Spencer Watson unpacks "Schrödinger’s meaning"—how figures like Nick Fuentes and Donald Trump use coded, contradictory language to signal extremist views to insiders while evading accountability. Fuentes’ wink-and-"just kidding" racism mirrors historical dog whistles, while Trump’s shift to outright lies reflects his base’s complicity and media bias enabling distortions, like the New York Times framing election integrity as a "horse race." Lara Trump’s lawsuits to block post-midnight votes expose deeper risks of disenfranchisement, where premature declarations treat democracy like Schrödinger’s cat—uncertain until fully observed. The tactic’s collapse reveals how unchecked rhetoric and selective outrage reshape truth itself. [Automatically generated summary]
I was going to say something else at this moment, but I didn't write down what I was going to say that was going to be very, very clever.
But now I have to say this instead, which is not nearly as clever.
And this is the podcast, Veron.
So I'm Spencer, your host.
So it was going to be both clever and not clever at the same time?
Ideally, yes.
Both clever and not clever at the same time.
As people can hear who listen to this podcast regularly, that's David Bloomberg with me today.
And he has found a way to wrap what we're going to talk about into a clever little opening line.
That's one of the things he does.
So what we're going to talk about today is a thing I call Schrödinger's meaning.
Big words.
Meaning isn't all that big.
Right.
Except for the depth of what it means.
Yes.
Yeah.
So many meta layers there.
Quick explanation for anyone who needs it.
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that's meant to illustrate some of the absurdity of what happens in the quantum world, what we discover with quantum mechanics.
In the thought experiment, the life of a cat is directly related to the state of a particle.
He described it as you take the particle's state and you find a way to make that be a switch in which you then, you know, once the switch flips, it kills the cat.
For many reasons, I don't bring this thought experiment up to my wife very often.
She doesn't like it.
Cat lovers tend to not like it.
But keep in mind, Schrödinger didn't actually do this.
He didn't actually kill any cats.
It was just on paper.
Or did he?
Well, to the best of our knowledge, he didn't actually do this.
But the idea is that in the quantum realm, particles have an undetermined state.
And it's difficult to say what's happening there.
Sometimes the state is dependent on how you observe them, which doesn't seem to make any sense.
And this is what Schrödinger's point was, is that in the world that's sort of above the quantum realm and in our world that's a conglomeration of all the different quantum interactions that lead to our world, the life or death of a cat is two states that are not mixable.
There's no way the cat can be both alive and dead at the same time.
And that if you try to, if you try to move the quantum state to the real world like this, you're going to get this very obvious and immediate lack of translation.
You're not going to be able to translate this properly because the cat's going to die and then it won't become alive again.
And the particle, we don't even know yet what it's really doing.
We observed it.
It looks like it's in one state and we observe it from another way and it looks like it's in another state.
And we're still, you know, quantum mechanics is still at a impasse there.
Some people say they know something and I'll leave that to the physicists in another room somewhere.
Well, I figured that was why you brought me on because I am an expert in quantum mechanics.
I took a class in college 30 some years ago.
What was the grade you got in the class?
It is both an A and a fail at the same time.
No, I believe, if I remember right, that I somehow got a B.
And I was surprised that I got a B because I remember walking out of the final and my TA said, how did you do?
Because it was on computer.
was one of the first test taking on computers back then.
And I walked out and she said, how did you do?
And I just looked at her, shook my head and walked away.
Yeah.
So I believe that I somehow pulled a B on that class overall.
So clearly that makes me an expert.
Well, you're the most expert in this room.
Full disclosure, David, I also took a quantum mechanics class when I was in university for engineering and I failed.
So it is the class that I failed, quantum mechanics.
Wow.
I will have to wear that albatross for the rest of my life.
And that makes you able to go online and say you did your own research after that and you're going against the man.
Yeah, and I only failed because they didn't have.
Yeah, my conclusions are much better, but I would have, yeah, right.
And then you can.
Yeah, and you can then sell whatever you'd like and call it quantum.
Yeah.
Wow.
There's a big industry for that.
Yes.
But we have Schrödinger's cat as this thought experiment that's, as Erwin Schrödinger put it, the cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time.
