Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1713 Scott Adams： Elon Musk Offers To Buy Twitter, Russia's Biggest Ship Whacked, More

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody. Whoa! Do you look good-looking today. You know, often you're attractive,

00:00:12.440 but there's something a little extra sexy about you today, and I think you know it.

00:00:17.500 Do you know that you have blundered into the highlight of civilization called Coffee with

00:00:22.140 Scott Adams? There's no better feeling, and it's going to go up a level. Yeah, from no better

00:00:29.140 feeling to no better feeling plus, turbo, extreme, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of

00:00:37.120 tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite

00:00:43.700 liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine hit of

00:00:52.400 the day with a little bit of oxytocin. We're going to sprinkle that in toward the end. It's called

00:00:57.720 the simultaneous sip, and it happens now. Go. Ah. Now, when you saw the news today, which you

00:01:10.080 probably did, that Elon Musk has offered to buy Twitter, did you say to yourself, well, that's a

00:01:16.620 perfect topic for a coffee with Scott Adams? Because I did. I did. I'll bet some of you did, too.

00:01:22.860 And we'll get to that in a moment. But I like this story. Do you know what an NFT is, those of you who

00:01:30.600 follow anything crypto? If you don't follow crypto, I'm going to describe it to you very simply,

00:01:36.560 and you're going to think I'm leaving something out. If you think I'm leaving something out,

00:01:42.920 then you understand it completely. An NFT is a digital image, the same kind of thing you can get from,

00:01:50.260 let's say, making a screenshot of something on your screen. And because it's special,

00:01:56.420 or somebody has decided it's special, it's collectible. And it's registered on the blockchain,

00:02:01.780 meaning that anybody can check and find out it's really yours and what the path of it has been,

00:02:06.700 who bought it and who sold it. But these NFTs can sell for millions of dollars. Case in point,

00:02:13.620 Jack Dorsey, last year, a year ago, sold his first tweet as an NFT. So I think he literally

00:02:22.160 probably just took a screenshot of the tweet and sold a screenshot of his own tweet for

00:02:29.780 $2.9 million. Now, I guess he donated that money. But the person who bought it tried to turn it

00:02:37.900 around for a nifty profit, tried to sell it for $48 million, somebody said. I don't know about that,

00:02:45.200 but okay. So he did not give $48 million. So he bought it for $2.9 million. And at the end of the

00:02:53.080 auction, the highest bid was $280. So he bought it for $2.9 million. And the best bid for selling was

00:03:05.300 $280. So if you were thinking of getting into the NFT business to hit it rich, well, I would say

00:03:16.300 look at diversification. Don't put all your $2.9 million into one NFT. Don't do that.

00:03:24.300 Well, have you heard that Elon Musk is offered to buy Twitter?

00:03:30.340 As I tweeted, this changes everything. Do you believe that? Now, I'm assuming that he succeeds,

00:03:38.020 because there's certainly some possibility, maybe probability, of some pushback. Because the

00:03:45.500 employees at Twitter, well, they may not all be as delighted as potentially you and I are.

00:03:54.540 So there might be some pushback. But let's say he succeeds. Would that change everything? Is that

00:04:01.460 too big of a claim? Because I saw somebody on Twitter say, you realize very few people actually

00:04:09.000 use Twitter, compared to the other social networks, and compared to anything else. To which I say,

00:04:18.440 yes, there are not that many number of people in the United States. But here's what you need to know,

00:04:26.660 persuasion-wise. Now, here's something you don't want to try at home,

00:04:33.140 to draw these clever graphs, because I'm a professional artist. So I can do this and not

00:04:43.660 confuse you. But if you try this at home, do you think you could have pulled this off? No. I'm a

00:04:51.200 syndicated cartoonist. I can do this in my sleep. You're saying to yourself, oh, I could do a stick

00:04:57.100 person, too. Could you? Could you? Yeah. You could do a stick person, but could you do it this well?

00:05:07.100 Consider Van Gogh, if I may digress. The first time you saw Van Gogh, you said to yourself,

00:05:13.580 well, these lines are all wavy, and he's drawn everything out of perspective.

00:05:19.160 You probably said to yourself, I could probably do that myself. Did you ever try? It's harder than it

00:05:25.800 looks, isn't it? Try to draw a masterpiece yourself. See if you can sell it for $40 million

00:05:32.620 like Van Gogh. No, you can't do it. So don't think that art is easy just because you look at it and say,

00:05:41.080 I could do that. You can't. Try this at home, right? I dare you. You can't do that. That's professional

00:05:48.300 work right there. Now, not just one, but I can do this all day long, right? A lot of people would

00:05:56.780 do this. You'd be exhausted. You're not a professional. Professionals can do this all day

00:06:02.520 long. All right. That wasn't really the point I was about to make. The point I was about to make

00:06:08.480 was that Twitter is not like other things. Whoever has, let's say, functional control of

00:06:15.720 Twitter, because it's the thing that journalists are most influenced by, and journalists tell us

00:06:23.840 collectively, and I'm using journalists as a proxy for all the opinion makers. So that would include

00:06:30.660 any pundit, anybody whose voice changes your belief system. Collectively, these people are addicted to

00:06:38.220 Twitter, and they can't really go too much against Twitter without inviting serious pushback.

00:06:46.340 So in my opinion, whereas Bezos found a good publication in the Washington Post that does

00:06:53.480 have a huge impact on what news is considered news, probably nothing has as much leverage for

00:07:00.360 the amount he's likely to spend, if successful. If Twitter becomes more, let's say, less biased,

00:07:08.220 which would be the goal, less biased, more useful content, then these journalists who create the

00:07:18.080 reality itself, in other words, our understanding of reality is created by the journalists collectively.

00:07:25.580 And now Twitter controls the journalists, and maybe Elon Musk will control Twitter. So what if Twitter

00:07:36.920 decides that their big thing is going to be transparency and showing both sides? You know, instead of

00:07:43.620 censorship, just make sure that anything controversial gets tagged with the opposing view. Imagine that.

00:07:51.660 It would be pretty radical, wouldn't it? And it would basically neuter all of these journalists in terms of

00:07:59.560 their ability to control the narrative. Because every time they tried it, the counter narrative would be

00:08:05.320 right there. You just see the counter. And so when I say that Elon Musk buying Twitter changes everything,

00:08:13.720 if successful, we don't know if he'll succeed. It could change everything about the way you see the world,

00:08:21.780 which is your everything. Right? That's your everything. So this is way bigger than you think.

00:08:31.660 Did you see the price he's offering? $54.20 a share. $54.20. $54.20. $54.20. Is that a coincidence?

00:08:48.560 Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. But the thing I was wondering is, was he watching the stock price

00:09:00.560 and adjusting his offer until he could make those numbers work? Okay, it's $4.19. Make it $4.20. Yeah.

00:09:09.900 Publish $4.20. It makes me wonder if he was actually watching to see when that was the right thing to bid,

00:09:17.240 that he could also make his other claims about the percentages that it went up.

00:09:22.440 So what do you think the insiders at Twitter are doing right now? What do you think the people who run

00:09:31.500 the algorithm are doing besides deleting everything and sabotaging the company? Now, wouldn't it be

00:09:43.020 hilarious? Hilarious in a terrible way. It wouldn't be hilarious in a good way. But in a terrible way,

00:09:52.000 you could sort of almost imagine the Twitter engineers taking down the whole company.

00:09:57.220 You know, just like deleting the source code and, you know, completely getting rid of all the databases

00:10:03.360 and stuff to hide whatever they may have wanted to hide, or possibly for political reasons. Maybe

00:10:11.560 political reasons. They just don't want Elon Musk to have that much control over that kind of a

00:10:16.800 platform. So I would really worry about employee sabotage. Wouldn't you? Now, here's the funny thing.

00:10:24.240 What if Elon Musk simply wanted to destroy Twitter? What if that's all he wanted?

00:10:34.600 Because Twitter might destroy itself just because he offered to buy it, which would be the funniest

00:10:40.220 thing that ever happened. If he could destroy all of Twitter because he offered to buy it,

00:10:45.800 and then let's say they say no. So let's say the engineers are busily destroying the company from

00:10:54.200 within so he doesn't get it. At the same time, the board is rejecting the offer. And if they reject

00:11:04.280 the offer, Elon will sell his 9%. So you can imagine a case where Elon gets in for 9%, gets out for,

00:11:12.560 you know, doesn't lose too much there on that transaction, destroys the entire company because

00:11:17.900 they destroy itself to avoid being taken over. It's just gone. Now, I don't think I would be laughing

00:11:26.040 about it because it wouldn't be good for me or any of you. But that kind of could happen.

00:11:30.960 I wouldn't rule it out. Right? So one of the things that I, somehow I missed this. Maybe I saw it

00:11:44.080 before and don't remember. But apparently when some, not too long ago, Elon Musk tweeted that San

00:11:51.780 Francisco's homeless should be moved into Twitter's headquarters. And the thinking is that Twitter

00:12:00.900 had gone remote. So if it's a remote company, and really the whole thing could be remote, you think,

00:12:08.960 why doesn't Twitter headquarters become the place that has all the homeless? Now, is that not entertaining?

00:12:16.700 entertaining? Is that not entertaining? That's entertaining. Here's something else entertaining.

00:12:33.040 Max Boot, who you might recognize that name from being a, the Democrats Democrat. He's like the most

00:12:40.740 Democrat you could possibly be. Max Boot. And his response to the story about Musk maybe buying

00:12:46.840 Twitter is, I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems

00:12:53.780 to believe that on social media, anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation,

00:13:00.900 not less. What? Can you imagine doing a tweet in which you call for censorship, but you call it

00:13:10.060 content moderation? And you think, you think that's a good look? Or that, or that the public's going to

00:13:17.060 say, yeah, need more content moderation? Well, actually, probably Democrats do. I'll bet a lot of

00:13:23.620 Democrats retweeted this and liked it. But here's what I would add. I wouldn't argue with moderation.

