the-nose thing, I'm going to wait on this.
For two reasons.
I'm going to wait because I don't have confirmation, so fog of war, it just makes sense to wait.
But number two, I don't want to be the person who went too hard at DEI before I had data.
Like, that doesn't make you the winner.
You know, if you go after DEI based on a specific incident and you don't even have all the facts yet, you're not the winner.
You're not winning.
Just to be clear about that, that is not winning.
Now, if it turned out that the DEI element to it is just glaringly obvious, and we don't know that, we don't know that, but if it turned out that it was hard to avoid that being part of the story, I'm all in.
But I'm going to need a lot more confirmation that what I think I know is what I know, or something like that.
Well, RFK Jr., Still going through the process.
And there was a Senator Hoyer and Looper, I guess, or something like that, if I have the name right.
And here's my first question.
Is this just a social media phenomenon?
Or are all the women in the Senate fucking bitches?
Can somebody tell me, is this just social media playing with my head?
Because they don't really look...
They seem like they're just screaming shrews.
And I don't think they always act like that, right?
I would guess that 99% of the time, you can't tell the difference between the men and the women.
They would say the same things, have the same attitudes, same emotional.
But not this time.
Like, the confirmation, you're getting a lot of really angry faces to the point where it's easy to make memes.
Like Hank Seth just listening to all that.
And even the still pictures.
I don't think you could get a still picture of a man that looked like the still pictures of Elizabeth Warren.
It looks like rabid dog at your door.
What's this?
What's this?
I love it when I see in the comments.
Somebody trying to attack me for something they imagined that I thought in the past.
If you want to attack me and my credibility, you should at least talk about something that was real.
Not something you completely made up.
You could do better than that.
All right.
So, I don't know what's happening with the women in...
In the Senate, it could be a social media thing, meaning that the social media is, you know, making them look worse than they are because they picked the pictures just right or something.
But it's hard to not notice the pattern.
Anyway, Elizabeth Warren worried that RFK Jr.'s preference to put the The liability on the manufacturers of the meds, vaccinations in particular, could bankrupt them.
Is that a problem?
Is it a problem that our vaccination, the only people who know how to do it, they could become bankrupted if we required them to, I don't know, take the liability?
Well, you can see why they're protected.
Like, you can understand the argument.
But there needs to be some kind of penalty.
And here's what I would throw into the mix.
I don't know if this is a good idea.
Let me just throw it into the mix.
I would not want to bankrupt a company because they did something wrong with vaccinations.
Not the company.
Because I don't want to punish the shareholders.
And I don't want to punish the company employees who didn't have anything to do with the decisions.
But I would definitely punish the paychecks of the executives.
So, is there a way to hold the bonuses and paychecks of the executives to some kind of performance?
If you could do that, then I would feel that maybe, I mean, if that process were honest, I would feel that maybe the pharma companies would do everything they could do to avoid doing something wrong that hurt people.
But if it happened anyway, which is always a big risk with this kind of science, if it happened anyway, depending on who made what decisions, I think you should go after the pay or the compensation of people who made the wrong decisions.
But do you really want to get rid of the company if the company is one that routinely develops drugs you do want?
So I'll just throw into the mix.
Bankrupting the company is probably a bad idea, but bankrupting the people who make the wrong decisions is more like business as usual.
So we should do a lot more business as usual.
And I don't think we have a way to punish any of the executives.
All right.
One of the things that Time Magazine was saying about RFK Jr. and the whole process about RFK Jr. calling the food poison, the processed foods.
So according to Time Magazine, Jamie Ducharme, RFK Jr. is saying that ultra-processed foods are poison, but he won't ban them.
So if you don't want to ban them, what would you do?
Label them?
Maybe label them, or maybe ban certain parts.
Like the red dye that got banned.
Maybe you don't ban the food.
Maybe you ban some stuff that gets added to the food.
That would be okay with me.
However, Time Magazine goes on to point out that some ultra-processed foods are actually good for you.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that some ultra-processed foods are good for you?
You mentioned that cereal is one of the ones that's good for you.
Do you believe that cereal is good for you?
I don't know anybody who thinks that.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a study funded by the cereal people that says cereal is good for you.
But here's my advice.
Don't believe any entity that takes advertising.
Time magazine takes advertising.
Therefore, you should not believe anything they say about food quality or pharma.
Because they're not a credible entity if they're getting paid by the very people that you think they should be criticizing.
So no, don't believe any platform that takes advertising cannot be somebody who tells you whether the products that advertise the most are good for you or not.
No, no, no.
Doesn't matter who it is.
Doesn't matter if they're on your team or the other team.