So usually when we reference Schrödinger's cat or Schrödinger's blank, this is what we mean is that the blank, the thing after Schrödinger's name, is attempting to take on two meanings that are mutually exclusive.
In the cat's case, life and death.
But we're going to talk about Schrödinger's meaning in that there are people who attempt to communicate, like actual influencers, who attempt to deliver a message and they want both meanings.
They want to, for one audience, they want it to mean one thing.
And for a different audience that's listening at the same time, they want it to mean a different thing.
So first take on Schrödinger's meaning.
Does this make sense?
Have I failed to properly explain the quantum mechanical angle here?
Well, I'm going to say that you have both succeeded and failed.
And we won't know until it's observed by the listeners which it is.
I hate you so much right now.
That's a cop-out answer.
Unbelievable.
It's a quantum answer.
Yes.
Oh, God.
So you heard him.
I won't know until people tell me if this made any sense at all.
So still reeling from that.
Okay.
So I want to make sure I separate this from other effects that are like it, like double entendre, where you might have a, I failed to get a good example of double entendre for this example, but double entendre is essentially where you have a simple phrase and it kind of has multiple meanings inside there.
It's also usually used for things like euphemisms, where you might have a euphemism and then it has some other meaning.
But euphemisms are also different.
You're sort of just talking around something.
But in this case, hopefully the first example makes it really, really clear exactly what I'm talking about when I say that some people are deliberately trying to get two completely separate meanings.
Are you going to say something, David?
You're going to speak and not speak at the same time?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
So there's a man in the world named Nick Fuentes.
You may have heard of him.
You might not have heard of him.
Not that important really, but he is gaining in popularity.
I guess is the only word uh.
Exposure to the world is increasing.
Um, Nick Fuentes is an unabashed white supremacist, he's a full-on Neo-nazi, and not only is he card carrying, as the phrase goes right now, he's the person that the other would-be Neo-nazis look to for you know, a spiritual leader, as it were.
He was uh, we did a three episode bonanza about free speech.
That was um, initially talked about as inspired by a conversation that Kanye West had when he went on to um Alex Jones show.
Nick Fuentes was the person who went on that show with Kanye West and he was the person that Kanye West was hanging out with, coming up with all those crazy things about Hitler not being wrong and all that stuff.
That's, that's the actual guy yeah, and if you want a uh, if you want a uh good well good, in quotation marks uh sampling of uh some of his greatest hits.
You can check out the Right WING, Watch uh twitter account and they frequently post clips of his crazier I mean, it's hard to pick which of his are the crazier, but of his clearly crazy uh rants.
Yeah um, and topical right now, Nick Fuentes has been uh removed from Twitter twice, as of this, this time and reinstated as of just a few days ago.
Twice, so he's back on Twitter.
Elon Musk personally intervened and opened him up again to the you know, greater exposure to the world.
Not that he needed it, but Elon Musk decided that all ideas should be available everywhere all the time.
So that's where he is.
Even if he said something like, even if it means he'll, he'll, you know, lose some advertisers, which which indicates, first of all, that he understands that that's the reason he's been losing advertisers.
Yep, while he has argued in lawsuits and on twitter and elsewhere that no, that's not the reason he's been losing advertisers.
It's been uh, those evil Jews calling him out.
Uh, and the evil scientists and you know the, the Center FOR Countering Digital HATE and all those groups uh, daring to call him out.
But now he acknowledges that this could cause him to lose advertisers.
So, and he'll do it anyway.
Yeah, he'll do it anyway.
And then later he'll complain about it and say, you know the Adl code for Jews.
Um, he might blame Disney, Disney again.
Right.
We'll, you know, say that they, you know, blame them forgetting that he had acknowledged that he might lose some advertising revenue.
Okay.
Well, this is less about Elon Musk and more about the concept.
So although Elon Musk, I will say, Elon, if I had thought about it before we were in the middle of recording this, I probably could have dug up some examples of Elon Musk where he retweets people and then afterwards comes back.
Oh, that's not what I meant.
Yeah, right.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, that's, I don't know what's going on in his brain, but it's not useful.
No.
Nick Fuentes has a particular style, is I guess the only way to put it, of communicating in public when he's, I don't exactly know.
