Trump wins~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Trump Pardons, democrat Word Thinkers, Prediction Reality, Persuasion Politics, Economist Thomas Sowell, republican Trained Thinkers, Government Shutdown, Filibuster Debate, President Trump, democrat Cognitive Dissonance, NYC Free Buses Reality, $2K Tariff Refund, US Economy, Mayor Brandon Johnson, Reframing History Trauma, 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.
But people will be coming in because they need to hear what I have to say.
Because it's better than what other people have to say.
As far as I know.
All right.
Let's see how your stocks are doing.
Wait, today's Monday, right?
It's funny that the company named Snap is probably moving on the news about Snap.
That's nothing to do with the company.
Whoa, stocks are up.
Hello.
What?
Rumble's up 14%, but it's still from a low.
And then the Tesla's up too.
Not bad.
Last week was devastating, so not that good either.
All right, everybody.
Did you find a seat?
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience here to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankard, shells, astein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine the other day.
The thing that makes everything better.
If only I could lift my arm.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
I'll give you a second one.
See, you weren't ready.
You weren't ready.
But now you are.
All right, let me check my situation here.
Do we have any kind of news about coffee being healthy for you?
Oh, it turns out that coffee is really good for you, according to Dr. Marcus.
That your odds of surviving a heart problem if you've got a cup of coffee in you is way better.
Not because of that one cup of coffee, but people have coffee, coffee, coffee.
Yeah, I said coffee.
I grew up in upstate New York.
I can say coffee.
Can we agree on that?
All right.
So, despite my maximum coffee influence, I had a really good, really good nap this morning.
I didn't think I was going to be awake for the show, but I made it.
Pain level is currently manageable.
It's been pretty bad lately, but maybe it's a little bit less today.
That would be good.
Well, apparently, Microsoft, according to Tech Explorer, Microsoft's going to look into what they call super intelligence after the OpenAI deal.
So their current deal, I guess, allows them to explore with ChatGPT.
So this would be Microsoft plus ChatGPT.
Allows them to explore sort of ordinary AI, as if there's anything ordinary about it.
But if they want to go all the way to super intelligence, super intelligence, then it looks like they would make another deal.
And that super intelligence would look different.
That would be the good stuff.
Do you know what that means?
It means they don't know how to do super intelligence.
And that whatever they're doing now is the best they know how to do at the moment.
Does that mean they'll ever be able to do super intelligence?
Probably they will eventually, but I don't know if it's going to happen on Tuesday or anything.
All right.
So that would be when robots can do everything we can do, super intelligence.
Well, Trump is pardoned, or is it called a pardon?
I always get the pardons and the clemencies and all that mixed up.
But basically, he pardoned a whole bunch of his cronies before they've been charged with anything.
So they haven't been charged.
This would be a situation where it's just getting ahead of it, just in case.
But it includes Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Ken Chesabrow, a whole bunch of people, some of the names you've heard.
But they seem to have all been involved in one way or another with the, quote, fake electors plot.
Now, that's what Democrats call it.
They call it fake electors.
Why?
Because they're word thinkers.
If they can get you to accept that a good label for what happened was that it was that, there was a bunch of people who did some illegal stuff and they need a pardon.
Well, then they win.
So I did wonder if this is actually a good play.
Because it does, even though they're not even charged with anything relevant to these actions, they're not charged with anything.
It kind of makes them look a little guilty, doesn't it?
That they accepted it.
Trump himself did not pardon himself, but does that matter if you can pardon yourself anytime you want?
He can kind of, you know, if he got in trouble, he could bang that out in a few minutes.
So I wouldn't make too much of the fact that he excluded himself from that.
He could do it anytime.
Anyway, that was good programming.
So it's one of those stories that reminds you that Trump people may have been mistreated.
So it's kind of good that way.
But it also makes it look like maybe they needed a pardon.
What'd they do?
So this one works both ways.
But if Trump thought this was a really good timing for it, because we're too distracted with other things, he'd be right.
The distractions are all over the place.
So this one just isn't going to move anything.
So if some people he liked got some pardons, well, he wins.
