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. 1.00

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. 0.94

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, 1.00

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 0.97

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. 0.75

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, 1.00

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. 0.59

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 0.91

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 0.99

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' 0.93

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, 0.99

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. 0.98

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 0.72

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 0.72

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 0.97

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 0.99

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 0.72

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 1.00

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 0.98

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 0.55

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

Summary

Transcript