I think he has some video content and whatnot, where he will say something incredibly racist, incredibly Nazi, incredibly fascist.
And then he will, with a wink, turn and just say, oh, I was just joking about that.
Like openly, just say that, as if he's mocking the idea that it's just a joke.
And then it becomes this thing where some people and even some legitimate people look at that.
And there's other people who've done it who've taken his lead and used this, said these things are just jokes or whatever.
And other people who are more should be more reasonable spaces have said, oh, those were just jokes.
Don't, you know, why do you get so uptight about this stuff?
That's just joking around.
And this, the prime example, really, of the case, he knows that what he's saying causes the white supremacists that watch him to cheer and to revel in the ideas that they have and to encourage each other to also be comfortable saying these things openly and to dig in harder on their bent set of ideas.
And he's attempting to get cover for it by saying it's that that's just irony or sarcasm or or you know, I clearly said right afterward, I was just joking.
So clearly you can't get me for this.
There's, you know, why are you being so over the top about this?
Your way, you know.
Yeah, I encourage, well, I encourage nobody to do this actually, but, you know, try this in a workplace environment.
You know, send an email to your boss that says you are a micromanaging asshole prick.
And then in the next sentence, put just kidding.
See what happens.
See what happens.
I'm sure the reaction will be, wow, you're funny.
That's hysterical.
You know?
Yeah.
This is a common bully tactic to try to pass off the obvious intimidations that the bully does as jokes when they start to get any kind of pushback.
You know, to try to say, well, you know, that's just, you know, whatever that I was just joking.
Always the first defense of the bully.
Yeah.
I think you've probably seen it and I've definitely seen it on Twitter where someone will say something and, you know, we'll call them out on it.
Oh, well, I was, why are you taking it so seriously?
This is just Twitter.
I was just joking.
It's like, why do you take it?
Because you said it.
You know, why would you say that?
And I mean, there are some well-known comedians who do that.
They, you know, they punch down.
They make anti-trans jokes.
And then when they're called out, they're just like, oh, it's just comedy.
Yeah, that's just comedy.
And comedy is this interesting case where it's possible to be funny and also racist at the same time.
That doesn't make it okay, really.
You know, and I've even laughed at some of those jokes and then said afterward, yeah, but still, man, like, why?
Because here's my point about that, is that if the comedian in question is really funny, Why do they need those jokes?
Exactly.
And as we're recording, this will pinpoint the day.
Jon Stewart just came out and said, in, I think, mostly in reaction to another very famous comedian who came out and said, oh, the woke left has ruined comedy.
Jon Stewart came out and said, why, you know, if you're a bad comedian, if you have to blame the left or whatever, you know, for not being able to adapt to comedy.
So, yeah, I thought that was very interesting that he came out and said, he said something like, I've had to remove like two words from my entire comedic vocabulary during my entire career.
Yeah.
And for as far as Nick Fuentes goes, if he can't find a way to be funny doing other things, then he needs to, you know, people need to call him out, find a way to call him out on this, that these aren't jokes that he's doing.
Right.
These are dog whistles.
In fact, the entire concept of a dog whistle is exactly what I'm talking about.
Schrödinger's meaning is that with a dog whistle, you're attempting to encourage one audience while not saying anything at all to another.
Right.
I mean, yeah, Trump was great at this in his earlier years.
Now he just comes out and says whatever the hell he means.
But, you know, in his earlier years, everybody was trying to parse.
What does he mean?
Does he mean this?
Does he mean that?
You know, and the, you know, the people like the Proud Boys would take it as one meaning.
And then the media who are trying to excuse him would take it as another meaning.
Now he just comes flat out and says it.
And the media, certain media still make excuses and say, oh, he doesn't really mean he's going to turn it into a dictatorship.
Yeah, yeah.
That's a metaphor for something else or something.
Yeah.
What kind of a metaphor?
Yeah, I don't know what it's a metaphor.
If he's good at metaphors, he could pick another metaphor.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
Clear this whole thing up.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Fuentes wants his own audience to be, quote unquote, in on the joke about the dangerous and disgusting things he said.
But he also wants to not have to suffer any social consequences for those same things.
In reality, this makes him a coward who won't stand openly for his real beliefs.