00:13:32.280 I wouldn't argue with moderation. So actually, I would agree with the Max Boot. Better moderation

00:13:39.220 would actually be better, but not censorship. So the better way to do it is to tag any provocative

00:13:46.860 thing that looks wrong with a counterargument so that anybody who sees the wrong thing can

00:13:52.840 somewhat immediately see the counterargument. You don't have to know what's wrong because a lot of

00:13:59.480 us have made, let's say, predictions and whatnot that seemed wrong at one time that became right

00:14:05.820 later. So Twitter doesn't need to decide what's right or wrong. They just show the other argument.

00:14:10.260 That's all. Is that too hard? And do you think that Elon Musk doesn't see that that's the obvious way to

00:14:22.000 go? Just put the counter there? Because that's the solution to free speech's excesses is the

00:14:28.060 counterargument. Always has been. So if you just put the counterargument there, you're done.

00:14:34.640 It isn't hard. Why do we always act like it's hard? This whole free speech argument, literally,

00:14:42.640 we just act like it's hard. It couldn't be easier. The whole point of free speech is show both sides.

00:14:49.500 That's it. The whole thing. And Elon Musk could easily do that. Just make sure there's an easy

00:14:56.840 feature for tacking a good argument on the other side. That's all. I wouldn't use fact checkers in

00:15:02.840 the usual way, for sure. All right. So here's another little irony that came out of this.

00:15:11.540 Is it irony or am I using that word wrong? You decide. Am I using the word irony incorrectly?

00:15:17.560 Because it sort of moved into common usage to mean just something that's weird and interesting.

00:15:23.480 And I haven't decided if I'm going to go with a common usage yet. Instead of the, you know,

00:15:29.960 wordplay kind of original use. But here's a real thing that's happening. Would you agree with the

00:15:37.200 following statements that the worry about climate change was a big factor in Tesla's success?

00:15:44.520 Is that fair to say? That a lot of the people who bought Teslas and electric cars in general

00:15:50.260 were probably the people most concerned about climate change? Because in some cases they would

00:15:55.340 even pay a premium. They'd pay a premium for the Tesla. So it wasn't about money and it wasn't

00:16:01.940 necessarily the best looking car. You know, there are lots of good cars that look good.

00:16:05.500 But it really, I think, was about climate concerns. Wouldn't you say? It's funny. A lot of people on

00:16:11.560 YouTube are saying no. You know, I'm not saying that everybody bought one for that reason.

00:16:20.020 There are plenty of people who have Teslas just because they like the engineering.

00:16:23.880 In fact, somebody said, and I agree with it, that originally maybe it was more about the climate,

00:16:29.580 but today it's more about the good engineering. Would you buy that? Would you buy that originally

00:16:35.060 it was more about the climate, but now it might be more about just it's a good car?

00:16:43.300 But either way, my point will stand because the climate concerns certainly made Tesla successful.

00:16:48.780 And then Elon Musk might use his fortune made from Tesla, that was based largely on climate change

00:16:57.060 concerns, to destroy the left's control of the media, which promoted the narrative of climate

00:17:06.880 disaster about... So did the left make Tesla successful enough that Musk could buy

00:17:18.780 buy the thing that made them worry about climate change? And by the way, he's a climate change

00:17:25.740 believer, so he's not on the other side of that. But it's kind of a weird outcome. Is it irony?

00:17:34.860 Is it irony? Or is that the wrong word? Do you go with the popular usage? Or are you classicals?

00:17:41.680 I'm still classical on that word. I got this idea from Chase McMichael on Twitter. His version was,

00:17:53.140 what's so ironic, well, he likes the word, is many hard progressive Marxists are Tesla owners in the car

00:18:00.080 and Tesla stocks, so they paid for this. It's very serendipitous. All right. So I think Sam McRoberts

00:18:08.360 tweeted a meme that's based on an Elon Musk quote from 2021. Right? So I'm going to ask for your help.

00:18:20.940 So a number of you have been watching me for a long time. And I'm going to make a claim that's the

00:18:26.060 kind of claim that a lot of you really hate. But I'll do it anyway, because I don't care.

00:18:35.260 And so here's the quote from Elon Musk, and then wait for my point about it. And people are calling

00:18:42.480 it Elon's law. And apparently he tweeted at one point last year that the most entertaining outcome,

00:18:48.200 as seen from an external observer, not the participants, is the most likely. The most

00:18:54.740 entertaining outcome is the most likely. Now, he said that in 2021. And it's called Elon's law.

00:19:05.040 Have you heard me say that for the last five years?

00:19:07.740 And where have you heard it? Did I ever write it down? Because I'm trying to remember if it's in my

00:19:17.740 book, Win Bigley. Is it in Win Bigley? Have I ever written it down? Yeah. So those who have been

00:19:27.460 watching me for a while, if Elon said it in 2021, that would be maybe four years after I first started

00:19:34.220 saying it? Five years after I've been saying it? Yeah. And I always talk about life imitating a movie

00:19:39.960 and following the most entertaining outcome. And I use it to predict. That's why I talk about it a lot.

00:19:46.720 It's a prediction method.

00:19:50.360 So, do you think that came from me?

00:19:57.420 So, that's the part you don't like when I ask questions like that. Because sometimes it might

00:20:05.180 be true. Most of the time, probably not. Most of the time, probably just two people having the same

00:20:10.120 idea. Somebody says, heard it from you, but I think you're recording someone else. No. No, I definitely

00:20:20.640 made that up. That's definitely from me. But here's the thing. Elon could have also come up with it

00:20:29.000 independently. And here's the argument for that. Because he's also a believer that we're in a

00:20:34.400 simulation. If you believe we live in a simulation, then the next logical question is, why? Like,

00:20:42.660 why are we here? If we're simulated, who made us and for what purpose? And one of the obvious

00:20:48.760 purposes could be entertainment. It's just like a reality show that somebody watches in a different

00:20:53.900 universe. And so, that would explain. Now, how often have you heard me say that I get a plot twist

00:21:03.300 every day? Every day. Again, yesterday. There's this one through story in my life that I get a plot

00:21:11.740 twist, like a completely unexpected thing on a left field every single day. One a day. And it

00:21:18.640 just never stops. Even when I talk about it, it doesn't stop. Like, you'd think that talking

00:21:23.660 about it would make you stop. But it doesn't. Yesterday, plot twist. Every single day.

00:21:34.500 So, and maybe some of you see that in your own lives. Anyway, so the Elon Musk story is

00:21:41.740 hilarious. But this thing about the most entertaining outcomes, and I especially like the fact that

00:21:50.860 everything about Elon offering to buy Twitter is hilarious.

00:21:57.400 There might be somebody watching this live stream

00:21:59.980 who knows I can see your fingerprints.

00:22:04.580 And that's all I'm going to say about this. I can see your fingerprints.

00:22:15.800 So, you know the story about the New York City subway shooter.

00:22:21.920 And I guess there's at least one major story that described his, I think, age and his height,

00:22:27.980 but not his ethnicity.

00:22:32.300 And the story is that he's literally a black supremacist racist who has, you know, videos

00:22:40.080 and stuff on social media of him ranting and wanting to kill people and apparently wanting

00:22:46.600 to kill white people because he wanted to kill white people.

00:22:50.200 So, and was it Greg Goffeld who was the first one to say this story is going to just disappear

00:22:57.800 because it's so anti-narrative?

00:23:00.880 That what are the odds that when Biden is in office

00:23:03.940 there'd be one of the biggest or the biggest? I don't know.

00:23:07.260 Is it the biggest mass shooting?

00:23:10.060 So, I don't, I try not to pay attention too much to mass shootings.

00:23:15.060 But is this the biggest one under Biden?

00:23:20.200 Yes or no?

00:23:22.260 Is it the biggest mass murder thing under Biden?

00:23:29.500 Somebody's saying he was a CRT trainee.

00:23:31.780 That's a joke, right?

00:23:34.200 So, what are the odds of that?

00:23:36.660 I mean, again, isn't this, I hate to say it because there's nothing entertaining,

00:23:41.480 no, there's nothing entertaining about all the people who got shot, right?

00:23:45.160 So, if we can be on the same page that the tragedy has to be respected for the horrific nature of it,

00:23:54.320 but it's kind of the most entertaining outcome.

00:23:59.080 Again, is it not?

00:24:01.900 Now, some of it is because the most entertaining outcomes are the things that make it into our consciousness.

00:24:07.000 So, you just notice the ones that are entertaining because that's what you talk about.

00:24:11.840 That's what makes it news.

00:24:14.300 So, there are definitely reasons that the most entertaining outcome is the most likely.

00:24:18.800 Now, the mechanism that I believe is that if all of us are thinking what would be the most entertaining outcome,

00:24:25.820 I think it happens.

00:24:26.560 I think it's the society thinking that that could happen and it would be entertaining if it did,

00:24:32.740 such as Trump winning the presidency.

00:24:35.400 That would be really entertaining if it happened, right?

00:24:38.180 And I feel the fact that it is entertaining drives people toward that behavior

00:24:41.780 because they want to create entertainment for themselves,

00:24:44.620 even if they're not thinking about it that way.

00:24:47.220 We kind of like...

00:24:48.560 Now, why is somebody on Locals continuing to say CRT trainee over and over and over again?

00:24:58.760 It wasn't literally that, right?

00:25:02.560 Is that just a joke?