I don't know if the juice is worth the squeeze, as the boring people say.
But the Democrats will get to sell this as authoritarian, right?
Because they sell everything as authoritarian.
What?
What?
He's giving pardons to his friends?
Not to his friends.
That would look like he's some kind of authoritarian, authoritarian.
So that's coming.
Well, here's another story I don't believe at all, but Dylan Butts over at CNBC is talking about China allegedly suspended some critical mineral export curbs.
How many times have we heard that China or the U.S. made some kind of change to their tariffs and their, you know, their minerals?
I feel like none of it is believable.
Are you having the same reaction?
It's like, yeah, maybe somebody did something.
But more likely, they're all just going to go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway before any of this was announced.
I just don't believe anything that comes out of, oh, China decided to do a totally reasonable trade deal with us.
Did they?
Did they really?
Well, we'll find out.
Allegedly, we're easing, somebody's easing some restrictions and blah, blah, blah.
I don't believe.
So I don't believe any of it.
But it'd be great if it were true.
All right.
Here is the big payoff.
So how many of you were with me in 2015 when I changed the world by introducing the reframe that it's not about the policies, it's about the persuasion.
And if you didn't see that Trump was coming, oh, he was coming in 2015.
If you didn't recognize how much power he was bringing to the domain, you were probably really surprised when he won.
But famously, I was not surprised.
So I had a worldview that predicted, would you say?
Would it be fair to say my worldview that he's persuasive predicted that he'd win even outside of his domain?
And then he did.
So I often say that the closest you can get to reality is prediction.
So if I was able to predict that Trump would do well based on his persuasion skills, and I think most people agree that that's exactly why he's doing well, his persuasion skills.
That's now a done deal, wouldn't you say?
Even the AI acknowledges that I changed the argument from policy to persuasion.
But there's one more coming.
You ready?
I've got another reframe that you haven't heard yet.
This will blow your mind.
I'm going to have to tiptoe into it a little bit because once it settles in, you're going to be like, whoa, whoa, why did I never think of that?
You ready?
All right.
So here's what he does.
Do you know who Thomas Sowell is?
Thomas Sowell, famous economist.
He's a conservative.
And he does a really good job of explaining stuff, doesn't he?
He's like a really good explainer.
And I always wonder who do the Democrats have on their side who's a good explainer?
And how important would it be if in 2015 you started training half of the country, but not the other half in how to think better, how to think better, which is not really persuasion per se.
You know, persuasion would be part of thinking better, but it's much bigger.
All right, let me give you some names here, and then you're going to see this come together pretty fast.
Why did I put the thing I wanted to do first?
Last.
Because that's how I am.
All right, here it is.
So the other day, I was, remember, I was naming some well-known conservative podcasters, and I started realizing how many there are and how skilled they are.
But let me just go down the list, and I want you to see if you can find the pattern.
The pattern is that conservatives have been teaching each other how to think better and more productively for about 10 years.
And I don't think that the Democrats have even tried.
So when I look at the conservatives, Republicans trying to figure out a new thing, you know, let's say there's a new policy thing pops out, you can see them thinking better than they used to.
You can see it, right?
But let me give you some names of people who are identified with the right, and then you can see why you can see this, but the left can't.
Why are they blind to it?
I'll give you some names.
Newt Gindrich, Newt Gingrich, can explain any kind of history thing, and he's got the whole context of everything from the Clintons, from the Congress, and everything else.
So when Newt Gingrich is explaining something to you, whether it's in a blog or he's doing an appearance, he's making you smarter.
Right?
How about Ben Shapiro?
Now, you can hate on Ben Shapiro, so I put him near first so he can get over it faster.
Just get over it.
I'm only talking about smartness.
Wouldn't you rather have Ben Shapiro on your team if you're trying to be the smart team?
Now, you could disagree with them on all kinds of policies because people are different.
But don't you want the smart team on your side?
You know, like the whole Daily Wire cast, like they're all way smarter than average.
Don't you want them on your team?
Of course you do.
What about Jordan Peterson?