If they take advertising money, don't believe anything they say.
Anything about food or alcohol or anything that you can buy to put in your body.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Zero.
As soon as you let yourself think, well, sometimes they're right, you're lost.
Nope.
You can't think that way.
You just have to assume it's all non-credible.
Some of it might be true, but you're not going to know what.
So just treat it all like it's...
Not incredible.
The biggest surprise I got out of this process is learning that, in my opinion, Bernie Sanders is way more corrupt than I knew.
So he's one of the ones who gets the most money from the pharma industry and is also going the hardest at RFK Jr. with the worst arguments.
Huh.
Let's see.
Somebody that I respected for, you know, at least his stick-to-itiveness and his consistency and things like that, you know.
There were things about Bernie that I genuinely appreciate.
I don't think he should have been president.
But some qualities that, you know, I could say, you know, I'm going to give the same standard I use for Trump, which is, I'm not here to judge everything he's ever done.
I'm just judging it in the context of doing the job.
So under that theory, Sanders was additive to the process, even though he had different opinions.
I like the...
You know, I like the exchanges.
But here's an exchange with Kennedy.
Sanders said, will you guarantee to do what every other major country is?
It's a simple question, Bobby.
And then Kennedy said, the problem of corruption is not just in the federal agencies, it's in Congress too, as he's talking to Congress.
Almost all the members of this panel, the ones who are asking him questions right there, Are accepting, including yourself, meaning Sanders, millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry to protect their interests.
Sanders says, oh no, no, no, no, no, no.
Let me, in case you didn't catch that, I'd like to repeat it again.
Bernie Sanders said, oh no, no, no, no, no, no.
that's a 1 2 3 4 of Sex those.
no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Now, that makes sense.
These are the guys who keep saying, answer yes or no.
Apparently, that's all they can do.
The reason I think it's reasonable to answer yes or no to complicated questions is apparently that's how they do it.
Are you influenced by all the vast amount of money that the pharma people give you?
No, no, oh no.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Have I mentioned?
No, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Anyway, so Sanders said, I ran for president like you.
I got millions and millions of contributions.
They did not come from the executives.
Not one nickel of PAC money from the pharmaceutical industry.
They came from workers.
And then Kennedy said, in 2020, you were the single largest recipient of pharma dollars.
Now, do you think that Sanders is being honest when he says, I got it from the employees, not from the executives?
How do you think the employees decided who to give their money to?
Do you think the executives had any influence over where the money went?
Or do you think that the way we record things is if some individual is at home and they send in a...
They send in a payment on their personal checking account and they donate to Sanders.
Do you think that gets recorded as a pharma contribution because the person has a job at pharma?
I could use a fact check on that, but my assumption is that would not be shown as a pharma donation.
Am I wrong about that?
That if it's just an individual donation...
I mean, I've donated.
I donated to Trump.
Did it ask me what kind of job I have?
No.
No, I just donated.
So I do believe that Sanders got a lot of small donations from individual people.
I think, you know, directionally that's true.
But how in the world could he be listed as the biggest recipient of pharma money?
Now you might say, why would the socialist guy who wants...
Health care to be universal and the government's in charge.
Why would that guy get money from Big Pharma?
Well, how could you make the most money if you were Big Pharma?
I think you could make the most money if 100% of the government, if 100% of health care was paid for by the government.
Because that would probably increase by one-third the number of people who use your products.
And you wouldn't have to worry about whether the government would say yes to your vaccinations because you've already bribed all the congresspeople.
Of course they'll say yes.
So I would think that the most profitable thing for pharma would be some kind of a single-payer government's in charge of everything healthcare because that gets a third more people.
And even if the government negotiates a little on price, I think they still come out ahead because they're definitely going to, the government's going to say, yeah, you've got to get these shots, yeah, these are good, because they're paid off.
So it does make sense that Sanders, being the one who wants universal health care, would get the most money.
There's a perfectly straight-line reason for that.
So my take on this is I didn't realize Sanders was this corrupt.
I'm actually a little bit disappointed.
A little bit disappointed.
So, yeah.
Bernie, either back off of RFK Jr. or...
You just get out of this conversation.
Now, it also makes sense why he was being so stupid about the onesie.
Remember that he showed a...
When he was talking to RFK Jr. at the confirmation hearings, he put a visual of a onesie, which is basically a baby's one-piece clothing.
It had that anti-vaccination thing on it.
And he kept saying, do you approve this onesie?
Do you approve it?
Do you approve this message on this onesie?
Now, that might be the stupidest thing that anybody ever said about anything in any public setting.
And you say to yourself, hmm, you know, even when I don't agree with Sanders, he's never been that stupid.