00:25:04.080 I don't know what that means.

00:25:05.580 All right.

00:25:08.680 So, I talk about the value of diversification all the time.

00:25:12.660 You should diversify your stock portfolio.

00:25:14.760 You should diversify your bosses if you can.

00:25:17.640 In other words, have lots of clients or customers,

00:25:20.880 and then they become your bosses.

00:25:22.620 So, if one fires you, you still have lots of bosses left, customers.

00:25:27.300 So, diversification works in everything, and skills as well.

00:25:32.580 If you diversify your skills and you do it wisely,

00:25:35.940 you can find skills that work together for your talent stack.

00:25:39.720 Now, here's another category I'm going to add to this

00:25:42.040 because you keep seeing this pattern everywhere.

00:25:44.120 Somebody mentioned to me recently

00:25:47.560 that if you had a job and you belonged to a gym as a man,

00:25:53.580 you're a top 5% eligible male.

00:25:58.300 That's all you need.

00:26:00.280 You've got a good job.

00:26:01.760 I'll say good.

00:26:02.680 So, you've got a good job, and you go to the gym.

00:26:06.160 You're in the top 5%,

00:26:07.620 and all you did is combine two things.

00:26:10.440 Now, here's the second part of the advice I give you.

00:26:13.940 The second part of the advice,

00:26:16.500 which I just saw a comment that made me forget,

00:26:19.680 but I'll remember again.

00:26:20.460 So, here are the things that I would put together

00:26:25.920 if I were trying to build a talent stack.

00:26:29.820 And I remembered my point.

00:26:31.460 You should control everything you can control.

00:26:35.660 That might be the best advice anybody ever gave you

00:26:39.700 in that few words.

00:26:43.400 Control everything you can control.

00:26:45.600 That's it.

00:26:50.040 If you did that one thing,

00:26:52.280 do you know how successful you'd be?

00:26:54.280 Real successful.

00:26:55.980 You just control all the things you can control.

00:26:58.460 So, here are some things you can control.

00:27:01.020 You can control your career to a large extent

00:27:04.500 by learning new skills and applying for new jobs.

00:27:08.860 You know, there's a pretty well-defined process

00:27:10.720 for improving your job.

00:27:13.000 You have control over that.

00:27:14.140 That doesn't mean you get every promotion,

00:27:17.080 but you definitely have control over your career.

00:27:20.120 How about your fitness?

00:27:21.480 Your diet, your exercise?

00:27:22.800 Definitely have control.

00:27:24.440 Very much control over those things.

00:27:26.640 How about your shoes?

00:27:29.960 Well, if you have a little bit of disposable income,

00:27:32.580 you do have control over your footwear.

00:27:35.100 You can completely control your footwear.

00:27:37.620 Now, here's where I don't follow my own advice.

00:27:40.720 I need to be much better in the footwear.

00:27:42.320 Because if you're a man, especially,

00:27:45.740 women will judge you by your shoes.

00:27:49.100 So, you can wear, you know, ratty jeans and a T-shirt,

00:27:53.060 but if your shoes are killing it,

00:27:55.700 women will look at you and say, stylish.

00:27:57.500 Especially if you're fit.

00:28:00.020 If you're fit, you have good shoes,

00:28:03.660 you're in good shape, right?

00:28:07.120 So, think about what it is you want in a life.

00:28:11.960 And let's say that a good social life,

00:28:13.960 maybe good love life are things you want.

00:28:17.640 Just consider the fact that 100% of the things

00:28:19.960 that really matter,

00:28:21.800 the ones at the top of the list,

00:28:23.520 they're all the ones you control.

00:28:26.280 They do.

00:28:27.020 So, even if you were born with, you know,

00:28:28.600 not the best physicality and look,

00:28:32.080 if you get those things right,

00:28:34.220 job, fitness, and good shoes,

00:28:38.000 you're 75% there.

00:28:42.040 Now, other things I would add is,

00:28:44.160 you know, learning how to talk to strangers,

00:28:47.500 maybe add some activities and travel,

00:28:49.820 makes you more interesting.

00:28:50.600 Ambition always looks good.

00:28:53.240 If your career is not killing it yet,

00:28:56.080 but you have a clear ambition

00:28:57.600 and something that looks like a plan to get there,

00:29:00.680 people will respond to ambition

00:29:02.920 as a positive thing.

00:29:06.700 So, build a talent stack for your social life,

00:29:10.720 but control the hell out of everything you can control.

00:29:14.500 All right, I'm going to give you another really abusively,

00:29:21.440 what would I call it,

00:29:24.260 annoying point.

00:29:26.400 So, sometimes I follow my own advice,

00:29:28.540 and I've been trying to upgrade my footwear again,

00:29:31.420 but I should do more with that.

00:29:34.380 But with fitness, I try to follow my own advice.

00:29:37.500 All right?

00:29:37.640 So, you know, lately I've been working on my bicep,

00:29:43.400 and this is something I can completely control, right?

00:29:47.980 So, I have complete control over my arm.

00:29:51.780 Somebody said sense of humor.

00:29:53.240 You don't really have control over that.

00:29:55.700 You can't really control your sense of humor.

00:29:57.580 People, if they have one, they don't.

00:29:59.180 So, I wouldn't recommend that you work on your sense of humor,

00:30:02.500 necessarily, by juicing.

00:30:05.000 No, that's literally just going to the gym, like, more,

00:30:09.080 and having a personal trainer, which I recommend.

00:30:13.040 By the way, here's another piece of advice.

00:30:16.640 I exercised all my life without a personal trainer,

00:30:19.820 because I always looked at what they were doing with clients at the gym,

00:30:22.720 and I thought, eh,

00:30:24.160 it looks like they're just standing next to the useful machine,

00:30:27.280 making them do something weird.

00:30:28.920 Why not just use the machine?

00:30:30.380 You're standing right next to it.

00:30:32.420 But when you actually have somebody who knows what they're doing,

00:30:35.000 work the muscles that are like the opposite muscles,

00:30:38.620 just the gains that you get in a few months

00:30:42.160 when somebody who knows what they're doing is telling you how to do it,

00:30:46.060 big difference.

00:30:47.320 Big difference.

00:30:48.720 So, that's your other advice for the day.

00:30:50.400 Control everything you can control.

00:30:52.540 Here's a question I asked on Twitter.

00:30:53.940 Would the NATO countries be better off with Putin or no Putin?

00:31:01.000 So, let's say the two options are Putin leaves office

00:31:04.380 or he's overthrown in a coup or something.

00:31:09.000 Would we be better off with him or without him?

00:31:11.640 Because if he stays in office,

00:31:14.340 then the NATO countries can degrade Russia forever economically,

00:31:18.940 and then their military will be more pathetic than it is.

00:31:23.520 They'll still have nukes, but that's okay.

00:31:26.200 We don't want them to fear being attacked,

00:31:29.180 and that would protect them.

00:31:30.640 But are we better off just having Russia degraded

00:31:33.480 for, I don't know, another 10 years or 15 or 20,

00:31:37.240 however long Putin can stay in there?

00:31:39.480 Or would we be better off if they immediately replaced Putin

00:31:43.980 and then suddenly we don't have a rationale for the sanctions?

00:31:50.200 Because what if they put in somebody who's sort of Western-friendly?

00:31:54.780 What are we going to do?

00:31:55.840 Keep the sanctions on?

00:31:57.420 We wouldn't, right?

00:31:59.100 We wouldn't.

00:32:01.120 So, which one is better?

00:32:03.360 I don't think we know, do we?

00:32:04.540 You know, we keep talking in terms of, you know,

00:32:07.500 Putin has to go, and, you know, that's the right thing to say.

00:32:11.800 But I don't know if we're better off.

00:32:14.000 From a military perspective, we might be better off if he stays

00:32:17.640 because he's ruined Russia as an economic entity,

00:32:22.420 and that should degrade their military to the point of being irrelevant.

00:32:26.420 Right?

00:32:27.460 I actually don't know.

00:32:28.500 And I don't know that anybody can know that.

00:32:30.740 So I wouldn't be wishing too hard for him to leave

00:32:34.240 because, you know, I don't know if that's better.

00:32:37.480 Big story from the Ukraine war is that maybe Ukraine used a missile,

00:32:43.800 or it could have been, Russia says it, some kind of fire

00:32:46.020 that maybe happened on its own,

00:32:48.080 on their biggest ship in the Black Sea, the Moskova.

00:32:52.480 And it's one of their premier ships,

00:32:54.340 a Slava-class cruiser, as I learned from Jack Posobiec tweets.

00:33:01.080 You should all be following Jack Posobiec, by the way.

00:33:05.740 And so what I've learned since yesterday

00:33:08.100 is that it's the biggest of their ships

00:33:11.000 that's relevant to the Ukraine situation at the moment.

00:33:14.480 They could move assets.

00:33:16.040 But they only had one, only one ship

00:33:19.040 that was sort of that important in that area.

00:33:22.220 So it looks like, probably, Ukraine took out their biggest ship.

00:33:26.500 It's being towed back to Russia.

00:33:32.120 How do you think the Russian public feels

00:33:34.000 about their biggest warship

00:33:35.520 being taken out with one missile, probably,

00:33:39.660 and being towed back to base?

00:33:43.340 Now, how much does that degrade their naval importance?

00:33:47.340 Probably a lot, right?

00:33:50.780 Now, I've seen two opinions.

00:33:52.020 One, not much, because you could just maybe

00:33:54.880 move your command in control and, I don't know,

00:33:57.740 or replace it or something.

00:33:59.320 And then I've heard other thoughts

00:34:00.520 that might make a big, big difference.