Now, Jordan Peterson, I don't think he tries too hard to be a Republican or a Democrat, but he seems to get along better with the conservatives.
Who in the world is as productive in terms of telling you how to live your life and understand reality and be effective than Jordan Peterson?
What do they have on the left?
I mean, just think of some of these names.
It's incredible the difference in skill.
And you could go right down the line.
You're Megan Kelly.
She knows the law.
She knows the news.
She knows the news business.
Tim Poole.
You can do a deep dive on anything with the right set of guests.
PBD, amazing.
He has great guests.
Sean Ryan, a bunch of people.
So I would add myself to the list of people who help you think.
If you look at all of my books on the shelf behind me, they're all in that domain.
They're what is loser think?
What is persuasion?
You know, systems versus goals, talent stack.
Now, let me just put it in the simplest form.
So those of you who have consumed my content for the last 10 years, most of you have read maybe at least one of my books.
Can you validate that if every Republican read my books, that Republicans would have like a superpower?
It would just be crazy.
Well, they don't all read my books, but they read other books from other people who are also very good at explaining things.
Thomas Hull would be a good example.
And it seems to me that we've got 10 years of conservatives teaching people how to think and operate better, and no years of the Democrats doing that.
Like none.
The Democrats are more like arguing if you're a racist or not.
How many legs does that have?
If your whole strategy is arguing the other side is a bunch of racist sexists, does that last?
I mean, is that a long-term strategy?
I don't know.
I also think that one of the reasons that we note that conservatives seem to tolerate more consenting, dissenting voices, is because they're trained.
Let me give you a specific example.
If someone who had never been introduced to Nick Fuente's content, let's say a Democrat, were exposed to it with no preparation, just exposed to it, would you be happy with that?
I mean, it's free speech, but beyond the free speech, would you be happy with that influence?
Maybe yes.
Maybe no, right?
But suppose, suppose you heard that I went on, and I'm not going to do this, by the way, but suppose you heard that I went on a show to talk to Nick Fuentes, and you know who I am, so you know everything about me.
Would you be worried that his opinion would change my opinion?
Would you?
You think that might happen?
No, it's not a chance.
But might my opinion change his opinion?
Totally.
I'm not saying it would, but if you're going to guess who is likely to change the other person's opinion, it would be the one who's trained to do it.
Although he's very good at it.
He's very good at it as well.
So I think the reason I can watch Candace and Nick and Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro, and they're all arguing, and it sounds like somebody's anti-Semitic and somebody's not.
It sounds like terrible stuff.
But I'm just trained to not treat it that way.
It's just training.
And I think a lot of conservatives are just trained the same way.
It's like, you know, I'm not saying it's a nothing.
I'm just saying that the conservatives can handle it better.
They can handle the friction better.
All right.
Let me go way back to where I started because then I'm going to maybe have some more examples of this.
So as you know, the government's going to reopen maybe on Monday.
Not sure yet.
So eight Democrats crossed over and voted to reopen, which if that holds, they'll reopen today, sometime.
It might take a day or so.
I don't know.
There's only eight of them.
And of course, you should see, have you seen how angry the Democrats are at the ones who voted for this?
Oh, my goodness, they're very angry.
They're calling their own team traitors and everything.
And, well, if that's how you want to play it, your own team is traitors if they do something that's, first of all, perfectly predictable, perfectly predictable.
And then it happens.
All right.
Even on MSNBC, one of the hosts said, it seems like the president was kind of getting what he wanted.
Yeah.
That's what that looks like.
That's the president kind of getting what he wanted.
And he still hasn't given up on getting rid of the filibuster.
I thought he wanted to get rid of the filibuster, just it was just sort of opportunistic.
He might want to do it anyway.
But even though he gets his government reopened, he's still like, well, while we're at it, maybe we'll kill that filibuster while we're at it.
Anyway, Federman is one of the ones who famously cross-sides to vote for opening the government.
Good for Fedeman.
As long as he doesn't want any future in the Democrat Party, it's good for him.
He basically eliminated himself from higher office as a Democrat, I think.
Because the Democrats believe that fighting is just doing annoying things while people are watching, I guess.