And that's, well, that's just where that sits.
I mean, this is the same level as the Ku Klux Klan members that wear masks, right?
If they're really proud of what they're doing, they wouldn't wear masks.
Right.
Right.
Yeah, he just wears a different mask.
You know, he it's interesting because in an article that was about him, an NPR article, he talked about there was a section about one of his quote unquote jokes.
And it reminded me of someone in my own history because he said, it says, Fuentes responded, why don't you smack her across the face?
Why don't you give her a vicious and forceful backhanded slap with your knuckles right across her face, disrespectfully, and make it hurt?
Fuentes went on.
At one point, he pantomimed punching a woman in the face.
He then added, no, I'm kidding, of course, just kidding, just a joke.
And it reminded me because I brought up, you know, my college days a little while ago, which were over three decades ago.
And there was a campus preacher who came to my universities, among others.
He made a little bit of a round.
His name was Brother Max.
And one of his standard stories, I was one of his regular hecklers.
We didn't have podcasts then.
So that's all we could do was heckle on the quad.
One of his standard stories was about how his wife would complain because he got fired from his job as a math teacher or a math professor.
I don't remember exactly, but basically because he was preaching in class and the school was like, you can't do that.
And he kept doing it.
So they fired him.
And so his wife would complain they didn't have money or something like that.
And he insisted God would provide.
And then she complained more.
And he, in his story, he said, and so I told her, woman, shut your mouth.
And I hit her in the face with the Bible.
And then he'd pause and he'd say, well, it was the word of the Bible, you know, which was obviously done.
And then he'd cite to whatever word, you know, whatever chapter and verse it was that says something like, woman, obey your man.
He obviously did it for shock value.
And he wanted to be taken, I think, both literally and figuratively.
I think he wanted certain people in his audience to be like, yeah, you control your woman, whereas not to scare off the others who he was trying to convert.
Yeah.
To me, that's a good example.
He knows that some people in the audience will take that literally and he accepts no responsibility for having said it or inspiring anyone to do any such thing.
Right.
And this is a coward's approach.
If you're going to, you know, at the very least, if you're going to say things that you mean to inspire people with, take responsibility for those things.
Yeah, but they don't want to take responsibility because that would mean, well, I guess that would mean they'd have to take responsibility.
That would mean potential consequences.
If you say it's a joke, well, then you can maybe get yourself back on Twitter or not get banned from YouTube or, you know, whatever else.
But if you don't say it's a joke, you can have all those things happen to you and then you won't be able to reach your audience.
So next example I have is becoming a more common theme on this podcast.
I bring it up a lot.
I think Holocaust denial is an interesting and dangerous phenomenon in our world.
Very often I've seen people downplay, call into question, or openly deny the fact that 6 million Jews in Europe were systematically murdered by the Nazis in World War II.
So I've said before in other episodes that you can do this, where if anytime you suspect anyone of adhering to any reality denying ideologies like flat earth, anti-vax, incel, QAnon, whatever, just ask them what they think happened to the Jews in Poland in World War II and just leave it at that.
Just see what they do.
And if you really want to get bonus points, you can ask them if they, once they waver or hesitate to answer, because that's usually what happens with me.
They don't want to answer.
They'll start asking why you want to know.
Yeah, I have literally never seen anyone respond to you to this on Twitter.
Maybe it's happened, but every time I have seen you ask, they get mad at you.
Yeah.
They refuse to answer and then they block you.
And it's, it's a, it's an easy one.
It's such an easy softball pitch.
Just knock that one home.
Just say, look, they were 90% of them were killed, like 6 million Jews were killed.
And then go on with your day.
Like, there's no easier points to get on the scoreboard.
And they still shrink away from this question because they know what the answer is and they still don't want to say it.
And that's, I don't even know what to say about that.
But when I look at Holocaust denial, I come up with a different calculus, which is that oftentimes the people who deny that the Holocaust happened also often would have been okay with it happening.
Yeah.
Like they wanted it to have occurred, but they don't want to admit that it happened.
And you get this.
And these ideas are incompatible.
It can't be that you cheered when 6 million Jews were killed and then also denied that 6 million Jews were killed.