00:34:03.340 It also might prevent them from moving another big ship in there,

00:34:06.380 because the next one's going to blow up, too.

00:34:08.440 So, yeah, it was a 40-year-old ship,

00:34:12.120 but probably is central to the, let's say,

00:34:15.860 the coordination efforts, I'm guessing.

00:34:18.520 So I don't know much about the Navy

00:34:20.380 and much about these ships,

00:34:21.820 but there's a possibility that this is a huge psychological blow,

00:34:26.240 but maybe even militarily.

00:34:28.800 And I just want to drop this thought

00:34:31.760 that sounded crazy before.

00:34:35.740 Crazy.

00:34:36.260 Have you noticed how quickly things can turn?

00:34:40.800 Where you said to yourself,

00:34:42.200 oh, Russia's going to totally take over a cave in two days.

00:34:47.780 And then suddenly, uh-oh, this doesn't look good at all.

00:34:51.340 It looks like it could take forever, or not at all.

00:34:53.720 And then suddenly, they just pull out.

00:34:56.420 Like, one day you wake up,

00:34:58.280 and Russia's just leaving Kiev,

00:35:02.240 just like that.

00:35:03.900 So you can be close to tipping points really quickly

00:35:08.620 without noticing them.

00:35:11.960 And I keep seeing Ukraine cleverly, you know,

00:35:15.240 knocking out the table legs one at a time,

00:35:17.600 and I feel as though the Russian military

00:35:20.240 is at close to a tipping point,

00:35:22.940 which is not to say that they won't regroup

00:35:25.220 and just mow down Ukraine and take their time, I guess.

00:35:29.500 That's always a good possibility.

00:35:32.840 And the experts, a lot of them are saying

00:35:34.580 that's going to happen.

00:35:35.800 But let's just game it out.

00:35:39.000 What happens if Ukraine just took out

00:35:41.240 enough of the military,

00:35:45.260 or the Navy, the Russian Navy,

00:35:48.040 that it doesn't work as a supply route anymore?

00:35:53.820 Because you wouldn't have to sink the Navy

00:35:56.540 to make it useless.

00:35:58.680 You would just have to show

00:35:59.640 you could take out their biggest ships,

00:36:01.440 and they'd have to keep some distance.

00:36:03.900 And you'd have to show

00:36:04.940 that if they had a troop carrier

00:36:06.560 that got near the shore,

00:36:08.140 that it would explode.

00:36:10.460 So, you know,

00:36:11.120 and the mines would do some of that.

00:36:13.180 So, is it possible

00:36:14.720 that Ukraine has already won the naval battle?

00:36:17.620 Because, remember,

00:36:21.280 things can change quickly.

00:36:25.640 So, it's possible.

00:36:28.100 Now, those of you who say,

00:36:29.840 no, I'm not going to argue with you.

00:36:31.740 I'm not going to argue.

00:36:33.260 So, if you say, no,

00:36:34.260 this doesn't make any difference,

00:36:35.440 you're probably right.

00:36:36.840 You're probably right.

00:36:37.920 The only point I want to make

00:36:39.400 is that we're really bad

00:36:40.660 at knowing

00:36:42.760 when a tipping point is coming.

00:36:44.960 Like, stupid bird.

00:36:49.220 Every day.

00:36:53.040 Every day, this bird

00:36:54.420 walks in front of my,

00:36:55.860 one of my security cameras.

00:36:59.200 Do, do, do.

00:37:00.920 So, I think it's the same bird.

00:37:02.440 Every day.

00:37:03.720 Just one bird.

00:37:07.280 So, anyway,

00:37:08.420 what if Ukraine manages

00:37:10.480 to at least blunt the naval force?

00:37:13.580 What if Ukraine,

00:37:16.320 now freed from protecting Kyiv,

00:37:19.580 can consolidate its forces

00:37:21.400 against the Russians

00:37:22.760 in their stronghold?

00:37:25.280 What if

00:37:26.200 the new,

00:37:27.920 let's see,

00:37:28.940 artillery, I guess,

00:37:30.260 and

00:37:30.660 some helicopters

00:37:32.500 that the United States

00:37:33.680 and NATO

00:37:34.780 are providing to Ukraine,

00:37:37.040 what if those things go in

00:37:38.680 and start

00:37:39.180 making a few good kills?

00:37:41.620 What if Ukraine

00:37:44.880 has better command

00:37:45.780 and control?

00:37:47.620 Because they might.

00:37:50.740 What if

00:37:51.640 taking out

00:37:53.220 the Russian

00:37:54.500 Navy

00:37:55.500 is part of

00:37:56.480 trapping the Russian army

00:37:57.760 and not just about

00:37:59.660 the supply chain

00:38:00.480 and about

00:38:00.980 about a

00:38:02.460 amphibious landing?

00:38:05.040 What if

00:38:05.900 Ukraine

00:38:06.340 is cutting off

00:38:07.140 their escape?

00:38:07.920 What if

00:38:07.980 Ukraine

00:38:08.040 is cutting off

00:38:09.040 their escape?

00:38:09.920 I'm just

00:38:12.160 going to put

00:38:12.480 the thought

00:38:12.920 out there

00:38:13.400 that so far

00:38:15.060 Zelensky

00:38:15.740 has shown

00:38:16.360 no interest

00:38:17.460 in small

00:38:18.260 objectives.

00:38:19.640 Am I right?

00:38:21.180 When was

00:38:21.720 the last time

00:38:22.480 that Zelensky

00:38:24.500 thought small?

00:38:26.780 Because first

00:38:27.460 there was

00:38:27.880 his successful

00:38:28.700 entertainment career

00:38:29.680 and then

00:38:31.020 he ran for

00:38:31.520 frickin'

00:38:31.920 president of the

00:38:32.600 country.

00:38:32.960 And then

00:38:34.480 he decided

00:38:35.020 that he was

00:38:35.460 going to take

00:38:35.860 on the

00:38:36.300 second most

00:38:37.580 powerful military

00:38:38.460 in the world

00:38:39.040 and

00:38:40.940 he's doing

00:38:42.340 okay.

00:38:43.820 Right?

00:38:44.960 So those

00:38:45.860 of you who

00:38:46.260 say I'm

00:38:46.600 drinking the

00:38:47.440 Kool-Aid,

00:38:48.140 fuck you,

00:38:48.860 you're not

00:38:49.240 listening.

00:38:50.500 Try to

00:38:50.880 listen a

00:38:51.480 little bit

00:38:51.760 better.

00:38:52.800 If I said

00:38:53.440 Ukraine is

00:38:54.100 winning and

00:38:54.660 I can see

00:38:55.180 it from

00:38:55.460 here,

00:38:56.380 that would

00:38:56.940 be drinking

00:38:57.380 the Kool-Aid.

00:38:58.620 If I say

00:38:59.540 you can't

00:39:00.200 tell when

00:39:00.560 turning points

00:39:01.320 are near,

00:39:02.440 that is just

00:39:03.180 a statement

00:39:03.600 that you

00:39:04.080 should listen

00:39:04.500 to because

00:39:05.180 you're a

00:39:05.440 fucking idiot.

00:39:05.960 So if

00:39:07.000 you'd pay

00:39:07.280 attention a

00:39:07.800 little bit

00:39:08.080 more to

00:39:08.420 what I

00:39:08.680 said and

00:39:09.740 stop trolling

00:39:10.960 and criticizing

00:39:11.740 things you're

00:39:12.440 fucking

00:39:12.940 imagining that

00:39:14.080 are happening

00:39:14.920 nowhere in

00:39:15.540 the real

00:39:15.800 world or

00:39:16.340 in this

00:39:16.660 broadcast,

00:39:17.720 maybe you

00:39:18.360 would be

00:39:18.600 useful and

00:39:19.520 not the

00:39:19.920 worthless piece

00:39:20.620 of shit that

00:39:21.160 I'm sure your

00:39:21.600 family thinks

00:39:22.180 about you.

00:39:24.760 But I

00:39:25.380 digress.

00:39:27.660 Anyway,

00:39:28.260 I think with

00:39:28.780 the modern

00:39:29.300 weaponry that

00:39:30.040 Ukraine is

00:39:30.540 getting,

00:39:31.420 plus better

00:39:31.960 coordination,

00:39:32.640 motivation,

00:39:37.480 better morale,

00:39:39.380 better

00:39:39.760 everything,

00:39:42.080 how many

00:39:44.000 of you

00:39:44.320 would say

00:39:45.100 it's

00:39:45.460 impossible

00:39:45.960 for Ukraine

00:39:46.720 to win

00:39:47.180 outright?

00:39:50.360 In the

00:39:50.980 comments.

00:39:53.420 I'm not

00:39:54.020 sure which

00:39:54.360 is the

00:39:54.660 yes or

00:39:55.040 the no

00:39:55.260 in your

00:39:55.460 answer,

00:39:55.820 so we'll

00:39:56.120 just see

00:39:56.360 if there's

00:39:56.660 any difference.

00:39:58.640 Is there,

00:40:00.520 it's not

00:40:01.580 impossible,

00:40:02.180 is it?

00:40:03.600 So some

00:40:04.420 people are

00:40:04.780 saying it's

00:40:05.140 impossible,

00:40:06.820 but I

00:40:08.440 think the

00:40:09.020 hidden turning

00:40:10.260 points always

00:40:11.620 argues for

00:40:12.340 possible.

00:40:13.300 Not likely.

00:40:15.120 Would you

00:40:15.760 like me to

00:40:16.160 put a

00:40:16.380 percentage on

00:40:17.000 it?