I guess that's what they think fighting Donald Trump is.
All right.
So did it work that Trump threatened the filibuster or threatened to end it?
Did that work?
There's no way to know if anybody changed the vote just because of the filibuster, but it might have.
It might have worked a little bit.
People might have thought, well, if we give him this, maybe he won't also try to get the filibuster.
To which I said, have you met Trump?
Have you heard about him?
No, he's not going to give up on the filibuster just because he got something else.
He'll try to get everything he can get, whatever is the most aggressive stance.
Of course.
Anyway, the other thing that's funny, going back to my theme, is that Democrats will have no idea what's happening today because they don't have a worldview that incorporates what they're witnessing.
They just don't have a worldview that explains this.
Like, why did all my heroes say there's no way, no way we're going to cave?
And then they caved?
Was it ever important?
Don't you think it leaves the Democrats with some big questions about their own side?
Yeah, some big questions.
So the Democrats are going to look at their side as a bunch of wimpy losers.
There's going to be more pressure on Schumer to get the heck out of that job because he's an embarrassment.
Bernie Sanders pointed out that the Republicans ruined health care.
He ruined healthcare.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the things I'm watching is that every time the Democrats ruin something, don't they blame Republicans?
Every time the Democrats ruin something?
Because who ruined climate change?
That wasn't Republicans.
How about the border?
Not Republicans.
How about inflation?
It wasn't Republicans.
So there seems to be a clear pattern here, which is the Democrats do these things which have gigantic downsides, and then they sell as hard as they can that the problem was from the Republicans.
That's their whole game, is doing dumb shit and trying to blame it on the other side.
That's it.
That's all they have.
And they use it a lot.
Anyway, and apparently there's somebody who admitted that the real play for Schumer and the Democrats was to get crime out of the news.
Because I guess the Democrats thought they were losing if they were talking about crime, because nobody liked Bin.
So if they said it's really about healthcare, that would be the strongest emotional pull to pull the headlines away from anything except what they wanted to focus on.
In this case, it was healthcare.
So if that's what they were doing, it was kind of a good play, you know, politically, if that's what they were doing.
But boy, boy, did they get savaged?
Schumer's going to get savaged.
They're all just going to get totally thrown under the bus.
Now, on top of that, and again, I'll go back to my main theme.
How do Democrats understand what they're seeing?
And is it something that the Republican model of the world can completely explain?
I think it can, can it?
The Republican model is that Trump is very persuasive.
And if you wait long enough, he's going to win the negotiation and the government will open.
And we will look back and say, oh, why did we ever think he was going to lose this negotiation?
He's better at that than we are.
And then that's what happened.
So the Trump sort of version of the world, where Trump is persuasive and it matters, and he actually wins because of it, here we are.
So isn't it true that my worldview predicted?
Yeah, my worldview predicted again.
So that doesn't mean it's true, but it's the closest thing to being true.
All right.
So the BBC, this is hilarious.
The BBC actually, and the fact that this is a government-funded news entity in Great Britain, the BBC edited some text from Trump's speech on January 6th to make it look like he was encouraging people to go there and be violent when nothing like that happened, meaning that there was no language like that.
They just spliced together some existing stuff and made it look like he was calling on violence.
Now, weirdly, but it's good.
Who's the guy they call Tater?
Who's the guy on CNN that Greg Goff always mocks?
Tater.
So Tater is one of the ones who bought into the Fine People hoax completely.
Then he went away, but then he came back.
And now, believe it or not, Tater is completely supporting the point of view that this was a fake spliced together thing.
And it was never true.
And it was exactly the same as the Fine People hoax.
Exactly the same.
They just took some words that he did say and crafted them together in a way that he didn't say them and then claimed they did.
Now, do you know why this didn't work?
Why didn't it work?
The only reason that didn't work, the way it did work with the find people hoax for about four years.
It did work for about four years.
The reason it didn't work is that conservatives you're waiting for it.
I'm tying it all together now.
The reason it didn't work is that we had trained conservatives what it looks like when they do this kind of hoax, this specific kind of hoax.