You know, there's something broken in your brain if that's the case, but I've seen people try to do that dance.
And that's interesting in a, I study the human brain and I wonder about these strange creatures kind of way.
It's dangerous because these are just real facts about our world and denying them is a sign that, you know, you'd be okay with it happening again.
I don't know where to put that, but Holocaust denial needs to be called out for what it is.
You're attempting to get two meanings at the same time when you're walking down this road.
And it might be that you start walking down one road and you get, you know, of the two ideas, the two meanings, you start with one and you eventually get to the other.
But, you know, the people that are walking you down that road and there are people walking other people down this road.
They're going to lead you to the other.
They're like shepherds.
I need to get more examples of this, but they do teach each other how to talk to people to get them to, you know, get to that place where you're in the unreality.
All of them do it.
The flat earthers, the anti-baxers, QAnon, they all have sort of like little lessons on how you talk to people to get them to believe the thing more strongly.
And almost all of these include some level of this in there.
And you get to that place and that is a broken brain scenario.
Just get out of there, man.
Yeah.
I mean, it's, you know, it's like any other cult that's teaching its recruits how to recruit more people.
Yeah.
You know, first you bring them in and then you, okay, here's how we get more people to believe the true word of whatever.
And yeah, it is interesting.
You know, I've seen this with the Holocaust denial also, where it's, yeah, you know, the Nazis didn't kill six million Jews, but go Nazis.
Yeah.
I would have been happy if they had.
Yeah.
And so it's, it's, it's like, how can you take, you know, both positions at the same time?
And yet they do.
And I don't know.
Maybe they really know the truth, but they refuse to admit it because they do want it to happen again.
And by ignoring it or by trying to get other people to ignore it, they can perhaps cause it to happen again.
That's a level of meta thinking there, right?
Yeah.
Working toward the conclusion you want and ignoring the authentic thing in front of you.
Yeah, right.
Right.
So the next example is along the same levels of logic as the previous example.
It slurs right in here because I see a lot of people online who have claimed that January 6th was not an insurrection, but actually something else entirely.
And the in quotes, something else entirely, it's different from person to person.
Some of them say it was a, you know, they were a guided tour through the building.
And some of them say it was something else.
Some say it was it was all Antifa or the FBI.
I mean, there's all levels of claim here.
But the thing in common is that it's anything except an insurrection, which tells you something.
Right.
But at the same time, the people who say that, generally speaking, would have preferred for an insurrection to have succeeded.
They would have preferred if at that moment the Patriots had pushed Congress aside and had Donald Trump declared president for a second term right at that moment.
And yeah.
So January 6th cannot be both an insurrection and an innocuous protest at the same time, obviously.
Well, but it also can't.
I mean, there's so many things about it because, you know, some of those same people are claiming, like you said, it was Antifa or the FBI.
And those in prison are hostages.
Political prisoners.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And then on the other side, also say it was that innocent tour.
Yeah.
And it's like, well, okay, it can't be both, you know, and not to mention all the video footage showing otherwise, which they're ignoring.
You know, and they'll, they'll just say it to different audiences at different times to see what sticks.
It doesn't matter if it's contradictory.
I mean, it happens in so many different conspiracy claims.
They just throw everything at the wall and whatever sticks, they're good with.
I mean, even in even, you know, for vaccines, they'll say they don't do anything, but they cause people to shed viruses.
Well, it's like, it can't be both.
It literally cannot trigger your immune system to the point that it sheds viruses while also doing nothing.
Yeah, right.
And I mean, it's the same with people who, you know, sell miracle healing, alternative healing.
You know, it cures everything and has no side effects.
Well, there's a reason drugs have side effects.
And that's because they're doing something.
They have effects.
Yeah.
You know?
And so, yeah, there is no such thing as a miracle drug with no side effects.
I'm sorry.
It does not exist.
Yeah.
And it, but it all comes back to these contradictory claims.
And I mean, in this case, especially, January 6th, I think they just, when it comes to Republicans, the MAGA Republicans, they will pick and choose which things they want to believe.
And it just doesn't matter if it's contradictory or not.
No.
It doesn't matter what the facts say.
They will pick what they want to believe and they'll go with it.
So you can throw out these explanations and, you know, people can select which one they want.
It's a choose your own adventure book.
I will harken back to a previous episode I remember having a discussion with you, David, about belief.
And I think at the time, you weren't yet at the time anyway, convinced that anyone was, I was attempting to make the argument that some people think that if they can believe hard enough and get enough other people to believe hard enough, they can make a thing true.
And I think you expressed some reservation about whether you really thought that was really happening.
But in this case, I mean, you almost make the case here where you have these mega Republicans who seem to think that they can create reality by believing hard enough that a certain thing happened a certain way.
I'm almost wondering if you have any further thoughts given that that you.
I don't think they're making it true.
And I don't think that the people speaking care whether it's true or not.
All they care about is that someone believes it.
And that's the thing.
It doesn't matter which of the lies they believe.
It doesn't matter if you believe that it's Antifa.
It doesn't matter if you believe it's the FBI.
It doesn't matter if you believe that it was an innocent tour group.
All that matters is your fealty to Trump.
Your reason for your fealty does not matter.
And so, you know, you have this situation where it's not reality and reality plays no part in it.
Everything they say runs counter to reality, but yet they believe it.
And, you know, to circle back to the Schrödinger thing, it doesn't, it's a weird quantum state where it's both untrue in fact, but true in their minds at the same time.
Yeah.
Well, true.
And to round it out, related to January 6th, Donald Trump, in his speech that he gave to the crowd on January 6th, he said the following.
He said, I'll be there with you.
We're going to walk down.
You have to show your strength and you have to be strong.
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated lawfully slated.
So you mentioned before that Trump used to be much better at this sort of dual meaning thing.
In this scenario, he said twice, lawfully slated.
He is attempting, in my opinion, he is attempting to communicate something to the crowd that you get to determine what is lawfully slated.
Yes.
That it is not determined by, you know, people in offices in, you know, every state has its own set of offices that are determining this by counting the votes and looking through and determining who won in each state.
And then after that, doing the paperwork to determine which slate of electors is moved in from the Electoral College.
He's attempting to redefine what lawfully slated means by telling the crowd they don't have to accept the results as they're stated.
They can make a new lawfully slated set of electors and move forward there.
And that's what he's trying to say to his crowd.
When you read the words alone, they can be interpreted in an innocuous fashion.
They can be interpreted to be like, no, well, he just, he just wants the, he just wants the law to prevail.
That's all he wants.
But that's clearly not what he wanted.
Right.
He wanted to be there.
And he said before, he said very recently, he wanted to be with the crowd.
The Secret Service wouldn't let him.
Yeah.
Many of the accounts from that day said that he wanted to be there.
The Secret Service wouldn't let him.
It was too dangerous.
But I don't see how you get around the idea that he's attempting to make two meanings out of this.
Schrödinger's meaning, just as I said.
Yeah.
I mean, it's, you know, his meaning of lawful has always been awful.
If we're, you know, going to go for rhyming.
Whatever serves him at the time.
Yeah.
Lawful is, yeah, like he still will assert that, you know, he was the one who was lawfully elected, uh, that it was, you know, anything that goes against what he wants was clearly fake, illegal, whatever.
Yeah, uh, the only way to beat him is to cheat, yeah, right, right.
Meanwhile, we have actual people who were involved in these things being charged, even aside from him.
Uh, you know, in Arizona, it's happening and other places.
But to him, his result is the only one that's lawful.
Yeah, uh, it's it's very Putin-esque, which he would love to be like Putin.
Oh, yeah, and anytime he says something, yeah, you have to view it in terms of that particular vision, that it's only through his eyes because he will, you know, he opens his mouth and it's a lie.
You know, I mean, that's it's it's that simple.
Well, I don't think it's quite that simple.
I think it's he opens his mouth and it's something that serves his interest and only his interest, which is usually a lie.
Well, if he has to lie to do it, he's fine with that.
If the truth were in his interest, he would go with the truth.
Oh, right.
It just I feel, yeah, yeah.
It's just the thing is, it is very rarely the case that the truth is better than a lie.
And in fact, in almost everyday situations, it's very rarely that a person couldn't come up with a lie that's better than what the truth is.
Your life would have to be pretty goddamn good that a lie would never be better than the actual truth in front of you, right?
Like, yeah, but I think that's the magnetic north that pulls his compass needle is just whatever is better for him in his calculation.
Yeah, right.
And it just so happens and lies are so much better at that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And if he can, you know, get people to believe that he's, you know, somehow saying something that's true, all the better.
Yeah.
You know, I, I mean, you see it every day with his posts.
You know, well, a president needs immunity because otherwise we can't do our jobs.
And it's like, no, you needed immunity.
Yeah.
And he'll just say things that some people will clearly take at face value, even though they're, they're just pure out contradictory to reality.
And then sometimes he does, I would say sometimes he still does the Schrödinger's meaning, but because he's quite, you know, frankly, lost it.
Yeah, he's not as with it as he was.
Right.
Right.
He's just not.
And I think also he doesn't feel the need to.
I think that, you know, it's been said for a number of years now, Trump didn't create racists.
No.
But he made it easier for racists to show themselves.
Yeah.
And I think that's the situation here.
As time has gone by, he hasn't needed to have a Schrödinger's meaning because he could say whatever he wants and he's still going to get the network coverage.
He's been put back on Twitter, though I don't know that he really uses it anymore because he wants to support Truth Social.
And then you have a lot of the networks and other media who just are not covering what they should truly cover.
You know, I saw a writer just today talking about a New York Times editorial where the editorial was whining.
It's like, oh, people want us to be pro-Biden, but we have to be objective.
It's like, no, nobody wants you to be pro-Biden.
We want you to be objective.
But being objective means being objective.
It means not just covering every little gaff that Biden has while blowing off all the Trump stuff, which is what they do.
Yeah, it's the idea that you have to what the metaphor I usually use is that of a referee in a hockey game in an important hockey game like the playoffs and the finals,
where they might feel pressured to all penalties for both teams, even if only one team is really causing penalties because they don't want to be seen as determining the result.
But if one side is doing the penalties and the other one isn't, then it's not the calling of the penalties that's determining the result.
It's the commission of the penalties that's determining the result.
And that's where you just have to call them strictly as you see them and do it fairly for both sides.
But if one side is causing more penalties, you just call more penalties for that side.
That's how objective reality works.
Right.
Yeah.
My son is a soccer ref and he had a game where one team was just running over everybody and they got more penalties and yellow cards and everything called against it.
And the coach was screaming, you're not calling as many against the other team.
You're not being fair.
And he's like, that's because your team is the one making all the penalties.
Yeah.
You're the one kicking people, tackling people, running them over.
And so, yeah.
And then, like I said, this writer basically said that was, you know, you're, you're the media, New York Times.
Trump is not going to, you know, cover what Trump wants to do to the media, what Trump will want to do to you if he should win.
But yeah, there's this weird sense of, you know, where we don't want to seem biased, therefore we'll bias ourselves the other way.
Yeah.
So he just gets away without even having to worry about two meanings.
He can just flat out say it.
Well, now he's getting to that point where he's just flat out saying it.
Yeah.
I mean, not everybody is, obviously, but he can.
He's gotten to that point.
Yeah.
It was a very recent video I saw.
I think it just came out yesterday of a Trump, a person on Trump's team being asked, maybe they were just a Republican, being asked if what would happen if Trump loses.
And they just said, Trump's not going to lose.
Would you accept the result if Trump is not the winner?
And they just said that we don't have to worry about that.
That won't happen.
And just deflect, avoid that question.
And I don't, why are we allowing that situation to continually occur?
Just ask them if, and I think at the time that the, so I'm kind of taking this from another person on Twitter who said this, and I don't know who it was exactly, but they said, just ask them if they would condone violence.
Just ask them if they would support and condone and encourage violence to get the result they wanted, because that's where we are.
I think that was Senator Tim Scott.
I remember seeing that, you know, they just kept asking.
I didn't recognize him, but yeah.
Yeah, they just kept asking and he just wouldn't would not give a direct answer.
So, yeah.
And then another thing that happened recently, which is sort of in line with this topic, is Lara Trump, now the head of the Republican Party or whatever, has filed suits in a number of states to stop counting votes at midnight on election day.
And she said, Yeah, she said elections, you should not count votes after the election is over.
And it's yes, people listening to audio obviously can't see the look on Spencer's face right now.
But yeah, it is a very confusing statement because the election by definition isn't over until you have counted all the votes.
Yeah.
And so her statement makes no sense.
It's kind of a Schrödinger's meaning in that way and that it, you know, she's saying things that people will understand, but she also doesn't want them to fully understand because as a number of people have pointed out, well, like the military ballots, those often don't get counted.
You know, mail-in ballots get cost, get counted last.
And so, okay, so you don't want the military ballot.
Why are you trying to disenfranchise?
I suppose you could count them first if you wanted, but you have to, what, well, you have to like not tell anyone what you, what the count was so far.
You know what I mean?
Like, right.
Because the, the point is, is that no one is supposed to know what anyone else is voting until they voted.
That's the ideal situation.
It's, it's not useful to say, well, you know, it turns out we had about 20% of the vote came in already.
And, you know, it's pretty heavily leaning toward this one candidate already.
Like, you know, you can have polls.
You can ask people and hope that they're honest.
Right.
You know, run these various polls and ask that.
But the actual vote itself, yeah, you should probably, I would, I would go the other way.
I would say you don't even start counting any of the votes until after the polls have closed on the day of election.
And then you take two weeks if you want, like count them as many times as you want.
Like, make absolute certain that they're good.
Yeah.
I mean, this goes back to the conspiracy from the time when it was like they were showing Trump's ahead, Trump's ahead, Trump's ahead.
Oh, Trump's behind.
Well, yeah, because they counted the, they counted the mail-in ballots, which were at that time predominantly Democrat.
And, you know, that's why I also, and I know we're running off topic a little, but I hate election coverage as a horse race.
Yeah.
I hate the guy up there, you know, whichever famous guy it is with his boards and showing, oh, here's this and here's that.
It's not a horse race.
The result has already been determined.
We just don't know what it is yet.
It's, it's like dice under a cup.
You're pulling the dice out one at a time.
This is truly Schrödinger.
I mean, this really goes back to Schrödinger's meaning.
The election has been determined at that point.
But we haven't observed it from the angle with which we can see the right state.
Exactly.
Right.
And so it is, you know, the candidates have both won and lost at that point because we don't know what the answer is.
Certainly someone has won, but we won't know until all those votes are counted.
And it's, you know, it's not a quantum state, but it is a state where it must be seen.
It must be observed before.
Observed.
Right.
And once the counting is done and it's all observed, now you know the result.
Now you know the answer.
Yeah.
You know, that's why, like I said, I can't stand horse race coverage of elections.
And I won't watch it.
I mean, I refuse to watch it because of that reason.
I'll find out in the morning or, you know, at night whenever something pops up as they do on, you know, on my phone, once enough votes are counted to make it clear.
But otherwise, what's the point?
I don't understand the point of treating it that way because then it leads to these things like, well, we were ahead.
How did we get behind?
Well, because they count, they happen by chance to count the Republican counties first.
It's just they came in, or they're smaller and therefore easier to count.
Or whatever.
If there's demographic differences, you're going to get differences in the right.
And those also lead to differences in timing.
Then, well, that's you know, but but once you count all the votes, I mean, they counted Arizona like five times in the end, right?
One of them was by the hand-picked, inexperienced people, the cyber ninjas, and they also came up with the same result in the end.
Well, we counted all these votes.
Turns out that Biden won.
Yeah, what do you want?
Yeah.
But anyway, I think this has been an interesting discussion again.
Thank you again, David.
Where can people find you if they're looking for your content?
Well, they could find me on Twitter and Blue Sky as at David Bloomberg, threads at David Bloomberg TV.
And that's because that's connected to Instagram and on Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok.
I'm at David Bloomberg TV.
I do not have political content on any of the video places, just reality television, thus the TV.
But definitely have content like this in Twitter, mostly Twitter, but some on Blue Sky and Threads as well.
Yeah.
I'm on Twitter at Spencer G. Watson.
And if anyone has any questions, comments, concerns about this episode, you want to send a more lengthy response or you just don't like Twitter, you can send that email to truthunrestricted at gmail.com.