00:40:18.220 I'm going

00:40:18.580 to go,

00:40:20.520 let's see,

00:40:23.340 if we

00:40:23.540 take, if

00:40:24.320 we just

00:40:24.640 take mainstream

00:40:25.580 assumptions,

00:40:29.160 let's say

00:40:29.700 that the

00:40:30.100 news is

00:40:30.700 telling us

00:40:31.200 accurately what's

00:40:32.100 happening.

00:40:32.420 I doubt

00:40:33.060 that's true.

00:40:33.840 But imagine

00:40:34.380 the news is

00:40:34.980 accurate.

00:40:35.480 What would

00:40:36.080 the percentages

00:40:36.740 be?

00:40:38.380 I don't

00:40:38.700 know.

00:40:40.420 80-20,

00:40:41.440 maybe 70-80%

00:40:43.340 of Russia

00:40:44.100 at least

00:40:45.300 controlling the

00:40:46.480 eastern part of

00:40:47.920 Ukraine?

00:40:48.920 Maybe 80%?

00:40:50.100 I don't know.

00:40:51.660 But did you

00:40:52.620 think that

00:40:53.100 Ukraine had

00:40:53.700 a 20% or

00:40:54.620 30% of

00:40:55.540 winning

00:40:55.980 outright?

00:40:58.060 Like a

00:40:58.820 month ago,

00:40:59.580 if I said,

00:41:00.520 you know,

00:41:00.720 I think Ukraine

00:41:01.480 could win

00:41:02.220 outright,

00:41:02.660 they could

00:41:02.920 trap the

00:41:03.560 Russian army

00:41:04.100 and just

00:41:05.560 reduce it to

00:41:07.600 ineffectiveness.

00:41:08.380 a month ago,

00:41:10.060 you wouldn't

00:41:10.400 have said

00:41:10.680 that.

00:41:12.140 But today,

00:41:12.700 when I say,

00:41:14.100 well,

00:41:14.320 20% chance,

00:41:16.020 a lot of

00:41:16.720 you are

00:41:16.920 saying,

00:41:17.180 you know,

00:41:17.980 20%.

00:41:19.160 I can

00:41:20.160 accept 20%

00:41:21.200 because it

00:41:22.160 doesn't change

00:41:22.660 your opinion

00:41:23.080 that Russia

00:41:23.620 will win.

00:41:24.900 It's just

00:41:25.540 that I think

00:41:26.700 it does

00:41:27.040 introduce a

00:41:27.720 little bit

00:41:28.040 of doubt,

00:41:28.420 doesn't it?

00:41:28.820 A month

00:41:31.820 ago,

00:41:32.140 I said

00:41:32.460 that Russia

00:41:32.900 wouldn't

00:41:33.220 invade.

00:41:34.340 By the way,

00:41:34.820 every time

00:41:35.200 you remind

00:41:35.740 me of that

00:41:36.200 in the

00:41:36.440 comments,

00:41:37.980 that is

00:41:38.320 correct.

00:41:40.040 Yeah.

00:41:40.740 And anybody

00:41:41.780 who does

00:41:42.160 what I do,

00:41:42.720 you should

00:41:43.000 remind us

00:41:43.620 of both

00:41:44.080 our correct

00:41:44.780 and incorrect

00:41:45.580 predictions.

00:41:48.380 But I

00:41:49.480 always tell

00:41:50.020 you to look

00:41:50.620 at the

00:41:50.940 reason for

00:41:51.560 the incorrect

00:41:52.100 prediction.

00:41:53.540 Because sometimes

00:41:54.080 being incorrect

00:41:54.980 might be more

00:41:56.440 insightful than

00:41:57.120 being correct.

00:41:58.820 In this

00:42:00.020 case,

00:42:00.460 the reason

00:42:00.800 I said

00:42:01.180 he wouldn't

00:42:01.680 invade is

00:42:03.260 that I

00:42:04.180 thought he

00:42:05.200 couldn't

00:42:05.640 succeed.

00:42:06.920 And it

00:42:07.360 was obvious.

00:42:09.400 Now,

00:42:09.800 when I say

00:42:10.620 succeed,

00:42:11.660 I don't mean

00:42:12.340 I didn't

00:42:12.840 think he

00:42:13.240 could ultimately

00:42:14.060 conquer Ukraine

00:42:15.160 if he wanted

00:42:15.720 to put everything

00:42:16.400 into it.

00:42:17.120 But I didn't

00:42:17.760 think it would

00:42:18.100 be easy enough

00:42:18.900 to be a smart

00:42:20.220 move.

00:42:21.460 So my take

00:42:22.400 was this is

00:42:23.200 obviously a bad

00:42:24.020 move,

00:42:24.920 so he obviously

00:42:25.740 knows it,

00:42:26.800 so he's

00:42:27.220 obviously bluffing.

00:42:28.820 The part

00:42:29.440 that I

00:42:30.480 might have

00:42:30.840 gotten wrong

00:42:31.400 if mainstream

00:42:32.300 reporting is

00:42:33.320 correct is

00:42:34.460 that Putin

00:42:35.820 didn't know

00:42:36.540 that it was

00:42:37.700 going to be

00:42:37.980 hard.

00:42:40.140 What do you

00:42:40.800 think?

00:42:41.420 Do you think

00:42:41.980 that Putin

00:42:42.400 didn't know

00:42:43.040 it was going

00:42:43.440 to be hard?

00:42:44.580 Or do you

00:42:45.280 think that he

00:42:46.160 really just

00:42:46.720 wanted to

00:42:47.120 control the

00:42:47.640 east and

00:42:49.300 the move

00:42:50.240 on the

00:42:50.800 capital was

00:42:51.440 more of a

00:42:52.000 diversion?

00:42:52.660 If it

00:42:52.880 worked,

00:42:53.240 it'd be

00:42:53.440 fine,

00:42:53.900 but he

00:42:54.120 didn't need

00:42:54.540 it.

00:42:55.340 It was just

00:42:55.860 part of the

00:42:56.340 long game

00:42:57.160 to get

00:42:57.660 the parts

00:42:58.020 he wanted

00:42:58.420 and control

00:42:59.000 them and

00:42:59.700 then start

00:43:00.060 working on

00:43:00.500 the rest

00:43:00.820 over time.

00:43:04.220 He knew

00:43:04.880 it could be

00:43:05.240 hard.

00:43:06.360 I think he

00:43:07.260 had to know

00:43:07.780 it could be

00:43:08.380 hard,

00:43:09.340 but it can't

00:43:10.500 be a coincidence

00:43:11.100 that he's

00:43:11.680 putting his

00:43:12.420 own people

00:43:12.840 in jail,

00:43:14.560 the people

00:43:14.980 who should

00:43:15.760 have told

00:43:16.100 him that

00:43:16.760 it was

00:43:17.060 going to

00:43:17.400 not just

00:43:18.140 be hard,

00:43:18.740 but maybe

00:43:19.360 really,

00:43:19.880 really hard.

00:43:20.500 Well,

00:43:21.520 what do

00:43:21.660 you think

00:43:21.840 of this

00:43:22.120 Putin

00:43:24.360 price hike?

00:43:26.200 Even

00:43:26.520 MSNBC

00:43:27.480 ran a

00:43:27.980 poll.

00:43:28.860 It said

00:43:29.100 that even

00:43:30.720 on MSNBC

00:43:32.140 and even

00:43:32.600 the Democrats,

00:43:33.640 just nobody

00:43:34.260 is buying

00:43:34.640 this Putin

00:43:35.160 price hike

00:43:35.720 thing.

00:43:37.860 So people

00:43:38.820 were asked

00:43:39.300 what causes

00:43:40.260 inflation.

00:43:41.380 38% said

00:43:42.460 Biden,

00:43:43.140 28% said

00:43:44.040 COVID stuff,

00:43:45.400 23% said

00:43:46.580 greedy

00:43:46.880 corporations,

00:43:47.900 but only 6%

00:43:49.140 thought the

00:43:49.840 Russian invasion

00:43:50.560 of Ukraine,

00:43:51.400 in other words,

00:43:52.220 Putin price hike,

00:43:53.540 had much to

00:43:54.560 do with the

00:43:54.940 prices.

00:43:56.480 Now,

00:43:57.360 wouldn't you

00:43:57.900 have known

00:43:58.340 this just

00:43:58.920 by listening

00:43:59.820 to it?

00:44:00.720 Let me tell

00:44:01.320 you why

00:44:01.640 the Trump

00:44:02.660 labels work

00:44:04.280 and this

00:44:04.880 doesn't.

00:44:06.380 Trump labels

00:44:07.180 work because

00:44:08.120 his labels

00:44:08.900 call out

00:44:10.200 something that

00:44:10.820 you felt

00:44:11.200 was true.

00:44:12.320 Maybe you

00:44:12.740 didn't notice.

00:44:14.280 So when

00:44:14.820 Trump said

00:44:15.460 low energy

00:44:17.100 Jeb,

00:44:18.300 you probably

00:44:18.800 weren't thinking

00:44:19.500 Jeb was

00:44:19.980 low energy.

00:44:21.120 But the

00:44:21.480 moment he

00:44:21.900 said it,

00:44:22.260 you said,

00:44:22.860 yeah,

00:44:23.540 he is,

00:44:23.840 I noticed

00:44:24.160 that.

00:44:24.860 So his

00:44:25.700 nicknames are

00:44:26.540 completely

00:44:26.940 compatible with

00:44:28.480 something you've

00:44:29.080 already thought

00:44:29.940 or you could

00:44:31.020 easily think

00:44:31.720 because as soon

00:44:32.440 as you hear

00:44:32.760 it,

00:44:32.860 you're like,

00:44:33.160 oh,

00:44:33.480 yeah.