You've all seen it.
Once you've seen how they can do it, you first of all, you can see all the parts and then you're like, oh, okay, I see how this works.
But you can see all the parts.
There's nothing you have to guess at.
It's all right there.
So even CNN, who is trying to find the middle ground, and I would say is succeeding.
I think CNN is succeeding in finding middle ground news place.
And I give them credit for that.
Because they did talk about this as sort of a scandal.
I mean, it's a competitor of theirs, so that's easier.
But they did talk about a scandal.
And if that had never existed, the fine people hoax, you wouldn't have even known that the BBC did that.
You just wouldn't have even known.
All right.
Surprisingly, Turning Point USA has an event today at UC Berkeley of all liberal places.
Now, UC Berkeley is where I went to go get my MBA, but I've parted ways with them.
I am not happy with UC Berkeley.
But it is good to see that they would have welcomed a conservative group, which I'm not sure they would have done that before.
So that looks like progress.
Looks like progress.
But still, this is what I talk about when I say that Republicans would be hunted.
I would not feel safe if somebody knew me by sight and I went to a conservative event in Berkeley.
Do you think I should feel safe if I did that?
We're not there yet.
We're heading there.
I feel like we're heading there.
It's definitely safer than it used to be, but it's definitely not safe.
So is there anybody on the left who ever experiences that, which is they've never haven't broken any laws, they're not planning to.
They just have a different opinion, but they can't go in public in a way that they could have expressed that opinion because they get hunted.
You just can't do it.
The fact that Democrats are not aware that I couldn't walk outside and go to Berkeley with a MAGA hat, they would think, oh, you're whining about too much.
That's a pretty legitimate whine, isn't it?
If you can't go outside in your own relative neighborhood, because you might get beat up for your political opinion, that's completely legitimate.
Yeah, that's getting hunted.
But getting better, maybe.
Who knows?
So this is funny.
Kathy Hochl, governor of New York, is saying that Zoro and Mamdaniel's idea of free buses, well, well, maybe you won't see any free buses.
Well, I'm not sure you'll ever see any free buses.
She says, and I quote, I cannot set forth a plan right now that takes money out of a system that relies on the fares of the buses and the subways.
So all it takes is some bureaucratic reason, and it all goes away.
So do you think that Mom Dami will find a way to do these things that are not funded?
But if you did fund them, you'd have to take away something substantial from people who are already funded.
Do you think he can pull that off?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
But reality has come to visit the socialists.
I hope they enjoy it.
Speaking of reality, Trump is, I saw that he's promising this.
I don't know if that's yet the right word, but he's teased, at least, that consumers or taxpayers might get a $2,000 check back from taxes as part of their tariff payoff.
What do you think of that?
Just everybody gets a $2,000 check.
That would not include high-income people.
So I don't know if I'm in that or not in that.
I think my current income is zero once you actually look at the expenses.
Like, actually, zero.
Not cheating on my taxes.
I think it's actually zero.
Because I have a staff and the income went down when I got canceled, blah, blah, blah.
So it's somewhere around break-even, basically, which is fine, because I'm not looking to build assets.
I'm just looking to not lose them.
All right.
What do you think of that idea?
Somebody mocked me and said, Scott, do you think it's really a good idea to give all these people $2,000?
What will happen?
To which I said, I don't know.
What will happen?
I have no idea what would happen if he gave everybody $2,000.
Inflation?
I think the right answer is inflation.
Maybe.
But sometimes the inflation is worth it.
So Trump's smart about reading the room.
If he can find any way at all to give somebody a few bucks, they're going to be happier than if they didn't get a few bucks.
And that's all it is.
All right.
So I've been trying to figure out if our economy is good or bad.
Have any of you figured that out yet?
The U.S. economy, is it good or bad?
Because when the Republicans talk, they say it's good.
They give some examples.
When the Democrats talk about it, they say it's bad.
They give some examples.
Who's right?
Don't you think we should at least know the most basic thing about our reality?
The most basic thing about our reality is that either the economy is good or it's bad.
And we can't decide if it's good or bad.