Why would somebody act that stupid?
And the reason is you're getting paid.
Nobody would act that stupid accidentally unless they were a stupid person.
Sanders is not a stupid person.
So when he goes in public and does the stupidest thing you've ever seen and really pushed it, really pushed it.
He didn't just take a casual swipe at it.
He was yelling, do you approve this onesie?
What about this onesie?
That's got to be paid.
That's got to be pay for play.
You know, indirectly, not that they paid him for his specific statements, but indirectly, somebody who's taking money from an industry.
How do you explain that any other way?
When the smart person acts like a moron, aggressively in public, there's got to be some other force.
You didn't suddenly become stupid on one question.
I don't think.
So, here's what we learned.
The people who are definitely not on the side of America, Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, McConnell.
And here's how I'd like to fix all of this.
I think that when the TV news shows us a senator grilling a person who's trying to get confirmed, that the Chiron should always say, whenever the politician's on screen, how much they got from the industry that's Now, if you just do that, I don't even care that they take the money.
As long as wherever they go, they get tagged with how much they're bought, then everybody can see it, and then you can make up your own mind.
But imagine being an unsophisticated viewer of TV, and you think that the people who are going after RFK Jr. are a random group of politicians.
They're not random.
These are the ones who are taking the most money from the very industry that's that question.
If you don't know that when you're watching them talk, you're missing the whole thing.
Again, if the only thing you know is what happened, some senators ask some tough questions.
You don't know anything.
If you know who the players are, and specifically how much they're getting paid by each industry, well, then you might know everything.
I think it's really that simple.
I guess Canada and Mexico might face 25% tariffs by Saturday because of their lack of keeping the borders closed.
And Trump is even thinking of a 10% additional tariff on China because of their failure to do the fentanyl thing.
Now, you know I have a personal connection to the fentanyl thing because my stepson died of an overdose in 2018. So I'm not objective about this topic.
I'm going to just be as honest as I can.
I cannot find objectivity on this particular topic.
I try pretty hard on the other stuff, but I'm just going to surrender to this one.
I'm not objective on this question.
So when I hear that Trump is monetizing fentanyl overdoses with a 10% tariff, I say to myself, Like, I get why you're trying to put pressure on China, and I appreciate it.
I get that.
But it just feels like monetizing the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Now, monetize, you know, toward the national debt, I guess.
But, I don't know, it's creepy, but I understand it.
I understand it.
It is pressure.
I've told you how I would handle it.
I would handle it through embarrassment.
I would do something like closing the embassy.
And I would say, look, if you're not going to take care of the fentanyl problem right away, we can't really have a normal relationship with you.
And I think that's what we've done wrong up to this point.
We've acted like we have some kind of normal relationship.
But, oh, we have this one problem.
You know, some details not working out in this one problem.
Fentanyl?
No.
Fentanyl is not like the other problems.
If you're intentionally part of the killing of 100,000 Americans a year, close the embassy.
I want every country to know that China essentially are murderers and you can't have a normal relationship with them.
Closing it might cause too many problems for American companies operating over there.
Of course, there would be immediate reciprocity, etc.
But that's the fight I wouldn't mind.
I wouldn't mind the fight where we're just going to embarrass their management as murderers and just say, look, that's what you have to deal with.
And I would also tell American companies that they just can't do business over there anymore.
They just can't do it.
The existing businesses, I wouldn't stop them because there's too much invested over there.
But we just have to stop treating China like it's some normal country when it's killing 100,000 people a year with the help of the cartels.
That's not normal.
That's not normal.
So I'm not happy treating it that way.
I saw a great moment where Thomas Massey was teaching Congress, how inflation works.
And he dunked on Jamie Raskin in a way that was so...
I don't know how to say it.
Perfect?
It was perfect, but it's how a smart person dunks on a dumb person.
So let me tell you the situation.
You can characterize it yourself.
So Massey's doing a public display where he's got a glass of tea.
And he adds some regular water to it, and he says, here you can see that if I added water to it, it diluted the tea.
He said that printing money is just like that.
If you add money just by printing it, then the money that's already there will get diluted and will be worth less, just like the tea is worth less, because it's full of water now, or over-diluted.
And then Massey further made his point.
That that's the cause of inflation and not some weird things like, oh, just energy is high or, oh, just something happened with the supply chain.
Oh, it's, you know, there's just a special case.
Oh, it's the bird flu.
You know, it seemed like a lot of our individual expenses have some kind of individual reason.
But Massey, to his point, everybody would be affected by printing money and a dilution of cash.
He said that's why the entire country has higher costs than everything.
I'll say everything, but almost everything.
Because it affects everything kind of equally.
Now, that's pretty good, right?
He's explained how printing money dilutes what you have and how it affects everything.
And so since it does affect everything, that's more evidence of his point.
There's not a bunch of special cases.
It has to do with printing money.
Jamie Raskin thinks he's got him.
This is the fun part.
So Raskin, who you should know, is one of the other designated liars.
He's one of the ones that you bring out if Schiff's on vacation.
So Raskin says, how do you explain that there's inflation in the entire globe?
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
Oh, Thomas Massey.
Thomas Massey, with your little old MIT degree, you think you're smart?
Well, watch me kneecap you right in front of the whole world.
Yeah.
Oh, Thomas Massey, you think that America printing money in America is what's causing our inflation, but try to explain how all the inflation is going up all over the world, Thomas Massey.
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
Thomas Massey.
Cooley looks at Raskin and says, they all printed money during the pandemic.
It's all the same.
They printed money.
And more than that, probably the only thing that kept us solvent was that everybody made the same mistake at the same time.
So our money didn't become worthless compared to other money.
We all went down with the same mistake.
And that's why you don't challenge the technical understanding of an MIT graduate in public, unless you've tested that out.
That's sort of the thing you want to test out behind closed doors.
It's like, all right, next time they say this, watch what I do.
I'm going to pull out the how do you explain the other countries thing.
Then somebody would stop you and go, ah.
There is an explanation for the other countries because they all printed money.
So the fact that Raskin thought that trying to dunk on Massey in public was going to work out, I don't think he understands what a Thomas Massey is.
Let me explain what he is.
So in addition to being in Congress, he's the smart one.
He's not going to start making a big deal about a topic that he hasn't looked into.
What, do you think he didn't look into it?
Do you think there's something that an MIT-trained engineer can't master?
Do you think he can't figure out the complexities of printing money?
He's just the wrong person to challenge on facts and how the facts fit together.
How they fit together is the...
The magic part.
So, yeah, I just love that.
We've got some new economic data.
I don't know who to blame for it.
It's too early for Trump, too late for Biden.
But personal income is up 0.4, which is what people expected.
But personal spending is up 0.7.
Hmm.
Why would spending be higher than the raise in income?
Well, it could be optimism.
Optimism is one of the reasons you spend more than you have.
Because you think, well, I'll get more later.
But it could be that people don't have enough money.
Things are expensive and they can't live without insurance, but insurance went way up.
So we don't know.
I'll remind you that all data is fake.
So who knows?
Well, the big banks have...
Have gone through the usual cycle.
So here's what the usual cycle is.
Trump blames big banks for debanking conservatives.
Banks laugh at it and say, oh no, you're crazy?
What are you talking about?
We didn't debank any conservatives.
And then the receipts start coming in.
Well, yeah, you debanked these people.
And here's some more people you do banked.
And here's some more.
And here's some more.
And then what did the bank say?
Did they say, oh my, we didn't even know we did this.
It happened in different decisions in different areas.
And now that you pointed it out, wow, wow, we really shouldn't have done that.
We apologize.
We're going to make it up to those people we debanked, because in retrospect, that looks like a mistake.
And you're quite right in your criticisms, so we'll go forward with this improvement.
So that didn't happen.
They went from, no, we don't debank conservatives.
Then it was proven that they did.
They went all the way to, oh, oh, you're talking about the things that the government makes us do.
So the current claim...
Is that the government, the Biden government in particular, was putting pressure on them to make sure that they weren't allowing, I don't know, sketchy gun dealers and people who were in the crypto field, but you couldn't tell if it was real or a scam.
So apparently the fines for having a banking relationship with somebody who the government doesn't think you should have a banking relationship with are pretty extreme.
So the banks were just covering their asses, and now they're going to blame the government for making them debank conservatives.
So apparently they're more conservatives, obviously, in the gun dealer space.
But, yeah.
So it starts with it's not happening, and then it goes to we had to do it because the government made us do it.
I don't know.
What's the step after that?
Go back to it didn't happen?
Oh, Banks, you better do better.
Trump is doing a terrific job of explaining birthright citizenship by simply saying it was intended for children of slaves.
It was intended for the slaves themselves, not just their children, but his point is good.
I think limiting it to the children is directionally, it's in the right direction.
I'm no Supreme Court person, but I think Trump's argument might fly in the Supreme Court.
On one hand, it says very clearly that anybody born here seems to be a citizen, but the jurisdiction they're under part.
Because that's part of it.
You know, you have to be under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or under the jurisdiction of the United States.
So there's some argument that if you're not here legally, you are not fully under the jurisdiction.
Obviously, the law would apply to you still, but you're not under the jurisdiction.
So the argument would be that over that word jurisdiction.
And since the original purpose of it was for slaves and...
Children of slaves.
I think the originalists on the court are going to agree that there's a reason no country in the world does it the way we do it, and it was never intended to be widened to apply to everybody.
So if I had to predict, I think he's going to win this, and I think he's going to win it in the Supreme Court.
The only thing I can imagine the Supreme Court doing that wouldn't be just a clean win...
Would be to say, this one's too important.
You just have to get the country to revise the Constitution.
So they might want to say we don't change the precedent because we've treated it like it meant everybody for a long time.
So we'll see.
Why did I write that down?
So Doge claims...
According to Elon Musk, he saved over a billion dollars on just canceling DEI programs alone.
And Musk also said that reducing the federal deficit from $2 trillion a year to $1 trillion would require cutting $4 billion a day in projected 2026 spending from now until September.
So cutting $4 billion a day...
I don't know if that's doable.
I mean, that's a pretty big ask.
But here's my problem.
Our federal deficit isn't $2 trillion.
Isn't our federal deficit...
I might be conflating the annual deficit with the total amount of debt.
But we're adding $1 trillion every...
If we're adding a trillion dollars every 100 days, and Mark Andreessen points out that that number will start to escalate in a straight line up, so adding a trillion dollars in debt every 100 days, as Andreessen points out, very soon becomes every 90 days, and then very soon becomes every 60 days.
And right around there, you have hyperinflation and essentially the end of your economy.
Does Elon have the numbers wrong?
Or do I? Because we're off by trillions.
Trillions.
My understanding of the problem is trillions different from how Elon is explaining it.
Because he's communicating as though cutting a trillion out of our expenses would get us down to a trillion dollar problem, but we could grow out of that.
I don't know.
I like his optimism.
And it seems dumb to bet against him, right?
Can we all agree that betting against Elon Musk, especially when a calculation is involved, would be just about the dumbest thing you could do?
So I'm going to say there's a mystery.
Why is it true that we're adding a trillion dollars every hundred days, but also true that if we solve only one of those trillions, That we can grow out of the rest?
So I have a real problem understanding why I'm off by $50 trillion.
Because if we're adding, you know, if we get to the point where we're adding a trillion every month or so, you know, we're adding $12 trillion a year, and then that will, by the next year, it's going to be $100 trillion a year.
So I don't understand the numbers.
And I should.
I mean, I do have enough background that I should understand it.
I don't know why I don't.
Well, Y Combinator announced that the startups they're looking for, because they're an incubation group where they fund and they, let's say, nurture startups.
So they announced that what they're looking for is a lot of AI products that would replace $100,000 per year.
Functions.
Now, that's a take by Greg Eisenberg.
So that's not what Y Combinator says directly.
That's his take on it.
And he shows Y Combinator's document of what they're looking for.
And it does look like they want startups that can greatly reduce employment by adding AI to companies.
Now, on one hand, that sounds really dangerous to employment and the future of the country.
On the other hand, it's the only way that you can survive.
You have to cannibalize your existing industry as hard as you can, or you become Europe, right?
So as dangerous as it sounds for, you know, at least most storied incubator of startups, as dangerous as it sounds that they're targeting jobs and they're pretty direct about it, it's the only way to survive.
There's no second way to do this.
If you say, we're going to keep the jobs, even if the technology would allow us to get rid of them, that's a death trap.
You don't survive that.
You end up being overtaken by whoever is not going to do what you just said you'd do, which is protect the jobs over the growth and evolution of the industry.
So you have to do it.
But here are some things that...
Jump out at me.
I don't know if the real world is going to give them what they need.
So I'm going to put the Dilbert filter on Y Combinator.
And it seems to me that at the moment, you're always going to need one full-time staff member to manage the AI that replaced one full-time staff member.
Am I wrong?
You're going to need one full-time AI person to replace anything.
Because I've thought about doing it for my own operation.
There's a whole bunch of stuff I do that, in theory, AI could do.
But it would require constant monitoring and tweaking and checking.
It would require me to hire somebody to sit and watch the AI to make sure it was working.
And to continually change it and upgrade it.
Now, that's just one person.
That's just my operation.
But I don't see a way to reduce anything.
I do see maybe some awesome things I could add to my content or add to making the Dilber comics more easily searchable, stuff like that.
But every one of them requires me to add a staff.
Now, is there something that's different about big companies?
So let's say you've got, let me take one example from my personal experience.