00:44:34.480 When he

00:44:34.980 said,

00:44:35.500 was it

00:44:36.640 Crooked

00:44:37.000 Hillary?

00:44:38.760 Now,

00:44:39.080 when he

00:44:39.260 says Crooked

00:44:39.800 Hillary,

00:44:40.260 he's mostly

00:44:40.680 talking to

00:44:41.180 his base

00:44:41.700 who believed

00:44:43.040 she was

00:44:43.480 crooked.

00:44:44.480 So when

00:44:45.080 he adds

00:44:45.400 the clever

00:44:45.880 nickname to

00:44:46.560 something you

00:44:47.100 already think

00:44:47.780 is true,

00:44:49.020 the clever

00:44:49.500 nickname can

00:44:50.140 be quite

00:44:50.520 active.

00:44:51.520 It can

00:44:51.860 activate,

00:44:52.600 you know,

00:44:53.500 your already

00:44:55.020 held belief.

00:44:57.240 Here's what

00:44:57.980 Trump doesn't

00:44:58.740 do.

00:45:00.240 He doesn't

00:45:00.800 use this

00:45:01.340 trick to

00:45:01.980 convince you

00:45:02.480 of something

00:45:02.920 brand new,

00:45:03.900 like that

00:45:05.140 nobody ever

00:45:05.620 thought of.

00:45:06.640 But this

00:45:07.200 Putin price,

00:45:07.940 nobody was

00:45:09.100 really thinking

00:45:09.680 that.

00:45:10.940 Like,

00:45:11.540 the public

00:45:11.940 wasn't saying,

00:45:12.720 oh,

00:45:13.020 this Ukraine

00:45:14.560 situation will

00:45:15.380 raise my

00:45:15.920 gas prices,

00:45:17.020 even if it

00:45:17.880 does.

00:45:18.920 The public

00:45:19.380 was not

00:45:19.840 there,

00:45:20.860 and since

00:45:21.660 the other

00:45:22.180 explanations

00:45:22.760 for it

00:45:23.380 were more

00:45:24.240 compelling,

00:45:25.000 they weren't

00:45:25.580 going to

00:45:25.800 get there.

00:45:26.840 So this

00:45:27.380 is a very

00:45:27.800 basic mistake

00:45:29.360 of persuasion,

00:45:30.940 to think you

00:45:31.480 can change

00:45:31.940 people's

00:45:32.380 minds.

00:45:34.040 Or at

00:45:34.640 least not

00:45:35.060 in this

00:45:35.320 context.

00:45:35.760 You can't

00:45:36.080 change

00:45:36.420 people's

00:45:36.760 minds.

00:45:37.860 You know,

00:45:38.100 a clever

00:45:38.460 nickname

00:45:38.840 doesn't do

00:45:39.360 that.

00:45:40.340 What it

00:45:40.660 does is

00:45:41.080 reinforces

00:45:41.760 where your

00:45:42.160 mind already

00:45:42.720 was,

00:45:43.320 or it

00:45:43.960 could very

00:45:44.460 easily be

00:45:45.300 because you

00:45:45.760 have no

00:45:46.140 objection to

00:45:47.140 it,

00:45:47.760 and once

00:45:48.140 it's called

00:45:48.520 out,

00:45:48.780 you say,

00:45:49.040 yeah,

00:45:49.180 I can see

00:45:49.560 it.

00:45:50.060 But let's

00:45:50.380 say you

00:45:50.620 call this

00:45:51.380 out.

00:45:52.000 It's a

00:45:52.300 Putin price

00:45:53.220 hike,

00:45:53.580 and you

00:45:53.780 never thought

00:45:54.320 of that

00:45:54.580 before.

00:45:55.860 You never

00:45:56.340 thought that

00:45:57.120 it could

00:45:57.460 be somehow

00:45:57.940 related to

00:45:58.460 Russia.

00:45:59.180 And then

00:45:59.540 Biden says,

00:46:00.280 the Putin

00:46:00.560 price hike,

00:46:01.580 does that

00:46:02.080 connect to

00:46:03.320 anything you

00:46:03.740 were already

00:46:04.340 thinking?

00:46:05.500 Not at

00:46:06.080 all.

00:46:06.360 It just

00:46:06.620 feels like

00:46:07.040 it comes

00:46:07.300 out of

00:46:07.500 left field.

00:46:08.680 So a

00:46:09.020 very

00:46:09.180 basic

00:46:09.700 persuasion

00:46:11.760 especially if

00:46:12.740 you're trying

00:46:13.000 to talk

00:46:13.360 to your

00:46:13.600 base,

00:46:14.140 because the

00:46:14.520 base wasn't

00:46:15.020 there,

00:46:15.760 and he

00:46:16.080 couldn't get

00:46:16.440 them there.

00:46:19.200 All right,

00:46:20.180 Ukraine also

00:46:21.000 destroyed some

00:46:21.660 big Russian

00:46:22.220 bridge where

00:46:23.100 a Russian

00:46:24.400 convoy,

00:46:25.180 not,

00:46:25.480 wasn't a

00:46:25.780 Russian

00:46:25.980 bridge,

00:46:26.500 a convoy

00:46:27.120 in Ukraine

00:46:27.700 where the

00:46:28.480 Russians were

00:46:29.160 crossing it.

00:46:31.100 So here's

00:46:33.340 my big

00:46:33.720 question about

00:46:34.360 this kind

00:46:35.180 of war.

00:46:36.480 Given that

00:46:36.980 Ukraine has

00:46:37.600 modern military

00:46:39.280 equipment,

00:46:40.400 how could a

00:46:41.080 large,

00:46:41.540 naval ship

00:46:43.600 survive,

00:46:45.520 the modern

00:46:46.060 military stuff,

00:46:47.080 how could

00:46:47.620 any convoy

00:46:48.340 ever get

00:46:48.740 across a

00:46:49.280 bridge?

00:46:51.080 You can't

00:46:52.060 take out

00:46:52.400 every bridge

00:46:53.080 that has a

00:46:53.460 convoy?

00:46:54.440 How does

00:46:54.980 anybody get

00:46:55.520 across a

00:46:56.000 bridge when

00:46:56.860 you've got,

00:46:57.640 it's your

00:46:58.440 home team

00:46:58.980 and you've

00:46:59.240 got all

00:46:59.460 this modern

00:47:00.180 weaponry and

00:47:01.520 you know

00:47:01.700 they're coming

00:47:02.140 and you've

00:47:02.760 got an

00:47:03.520 advance notice?

00:47:05.060 Yeah,

00:47:05.220 I don't

00:47:05.440 know how

00:47:05.660 they ever

00:47:05.960 do it.

00:47:08.360 And I

00:47:09.640 said before,

00:47:10.260 how do

00:47:10.500 Russian tanks

00:47:11.400 at the

00:47:12.380 beginning of

00:47:12.800 the war,

00:47:13.360 even before,

00:47:14.460 I said,

00:47:15.140 how are

00:47:15.560 tanks going

00:47:16.160 to survive

00:47:16.800 modern

00:47:18.180 defensive

00:47:19.180 weaponry?

00:47:19.940 And the

00:47:20.340 answer is

00:47:20.760 not very

00:47:21.260 well.

00:47:22.460 Are you

00:47:22.920 seeing tanks

00:47:23.620 being an

00:47:24.020 important part

00:47:24.520 of the

00:47:24.720 battle?

00:47:25.840 Am I

00:47:26.180 wrong that

00:47:26.640 tanks became

00:47:27.320 irrelevant?

00:47:28.540 I think

00:47:28.900 tanks just

00:47:29.520 became like

00:47:30.260 a metal

00:47:30.940 coffin.

00:47:31.340 big war

00:47:35.720 equipment only

00:47:36.360 works against

00:47:37.100 relatively

00:47:37.820 under-tooled

00:47:40.540 opponents.

00:47:41.600 If you're

00:47:41.940 up against

00:47:42.400 anybody who

00:47:42.920 has access

00:47:43.400 to modern

00:47:44.040 military

00:47:44.500 equipment,

00:47:45.680 all your

00:47:46.080 big stuff

00:47:46.580 blows up

00:47:47.100 on day

00:47:47.420 one,

00:47:47.740 doesn't

00:47:47.960 it?

00:47:49.040 Imagine

00:47:49.640 China and

00:47:50.500 the United

00:47:50.920 States getting

00:47:51.540 into a

00:47:51.960 naval

00:47:52.220 confrontation.

00:47:54.400 Both

00:47:55.000 sides would

00:47:55.600 lose all

00:47:56.000 their big

00:47:56.360 warships on

00:47:57.380 the first

00:47:57.660 day.

00:47:57.960 because you

00:47:59.280 can't really

00:47:59.720 defend anything

00:48:00.460 like that

00:48:01.120 against a

00:48:02.240 modern

00:48:02.560 military.

00:48:05.440 And are

00:48:06.780 you surprised

00:48:07.440 at how

00:48:07.800 easily

00:48:08.240 Ukraine got

00:48:09.320 to the

00:48:09.720 biggest

00:48:10.060 Russian

00:48:11.040 ship?

00:48:12.480 Weren't

00:48:12.700 you thinking

00:48:13.080 to yourself,

00:48:13.740 well, they

00:48:14.040 must have

00:48:14.400 all kinds

00:48:14.840 of defensive

00:48:16.220 screening,

00:48:18.400 they can

00:48:18.840 stop any

00:48:19.340 missiles coming

00:48:20.060 in?

00:48:21.140 Maybe not.

00:48:23.020 Maybe not.

00:48:24.680 Maybe they

00:48:25.180 can't stop

00:48:25.640 shit.

00:48:26.800 Right?