Was it Mark Twain who said that we can't tell the difference between good news and bad news?
That humans can't tell the difference.
Well, it feels like that.
But I did see a post that says that, I think this might have been from a screen grab on Fox News, that coffee is up 19%, utilities up 12%, electricity 5%, vehicle repair, 12%.
So although our growth in the economy seems okay, it's not making a lot of jobs.
People are holding off to see if AI is going to make any difference, I think.
So they call it a jobless economy.
It's not really.
Anyway, what do you think?
If I just asked you, is the economy better under Trump or worse?
And you were, let's say you were not doing just team play.
So you're not just arguing to win your side.
If you're really, really being honest, is the economy better or worse since Trump took over?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
I really don't.
And the fact that we don't know that, the most basic thing you should know about your country, is it going up or is it going down?
I can't tell.
Well, I think we need a little more information.
That's what I say.
Anyway, there's a big climate change convention, I guess you call it that, the COP30 climate thing in Brazil.
And of course, everybody's going to be talking about all the carbon that they burn, doing it for rich people.
And then that will be a story that entertains us for about two days.
Oh, here's my list.
Jeez.
I had a whole different list of the conservatives that are teaching us how to think better.
And I left out the best ones.
So did I mention Mike Benz?
Democrats don't have a Mike Benz.
It's like having a super hero on your side.
About Charlie Kirk when he was doing the debates.
Charlie Kirk doing debates, they didn't have that, did they?
You know, now I know that Stephen Crowder did some debates too, but he was more team play.
That was kind of a different vibe.
Joe Rogan, Glenn Beck, they all bring people on who can explain all kinds of things.
That's good.
I would also say that Gutfeld's a good explainer.
Maggie Hemingway, Victor Davis Hansen.
Do you see the pattern yet?
I was trying to make the point without having the right list in front of me.
But yeah.
These are all the smartest people in the game, and they're teaching you how to think, not just what to agree with.
Pretty strong stuff.
Anyway, Newsom is going after Trump.
Trump's having a good day, but they're going to have to find something bad to say about him.
So Newsom said, Donald Trump said he would make us wealthier and healthier, but we're poorer and sicker.
And I don't want to see this sickness extend to ending our republic and our democracy.
Okay.
All right, whatever.
Meanwhile, the Gateway Pundit is reporting that there's a gang called the Latin Kings operating in the U.S., I guess, who they must be in Chicago, and they put out a hit on some of the ICE people.
So that better not happen.
Do you think that's going to turn into a thing?
That the criminals are going to start putting hits on the ICE people.
I wouldn't be totally surprised if it happens.
But boy, is it going to get savage if they do.
If they kill one ICE agent in something that looks like a hit, Trump's just going to go full Viking on them.
And they have to know that.
I mean, they have to know.
That's the end of their operation if they do that.
At least they can struggle along a little bit if they don't do that.
But we're still going to take them out one way or another.
So in China, apparently they have some version of the LSATS, the test you take to become a lawyer, or to test you take to see if you qualify for law school.
And apparently, some Chinese prep company stole the test.
They stole the test.
They were selling the results.
So do you trust your lawyer now?
Now that you know your lawyer could have bought the test results in China.
I'm not sure if he could, but there's some allegation there.
Anyway, the chipmaking industry is mad because apparently somebody in the administration is raising the idea, just as a proposal, that the U.S. taxpayers would take some equity in some of the chipmaking business.
So the semiconductor business would sort of say, okay, you have a little ownership of that.
Do you think that's going to work?
I don't.
I think there'll be too much pushback on that.
That will not happen.
All right.
Then Mayor Brandon Johnson, he wants to tell us how bad things are in Chicago because of Trump.
He says, whether it's the unconstitutional acts that are being carried out by the Trump administration or the fact that food and medicine has been cut off, has it?
Has anybody died yet?
I'm pretty sure nobody has starved.
When was the last time somebody starved to death in the United States?
Sort of never.
I mean, it's not true, not never.
But I don't think they're going to starve to death this year.
But hope the post-millennial is writing about that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, let me circle back to my main point today and see if I stuck.
Okay?
And then we're going to do some reframes because I know you like them.
So the reframe is that conservatives have spent 10 years training their base how to think better.
And that if you were to extend that, let's say that variable over time, it would perfectly predict who's going to be in charge.
Let me say that again.
In the same way that persuasion skill predicted that Trump would be in charge, the fact that we've been training other conservatives, and most of us, though, the right people to do the training, the fact that we've been training other conservatives, oh, and I would throw Michael Schellenberger in there, too.
Conservatives are way, way smarter about how to just look at a topic and pull it apart.
Would you agree?
Even if you disagree with them, they have been training for 10 years with the right people to tell them how to enter this argument, how to deal with climate change, for example.
Have you noticed that the climate change arguments tend to, at least now, cluster around a few people's opinions that you've seen before?
Because they're the ones who are good at teaching you how to think about it?
Yeah.
So I don't think that the Democrats see this coming.
If you were not looking for the pattern, you wouldn't know there was a pattern.
You would just say, oh, a lot of people are talking about climate change now.
A lot of people will talk about this.
It wouldn't look like a pattern.
But if you understand that only half of the country is treating the topics as a class, yeah, that's what it is.
It's the conservatives, they treat the topic as a class where you can learn about the topic and how to respond to it if somebody is on the other side of it.
It's just not happening on the other side.
I don't believe they're learning how to do that.
But almost every day, almost every day, I teach somebody on the right how to do that or give them some maybe some context they didn't have before, which is the same thing.
All right.
Don't mess with the lawyers.
Good idea.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to do a reframe.
I usually do these at the front.
And by the way, if you didn't know, the Dilbert 2026 calendar is available only on Amazon, only on Amazon, nowhere else, only on Amazon.
And I wouldn't wait because we're going to run out.
We really are.
We're going to run out.
If I'm wrong, I'll let you know.
So I think we will run out.
Oh, here's one.
This one is so simple and yet so sublime.
So the usual frame is that history is important, wouldn't you say?
If you're looking at the Middle East, history is pretty important.
If you're looking at World War II, history is important.
So in most cases, you're looking at anything with history in it.
It's going to be pretty important.
But the reframe is this.
History doesn't exist.
History doesn't exist.
Try getting a handful of history.
Where is it?
Where's this history you're talking about?
Can you fill up a bucket with history?
No.
History isn't even real.
So there are people who go through their life tortured by things that have gone before.
The things that they experience, the things they worry about will happen.
But none of those things are real.
If it's something that did happen in the past, it's not real now.
It might have actually happened, but it's not happening now.
It just doesn't exist.
Once you realize that history is completely artificial, and also, I don't know if you know this, but there is scientific evidence that we make up our minds after the decision.
That we decide first, and then we come up with weird explanations of why we decided.
That's actually how decisions are made.
We just think it's the other way around.
It's an illusion.
So that's your reframe of the day.
Has anybody heard of that one before?
It's real, it's so effective.
I use it all the time.
And I just go, no, that doesn't even exist.
Does not exist.
Don't have to worry about it.
All right.
People, I'm going to go think about getting some breakfast because I deserve it.
And the rest of you, I guess I should talk to the locals people privately.
I've been cheating them a little bit.
So, locals people, I can't lift my arm though.
Oh, I'm going to try to turn this off.
Let's see if I can do this and keep the locals people.
I literally can't lift my arm above my nipples.
How many of you have seen me drawing on here?
I don't like looking at his poorly drawn shoes.
So, in case you missed it, you can't see it at all.
I would put my hand up to the camera so you can see it, but it just hurts too much.
I can't reach over there.
So, I've been doing some drawing on camera.
People seem to like it.
The good news is I can still draw despite the limitations in my hand.
Didn't know if I would, but yesterday I could.
All right.
So, did locals not work?
Did locals not work today?
I heard somebody say that locals didn't work.
Is that true?
Because I don't see it here.
Hmm, that's weird.
All right, I guess we're not talking.
Huh.
All right, so I'm going to have to figure out what's wrong with all of my devices.