Suppose instead of a finance and budget guy, which is what I used to be for a big bank and then a phone company, suppose they say, hey, budgets are the easiest thing to do.
All right, so we'll get rid of the budget guy because it's just math and spreadsheets.
We'll just have the AI do it.
And then what about the forecasts?
So it's not just collecting the budget, like I would do forecasts if we invest in this.
You know, this is better if we lease it than if we buy it, that sort of thing.
Well, again, again, the AI could do forecasts.
So could my old job be replaced because it was just math?
And the answer is, oh, you've never worked in the real world, have you?
If you think there's any possibility that that job...
Could be replaced by a computer.
You don't really know what that job was.
Let me explain what that job really was.
That job is about lying on behalf of your boss.
It's a lying job.
You can't hire an AI to lie.
It just won't work out.
So the boss says, choose the assumptions so that I get the laboratory I want to build.
Choose the assumptions so we get this new technology.
Because we're going to do it anyway, but we have to make the numbers work.
It's a lying job.
And I was very aware of it when I did it.
I was completely aware of it.
Now, but what about marketing?
What about marketing?
Oh, no, that's okay.
Marketing.
So AI can create images.
It can test marketing.
It can post things.
It can go on social media.
It can create ads.
It can even negotiate with whoever it needs to to pay for the ads.
It can stay on budget.
Wow.
I guess you can replace marketing with AI. Nope.
Do you know why?
Because marketing is a lying job.
It's a lying job.
AI won't do that.
You can't get it to lie and then also cover up the lie and protect everybody.
Marketing is a lying job.
But what about sales?
Sales is mostly describing your product, answering questions, negotiating a price, figuring out where the money goes, delivery.
Really just such basic things.
So AI can do that, right?
AI can call people.
It can follow up on things.
It can answer questions.
It can tell you how your product's better than the others, right?
No.
You know why?
Because sales are...
Oh, you're way ahead of me, aren't you?
Sales is a lying job.
It's mostly driven by lying.
And the AI won't do that.
So let's see.
Finance is lying.
Marketing is lying.
Sales is lying.
But at least we have HR. Do I need to do HR? HR is just bullshit.
AI can't do bullshit.
The reason that we have so many people working in big companies is because they're all professional fucking liars.
If you didn't know that, you've never read a Dilbert comic, because that's pretty much the whole theme.
No, you can't replace liars with honest AI. And if the AI is a liar, it can't do anything.
There is a logical...
There's a logical firewall that should stop almost everybody from replacing their staff of liars.
It just won't work.
And the other thing that AI doesn't do is come up with new, innovative, out-of-the-box anything.
So pretty much every breakthrough that a company ever had was because it was that one employee.
Who was willing to take a risk and think outside the box and do all that?
The AI can't do that.
Ever.
Right?
So, the things that humans do are just not really replaceable by AI because the humans will do the wet work.
They'll do the dirty stuff.
And if you train the AI to do the dirty stuff, then you've got a brand new problem that's the biggest problem in the whole freaking world.
You got this out of control AI with too much power.
So, anyway, I'm really skeptical about the job part.
I will, however, say, so you don't come back to me later and say, but Scott, that entire industry was replaced by one AI. There will be some of that.
There will definitely be some of that.
What I don't see happening is some big multinational corporation.
You know, just vastly getting rid of people.
They might get rid of a pocket.
I can imagine if telemarketers or something like that, or maybe help desks, I could see those maybe being automated.
Because you don't really expect the tech support guys to be liars, right?
Not really.
I mean, if you've told your tech support to lie, you're probably not doing it right.
So there will be some pockets, but I don't think it's going to be transformative and not as quick as people say.
Meanwhile, on the Save the Whales update, you know the big wind turbines offshore were killing whales.
Did you know that the Danish wind giant Ørsted is one of the big ones offshore for the United States, I guess, on America's east coast?
Now, what are the odds?
That a Danish company would be involved in this story.
So, see, we've got Denmark that's allowing Russia to rebuild Nord Stream 2. That was this week.
We've got Denmark saying that the United States can't buy Greenland, but we really want to.
And now Denmark replaced the CEO of their giant wind giant, Orsted.
Because the shares were down 83%, largely on the whale-killing bad press and Trump coming down hard on that industry.
So that industry is in real trouble, but it's good for whales.
Michael Schellenberger has done a great job reporting on this whole situation.
By the way, the thing that Schellenberger does...
That makes him special, and I would say a national asset at this point, above reporting.
You can be like the best reporter, and you're still not Michael Schellenberger.
Schellenberger is the best reporter, but he's got such an extra gear that it's almost a different thing.
So he knows everything about the whole wind industry.
But he's also been involved in saving whales.
So how many people could be an expert on those two things which are in the same story?
I mean, that's very rare.
If you look at Schellenberger's talent stack, it's everything from nuclear to whales to energy to, you know, he can understand the economics of stuff, the political problems.
I mean, that's a talent stack.
So you don't get that from regular reporters.
A reporter might know one thing.
Oh, I used to be an economist, but now I'm a reporter.
I know one thing in writing.
Schellenberger knows a lot of things, and so he can give context to everything.
It's amazing.
Speaking of other people who are important and have great opinions, Mark Andreessen.
You might get tired of me saying that he's awesome, but every time he's in public, he says something awesome because he's so good at communicating and so good at understanding the complexities of things that you and I don't see live, so he can untangle what's happening in Silicon Valley, for example.
And he's got a piece in the New York Times in which he's describing why big tech ended up leaning toward Trump.
And I will try to summarize it by saying that big tech was less political and more about big tech.
And if you're in the tech space, you want fewer regulations, you want lower taxes, and you want the activists to get out of your way.
So Trump was about lower taxes, less regulations, and get the activists out of your way.
So it shouldn't be a huge surprise.
That at least the transactional, smartest, let's get business done people in Silicon Valley said, hey, there's one of us.
Even if you don't want to identify with him, you can understand that he's a business person who wants lower taxes, less regulations, fewer activists in the way.
So that does make sense.
However, I would add to that that the fine people hoax was super instrumental.
In getting some of the biggest names to say, hey, wait a minute.
Have we been living under this brainwashing regime?
And the answer was yes.
We were very much living under a brainwashing regime.
And once the fine people hoax crumbled, the tentpole hoax, the others became more obvious, the other hoaxes.
So I think that's a big part of it.
And I also think that male energy is a big part of it.
Silicon Valley, heavily male biased.
Trump attracted to males because of the male energy of it.
So I think the male energy was also a sub-story.
So there are a lot of reasons.
Trump was good on policy, but he had male energy.
And people escaped on their own from the, well, with a little help.
They escaped from the hoaxes.
So there were a number of reasons.
All good ones.
There's a story that Gen Z seeks safety above all else.
And that according to the conversation, that's a...
What is the conversation?
Must be some online entity.
So a bunch of kids were asked in a survey, 1,600 kids were asked in a survey about what they rate as most important.
Of 14 personal goals.
So the things they asked them were, you know, what's most important?
Being popular, having fun, being kind.
I assume it was stuff like making money, you know.
So they got to say, what's the most important thing they were worried about?
Guess what was number one?
We're talking about Gen Z specifically.
The number one thing that Gen Z is concerned about.
Number one, guess.
You cannot guess.
The answer is to be safe.
To be safe.
Now, I remember when I was a kid, the only thing I really worried about was nuclear war or getting drafted to go to Vietnam.
I wasn't super worried about anything else.
I figured I could make everything else work.
But I couldn't really handle, I mean, I didn't have any control over nuclear weapons.
I didn't have any control over when the Vietnam War ended.
As luck would have it, it ended just in time.
I was very close, very close to being, I think I was one or two years away from being draft age when it ended.
So, I mean, that's as close as you can get.
That was close.
But, yeah, Gen Z is worried about safety.
And I think that makes sense when you look at the social media and news.
Networks, because it all looks like everything's to scare you.
And if you're Gen Z, you don't know that all of it is fake.
So I try to put myself in the position of a young person today.
If I believed that climate change was an existential risk the way it is, that would be so scary.
I just wouldn't have children because of climate change.
I can see how the Gen Z people are scared to death.
They're literally trained that their world will end before they become parents.
So of course they're not going to have kids.
But apparently the problem is maybe even bigger in China.
So I was reading today something about the young people in China who are just saying that having children makes no sense at all.
Like it's not even a goal for the majority of young people.
Imagine the majority of young people in any country thinking that children are a bad idea because it limits your life so much.
That's sort of an existential threat.
I mean, that's a big one.
So if the debt doesn't kill us, the lack of birth rate...
We'll do it.
I think China's got a bigger problem because they've created a system where the young people say, why would I raise somebody in this system?
The United States hasn't done that.
If you told me, you know, you're going to have a kid, and I know people who are currently in the mode of having them or about to have them or just had one, and I just feel happy for them.
Oh, this is all good news.
More kids.
Yes, more kids.
That might be the defining difference that allows America to stay somewhere on top and China to be in big trouble.
That we may have created a system where people are willing to have a child.
That's going to be a big deal, even with all the robots coming online.
And the robots are coming online.
Now, the good thing about the confirmation hearings is that apparently it seems to have ended.
The newest hoax?
I did not expect that the Elon gave a Hitler salute would be as strong as the fine people hoax, but it is.
They just replaced the fine people hoax with the Hitler salute hoax, and they're selling it exactly the same way, by showing you part of the video instead of the whole video, where you see that he touched his heart and said, my heart goes out to you, which was the physical act.
And I can't believe how easily the Democrats are fooled.
Unbelievable.
I was talking to my, who I call my smartest Democrat friend, just by email the other day, and of course I found that we couldn't have any kind of productive conversation, because if you make any point, You get a fire hose of accusations about what your team did.
And then you can't really argue that because it's like 10 accusations and, you know, what do you do with that?
So I've created the standard which says I won't have a conversation with you about politics unless you know that the fine people hoax was a hoax.
Because if you do know it, then I can help you see all the other hoaxes.
If you insist that that's true, despite the fact that it's the most debunked hoax in American history, and even Snopes says it didn't happen, if you still insist it's true, no conversation is worth having.
Not at all.
And so I told my friend, you know, I have to be honest, if you can't get past this one hoax, there's nothing else we can talk about.
Because if you start with...
Trump is Hitler, and you're basing it on these fake news stories, then everything you see is going to be with the Hitler goggles.
And I can't spend my time de-Hilterizing people.
First of all, it's impossible.
And second of all, I don't want to spend my time that way.
So let me just say, if you're a person who believes that raising your hand above your waist is a Hitler salute, you're...
Frickin' idiot.
Having a conversation about it, the details of it, is so unnecessary.
Here's why you don't have to see the whole video, and you don't have to read anybody's mind.
You just have to ask yourself, did one of the smartest people in the world, who was winning everything at that point, like getting everything he wanted, Trump got elected, would he go on stage and give a Hitler salute?
You don't have to ask any other questions.
If you think that really happened in the real world, you're a fucking idiot.
And if you say, but, but, Scott, I saw it with my own eyes, then I would say, you're a fucking idiot, if that's what you think you saw.
But, but, but, all the reasons, all the reasons.
No, you're a fucking idiot.
So we can't let people argue.
Whether that was or was not something that is so stupid, so stupid, that it's not worth discussing in detail.
You just have to be a fucking idiot to think that that happened.
And it's the same with the Fine People Oaks.
If you think the President of the United States got on stage and intentionally and more than once praised Nazis in public...
You're a fucking idiot.
But I saw in the video, you're a fucking idiot.
But all the reasons, you're a fucking idiot.
We're not going to have the conversation of how badly you are stupid.
If you think you're talking about whether the fine people thing happened or the salute happened, we're not in that conversation.
No, you explain to me how you can say something so stupid and still make it to work.
Like, how in the world do you even get food in your body if you're that fucking stupid?
If you think anybody did those things in public because your news told you, because your news told you, then you're fucking stupid.
We don't have that conversation.
It's just a waste of time.
Now, let me push back.
I'm seeing in the comments, just show them all the times that other people use the salute.
No!
No!
No, no, don't do that.
That's what I'm saying is a mistake.
If you enter their frame, you're talking about whether or not it's possible that that happened.
It's not possible.
You don't have to enter the frame.
You don't have to show them that other people raise their hands sometimes.
You don't have to show them that everybody gets accused of it.
You don't have to show them that they're hypocrites.
No, no, don't get in the weeds.
You're a fucking idiot if you believe that.
But I saw it.
I saw it.
No, you're a fucking idiot.
As soon as you say the Democrats do it too, you're in their frame.
Don't get in their frame.
Stay out of their frame.
Because as soon as they suck you in, then you're wrestling with the pig, and that's what they want.
They want you to wrestle with the pig.
You should say, no, wrestling with the pig is fucking stupid.
So, you could wrestle all day, but I'm not going to have a conversation about whether somebody praised Nazis in public, because we both know that didn't happen.
Alright.
Does that make sense?
That's your persuasion tip of the day.
Don't enter their frame.
And mock them for being in it.
You can mock them for even being in that frame.
That would be good.
And it's similar to the mocking the questioner.
When Trump says that's a really dumb question, good technique.
Good technique.
He didn't enter her frame.
You see?
You see?
Trump didn't enter the frame.
The frame was, was it a good idea or a bad idea to talk about DEI while the tragedy is still, you know, top of our mind?
He didn't enter the frame.
He just said that's a dumb question.
Perfect.
All right, that's all I got for you.
I'll talk to the locals people privately for a minute, my beloved.
And the rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow.
Thanks for joining on YouTube and Rumble and X. Hope you enjoyed it.