00:48:27.560 Now,

00:48:27.960 our Navy

00:48:29.160 allegedly has

00:48:30.440 all these

00:48:30.800 countermeasures

00:48:31.540 and stuff,

00:48:32.900 or do

00:48:33.380 they?

00:48:34.480 Would they

00:48:34.960 actually work?

00:48:36.420 Would our

00:48:37.700 Navy be able

00:48:38.300 to fight

00:48:38.720 off two

00:48:39.800 missiles coming

00:48:40.640 from different

00:48:41.120 directions?

00:48:42.000 I don't

00:48:42.300 know.

00:48:43.300 Maybe nobody

00:48:44.080 can defend

00:48:44.580 anything big

00:48:45.320 against the

00:48:45.880 modern

00:48:46.080 military.

00:48:49.500 All right.

00:48:52.900 So,

00:48:53.860 if you

00:48:54.680 haven't seen

00:48:55.280 this yet,

00:48:55.940 it's really

00:48:56.440 worth watching.

00:48:57.180 Brian Stelter

00:49:00.560 had some

00:49:02.040 pollsters on

00:49:02.880 who did

00:49:03.420 this test

00:49:03.920 where they

00:49:04.180 had a bunch

00:49:04.580 of Fox

00:49:05.160 News viewers.

00:49:07.060 They paid

00:49:07.700 them to

00:49:08.140 watch CNN

00:49:08.700 for 30

00:49:09.680 days to

00:49:10.260 see if it

00:49:10.620 changed their

00:49:11.100 views.

00:49:12.060 Now, I'm

00:49:13.360 going to

00:49:13.580 pause for a

00:49:14.200 moment while

00:49:14.800 you fill in

00:49:15.440 your own

00:49:15.800 joke about

00:49:17.180 how you

00:49:18.360 have to

00:49:18.700 pay people

00:49:19.300 to watch

00:49:19.700 CNN.

00:49:20.040 CNN.

00:49:22.100 Do your

00:49:22.720 own joke.

00:49:23.940 Okay.

00:49:24.560 Good.

00:49:24.900 You got

00:49:25.140 one?

00:49:25.740 Good.

00:49:26.220 Okay.

00:49:26.660 I didn't

00:49:27.440 need to do

00:49:27.840 that one.

00:49:29.060 This is

00:49:29.420 actually just

00:49:29.920 the story.

00:49:31.200 I don't

00:49:31.940 need to add

00:49:32.420 the joke

00:49:32.900 if the

00:49:33.560 setup is

00:49:34.240 the joke.

00:49:35.820 So,

00:49:36.740 some people

00:49:37.220 had to be

00:49:37.640 paid to

00:49:38.060 watch CNN

00:49:38.580 for 30

00:49:39.640 days.

00:49:41.320 And then

00:49:41.920 they were

00:49:42.120 asked questions

00:49:42.740 later to

00:49:43.240 find out

00:49:43.580 what they

00:49:43.900 knew about

00:49:44.380 certain

00:49:44.780 topics.

00:49:45.740 And sure

00:49:46.060 enough,

00:49:47.160 people who

00:49:47.540 went from

00:49:47.900 Fox News

00:49:48.540 to CNN,

00:49:49.420 as Brian

00:49:49.860 Stelter was

00:49:51.060 quite happy

00:49:51.640 to show

00:49:52.740 on his

00:49:53.200 program,

00:49:54.360 they gained

00:49:55.280 new information

00:49:56.040 about topics

00:49:56.780 they didn't

00:49:57.480 even know

00:49:57.820 about.

00:49:59.440 So,

00:49:59.720 apparently,

00:50:00.200 if you watch

00:50:01.100 only Fox

00:50:01.740 News,

00:50:02.540 you'll miss

00:50:03.260 entire angles

00:50:05.000 or stories

00:50:05.900 that CNN

00:50:06.900 covers and

00:50:07.560 you won't

00:50:07.840 even know

00:50:08.180 it.

00:50:08.580 So,

00:50:09.320 they proved

00:50:09.820 that Fox

00:50:10.500 News viewers

00:50:11.160 are kind

00:50:12.140 of in the

00:50:12.540 dark about

00:50:13.880 a lot of

00:50:14.240 stuff that

00:50:14.660 CNN does.

00:50:17.240 So,

00:50:17.400 that was

00:50:17.880 Brian's...

00:50:18.640 Oh,

00:50:18.980 actually,

00:50:19.380 there was

00:50:19.640 a little

00:50:20.140 bit more

00:50:20.480 to the

00:50:20.700 story.

00:50:22.700 So,

00:50:23.220 there were

00:50:23.440 two of

00:50:24.300 the pollsters

00:50:24.800 and they

00:50:25.060 were both

00:50:25.360 on to

00:50:25.680 talk about

00:50:26.100 it.

00:50:26.760 And the

00:50:27.260 second one

00:50:28.120 pointed out

00:50:28.880 that the

00:50:31.840 Fox News

00:50:34.180 viewers who

00:50:34.820 only watched

00:50:35.500 CNN for a

00:50:36.320 month didn't

00:50:38.180 didn't learn

00:50:38.800 anything about

00:50:39.540 the Abraham

00:50:40.060 Accords.

00:50:43.480 The

00:50:43.920 Abraham

00:50:44.380 Accords.

00:50:45.520 Like,

00:50:45.820 one of the

00:50:46.220 biggest stories

00:50:46.980 of all time.

00:50:47.820 You know,

00:50:48.020 like a major

00:50:48.620 peace deal in

00:50:49.340 the Middle

00:50:49.600 East.

00:50:50.260 But if you

00:50:50.700 watched CNN,

00:50:51.320 you didn't hear

00:50:51.760 about it because

00:50:52.460 it was a

00:50:52.800 huge Trump

00:50:53.580 success.

00:50:55.680 So,

00:50:55.920 watching...

00:50:56.820 and then

00:50:57.180 Stelter's

00:50:57.840 like trying

00:50:58.480 to keep

00:50:58.800 the smile

00:50:59.400 as he's

00:51:00.340 being chewed

00:51:00.980 apart by

00:51:02.120 this pollster

00:51:02.780 who's just

00:51:03.180 being polite

00:51:03.840 and he's

00:51:04.700 just saying,

00:51:05.180 well,

00:51:06.120 here's a

00:51:06.580 graph that

00:51:07.160 shows that

00:51:07.880 if you

00:51:08.740 watch CNN

00:51:09.240 for a

00:51:09.660 month,

00:51:09.920 you

00:51:10.080 completely

00:51:10.580 missed one

00:51:11.140 of the

00:51:11.320 biggest

00:51:11.500 stories in

00:51:12.080 the world,

00:51:13.120 the Abraham

00:51:13.560 Accords.

00:51:15.380 And then

00:51:16.000 what did

00:51:16.340 Brian Stelter

00:51:17.000 say?

00:51:18.280 He blamed

00:51:19.040 the pollster

00:51:20.560 of both

00:51:21.780 ciderism.

00:51:23.160 I think

00:51:23.720 that's the

00:51:24.020 word he

00:51:24.260 used.

00:51:24.400 both

00:51:26.160 ciderism.

00:51:27.080 Oh,

00:51:27.840 so now

00:51:28.520 you're doing

00:51:29.480 the both

00:51:29.840 sides thing.

00:51:31.700 No,

00:51:32.940 that wasn't

00:51:33.580 both

00:51:33.940 ciderism.

00:51:35.340 That was

00:51:36.160 the study.

00:51:38.160 That was

00:51:38.600 the study.

00:51:40.420 There's no

00:51:41.080 both

00:51:41.480 ciderism.

00:51:42.620 He just

00:51:43.060 proved that

00:51:43.580 if you

00:51:43.980 watch one

00:51:44.440 network,

00:51:44.960 you get

00:51:45.240 half the

00:51:45.660 news,

00:51:46.040 and if

00:51:46.220 you watch

00:51:46.480 the other

00:51:46.800 network,

00:51:47.240 you get

00:51:47.440 the other

00:51:47.740 half.

00:51:48.500 That's

00:51:48.780 about it,

00:51:49.880 which we

00:51:50.280 sort of

00:51:50.600 already knew.

00:51:51.460 But it

00:51:51.660 was hilarious

00:51:52.120 to watch.

00:51:53.500 It looked

00:51:53.900 like Stelter

00:51:54.440 was just

00:51:55.140 learning that

00:51:56.720 he had a

00:51:57.180 guest on

00:51:57.620 that was

00:51:57.880 going to

00:51:58.100 show that

00:51:58.440 you don't

00:51:58.800 learn about

00:51:59.180 the biggest

00:51:59.540 story in

00:51:59.960 the world

00:52:00.220 if you

00:52:00.500 watch CNN.

00:52:01.600 And the

00:52:02.060 guy who

00:52:02.440 was explaining

00:52:03.460 it to him,

00:52:04.340 he was so

00:52:04.900 sheepish about

00:52:05.760 doing it,

00:52:06.700 because he

00:52:07.200 knew he was

00:52:07.640 destroying CNN

00:52:08.980 right in front

00:52:09.560 of Stelter.

00:52:10.480 He's like,

00:52:10.880 well,

00:52:11.820 you have to

00:52:12.420 see his

00:52:12.700 mannerism.

00:52:13.260 He's so

00:52:13.580 polite.

00:52:14.100 He's like,

00:52:14.380 well,

00:52:15.460 you know,

00:52:16.060 actually,

00:52:17.680 what we

00:52:18.380 did find,

00:52:19.720 you know,

00:52:20.000 sort of.

00:52:20.840 I'm just

00:52:22.740 laughing the

00:52:23.240 whole time

00:52:23.540 I watched

00:52:23.900 this guy

00:52:24.300 try to

00:52:24.740 navigate that.

00:52:26.840 Well,

00:52:27.200 MSNBC is

00:52:28.180 failing hard

00:52:28.940 and in a

00:52:30.780 hilarious way.

00:52:31.760 The only

00:52:32.100 thing good

00:52:32.560 they had

00:52:32.860 going for

00:52:33.260 him was

00:52:33.540 the Rachel

00:52:33.940 Maddow

00:52:34.340 show,

00:52:34.720 and then

00:52:34.920 she took

00:52:35.220 a big

00:52:35.580 hiatus

00:52:37.000 or time

00:52:37.480 off.

00:52:38.460 But then

00:52:38.980 she's coming

00:52:39.420 back,

00:52:39.980 but for

00:52:40.660 her reported

00:52:41.460 $30 million

00:52:42.760 annual fee,

00:52:44.260 she's only

00:52:44.700 going to do

00:52:45.160 one night

00:52:46.340 a week

00:52:46.620 on Monday.

00:52:47.180 I don't

00:52:49.040 even think

00:52:49.380 Monday is a

00:52:49.900 good night

00:52:50.260 for TV,

00:52:50.980 is it?

00:52:51.760 Maybe it

00:52:52.180 is,

00:52:52.420 I don't

00:52:52.600 know.

00:52:55.500 So I

00:52:56.040 don't know

00:52:56.280 if she

00:52:56.480 gets to

00:52:56.780 keep her

00:52:57.060 whole $30

00:52:57.520 million for

00:52:58.300 just showing

00:52:58.740 up one

00:52:59.140 day a

00:52:59.420 week,

00:52:59.780 but I

00:53:00.320 like that

00:53:00.760 gig.

00:53:01.420 It does

00:53:01.840 show you

00:53:02.240 how desperate

00:53:03.200 MSNBC is

00:53:04.960 that even

00:53:06.120 this is

00:53:06.600 being

00:53:07.160 considered.

00:53:09.160 But

00:53:09.600 apparently

00:53:09.940 a number

00:53:10.420 of their

00:53:10.720 primetime

00:53:11.200 shows

00:53:11.660 bring in

00:53:12.840 around

00:53:14.060 100,000

00:53:14.900 viewers.

00:53:16.380 100,000.

00:53:17.180 Do you

00:53:19.040 know how

00:53:19.260 many people

00:53:19.640 watch this

00:53:20.120 live stream?

00:53:22.940 About 50,000,

00:53:25.500 you know,

00:53:25.700 if you

00:53:26.100 count recorded

00:53:26.880 playbacks.

00:53:28.860 So for

00:53:30.900 the price

00:53:31.280 of an

00:53:31.560 iPad,

00:53:32.560 literally,

00:53:35.580 for the

00:53:35.800 price of

00:53:36.120 an iPad,

00:53:37.340 I run

00:53:38.100 a network

00:53:38.660 that is

00:53:39.920 50% as

00:53:40.960 good as

00:53:41.280 MSNBC.

00:53:44.020 So you're

00:53:44.780 welcome,

00:53:45.440 I guess.

00:53:47.180 now to

00:53:48.340 be fair,

00:53:48.920 I think

00:53:49.140 everybody

00:53:49.460 who looks

00:53:49.900 at these

00:53:50.220 ratings is

00:53:50.940 missing the

00:53:52.940 business model.

00:53:54.900 I don't

00:53:55.340 think that

00:53:55.820 MSNBC or

00:53:56.840 CNN are

00:53:58.220 designed for

00:53:59.440 live viewers.

00:54:01.920 I think

00:54:02.760 that they're

00:54:03.160 designed for

00:54:03.680 creating clips,

00:54:05.320 and then the

00:54:06.280 clips of the

00:54:07.320 live viewing

00:54:08.020 goes around,

00:54:08.900 and that's

00:54:09.420 actually the

00:54:09.900 news.

00:54:10.580 So if you

00:54:10.980 go to

00:54:11.300 MSNBC's

00:54:12.340 or CNN's

00:54:13.420 website,

00:54:14.420 there are all

00:54:14.800 kinds of

00:54:15.120 links to

00:54:15.580 their video

00:54:16.120 content.

00:54:17.480 The video

00:54:17.920 content comes

00:54:18.640 from their

00:54:19.120 live stuff,

00:54:20.620 and really

00:54:21.200 it's just

00:54:21.620 about

00:54:22.180 commercializing

00:54:23.540 the replays,

00:54:24.460 I think.

00:54:25.440 So thank

00:54:26.760 you,

00:54:27.000 Bill,

00:54:27.560 because I

00:54:28.000 know some

00:54:28.380 of you who

00:54:28.940 have some

00:54:29.460 business

00:54:30.160 experience were

00:54:30.960 squirming when

00:54:32.220 I talk about

00:54:32.860 live ratings,

00:54:34.000 because it's

00:54:34.320 really not their

00:54:34.900 business model at

00:54:35.680 all.

00:54:36.680 They're really

00:54:37.160 not about the

00:54:37.740 live show.

00:54:39.340 And neither

00:54:39.740 am I,

00:54:40.120 because did

00:54:41.300 you see what

00:54:41.680 I did?

00:54:42.040 I compared

00:54:42.500 my replay

00:54:44.120 numbers of

00:54:45.160 50,000 to

00:54:46.560 their live

00:54:47.100 numbers of

00:54:47.600 100,000,

00:54:48.380 and that

00:54:48.640 wasn't the

00:54:49.520 right comparison.

00:54:50.740 Their replays

00:54:51.640 are probably

00:54:51.960 in the millions,

00:54:52.860 and my replays

00:54:53.660 are 50,000.

00:54:54.980 So it's not

00:54:56.180 comparable.

00:54:56.960 But you can

00:54:57.240 make it sound

00:54:57.700 that way.

00:54:59.400 Tim Pool

00:54:59.860 is bigger than

00:55:00.400 CNN, but

00:55:01.240 again, on

00:55:02.460 the replay?

00:55:03.220 I don't

00:55:03.480 know.

00:55:04.760 I don't

00:55:05.060 know.

00:55:08.100 So that,

00:55:09.660 ladies and

00:55:10.100 gentlemen,

00:55:11.620 completes the

00:55:12.540 best live

00:55:13.080 stream of

00:55:14.580 all humanity.

00:55:18.200 MSNBC is

00:55:18.900 subsidized by

00:55:19.520 the CIA,

00:55:20.160 somebody says.

00:55:21.560 Well, I don't

00:55:22.420 know about all

00:55:23.000 that, but there

00:55:24.260 does seem to

00:55:24.720 be a CIA

00:55:25.280 connection to

00:55:25.980 our media.

00:55:29.520 And who

00:55:30.920 is saying

00:55:31.340 that CNN

00:55:32.400 can't even

00:55:34.940 get viewers

00:55:35.920 during a

00:55:36.420 war?

00:55:37.640 So the

00:55:38.340 Ukraine

00:55:38.660 situation is

00:55:39.360 a major

00:55:39.860 world war,

00:55:40.740 one that

00:55:41.080 we have

00:55:41.500 great

00:55:41.860 interest in.

00:55:44.380 And,

00:55:45.400 wow.

00:55:49.320 So even

00:55:49.800 Fox News

00:55:50.460 has a

00:55:50.860 toad venom

00:55:51.400 psychedelic

00:55:52.120 experience story

00:55:52.900 that was on

00:55:53.340 Jesse Waters.

00:55:54.300 Interesting.

00:55:55.140 Everybody's

00:55:55.560 talking about

00:55:56.000 the psychedelic

00:55:56.700 experiences now.

00:56:00.540 What, you

00:56:01.200 don't like my

00:56:01.720 tirades?

00:56:04.100 All right,

00:56:04.660 let's take a

00:56:05.200 vote.

00:56:05.380 How many

00:56:07.340 of you

00:56:07.700 like to

00:56:08.400 see me

00:56:08.800 go off

00:56:09.320 on trolls?

00:56:10.800 Go.

00:56:12.100 Should I

00:56:12.560 keep doing

00:56:13.020 it?

00:56:14.060 Or should I

00:56:14.800 let them

00:56:15.180 ride?

00:56:16.760 I've got a

00:56:17.440 feeling that

00:56:18.020 the locals

00:56:20.980 people like

00:56:22.520 it.

00:56:25.260 All right,

00:56:25.700 well, there's

00:56:26.600 some disagreement,

00:56:27.580 but it seems

00:56:28.120 to be that

00:56:28.760 the people

00:56:29.420 were responding.

00:56:30.700 now,

00:56:33.740 those of

00:56:34.760 you who

00:56:35.040 don't like

00:56:35.540 it,

00:56:38.400 is it

00:56:40.620 because it

00:56:41.300 triggers you

00:56:42.060 for something

00:56:42.640 in your

00:56:43.080 personal life?

00:56:44.980 Or just

00:56:45.660 not entertaining?

00:56:47.280 Probably a

00:56:47.880 little of both.

00:56:49.100 How's my

00:56:49.540 tennis game?

00:56:50.060 I don't play

00:56:50.400 tennis anymore.

00:56:51.300 I quit

00:56:51.660 because it

00:56:53.000 was bad

00:56:53.340 for my

00:56:53.680 body.

00:56:55.500 All right,

00:56:56.280 and that's

00:56:56.660 all for now.

00:56:57.900 And I

00:56:58.560 will talk

00:56:59.100 to you

00:56:59.440 later on

00:57:00.240 YouTube.

00:57:01.740 Thanks for

00:57:02.160 watching.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - April 14, 2022

Episode 1713 Scott Adams： Elon Musk Offers To Buy Twitter, Russia's Biggest Ship Whacked, More

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript