Episode 1775 Scott Adams： Today I Will Settle The Gun Control Debate In A Way You Didn't See Coming
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
139.2862
Summary
On today's show, Scott Adams talks about the possibility of Ron DeSantis running for president in 2020, Elon Musk's thoughts on Trump, and why he thinks Deantis is a better choice than Marco Rubio. Plus, a special live stream celebrating Freedom Day.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to not only the highlight of civilization,
00:00:10.620
Coffee with Scott Adams, but I think you can tell already if you're watching this as opposed
00:00:16.440
to listening to it, that it's special for another reason. It's laundry day. That's why I'm wearing
00:00:23.340
this green t-shirt, which I think you'll agree does not accentuate my eyes in a way that
00:00:29.760
really should. But other than that, and one other special thing, tomorrow, I'm looking
00:00:38.540
at humorous memes going by on the locals platform at the same time. Tomorrow is a very special
00:00:45.500
live stream. It is number 1776, also known as 1776, also known as freedom. So should we
00:00:58.180
do something special for that? Well, you think about that, and so will I. But in the meantime,
00:01:02.840
let's take it up a notch with a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or Chelsea Stein, a canteen
00:01:07.960
jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite freedom-loving beverage.
00:01:14.880
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the
00:01:24.700
thing that's going to make everything feel better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Watch this
00:01:30.480
set your body into an electric, pulsating, gyrating, throbbing pleasure zone that you've never
00:01:37.940
experienced before. Go. You were already there. Somebody says they were already there, and
00:01:47.800
I think that's the way it should be. The moment it's even approaching, you should feel yourself
00:01:56.140
starting to get into the mood. Well, Elon Musk made news today by tweeting. I guess I should just
00:02:03.840
start every live stream with that. Elon Musk made some news today by tweeting and then fill
00:02:09.680
in the blank. Today's fill in the blank is he voted for Republican, I guess in a special election
00:02:17.060
in Texas, the Republican one. And that's supposed to mean something. And the news is that Trump
00:02:25.640
still has influence on the Republican Party. But Musk also tweeted that he's leaning toward
00:02:34.100
DeSantis for his presidential preference. Leaning toward DeSantis. To which I say, did he just
00:02:43.600
end Trump's presidential chances for running again? So I think it all comes down to, does DeSantis
00:02:53.160
run? I think at this point, if Elon Musk says he would vote for DeSantis, and if DeSantis ran,
00:03:04.440
I think he'd run. I think he'd win. What do you think? Now, don't tell me what you think should
00:03:12.580
happen, because you might have a preference of what happens. But what do you think would
00:03:17.060
happen? Trump, let's say a primary, Trump versus DeSantis straight up. Because I'm wondering
00:03:26.980
who, DeSantis could sell himself as the younger, less controversial version of a Trump-like
00:03:41.640
Republican. How isn't that a good package? I guess he's just not as interesting. But he's
00:03:49.040
getting good at that, too. You have to admit, I would say one of my complaints, if you could
00:03:54.860
call it that, maybe a criticism, of earlier DeSantis is he wasn't interesting. When I heard
00:04:01.680
him talk, it was like, standard stuff by a standard-looking guy. So he just didn't jump
00:04:09.100
out. But as governor, he's done a whole bunch of stuff and had a bunch of quotable lines. And he
00:04:17.340
does. Now he's getting the whole provocation thing a little bit better, you know, getting
00:04:22.760
attention. All right. So if DeSantis and Trump ran straight up in a primary, nobody else is in it.
00:04:32.240
So you seem a little bit split. I'm looking at the audience coming in, the comments. And there's
00:04:40.700
not a clear opinion of who would win that. And I think that's the right opinion. I think
00:04:48.440
the right opinion is, there's no way to call that one, is there? But I will stand by this.
00:04:55.080
Here's my prediction. If DeSantis runs, probably it will only be because Trump didn't. Because
00:05:05.000
it would feel like a suicide mission, to some extent. Running against Trump, as opposed to
00:05:12.540
waiting four years and running without Trump, you know, in the mix. I would wait four years. I'd
00:05:20.260
get out of the way of the buzzsaw. Because you imagine, I mean, Trump would just savage DeSantis
00:05:26.520
in a primary. It would be. But it would be quite a divisive thing. I don't think, I don't know.
00:05:38.260
I think my take on DeSantis is that he is a smart risk taker. Would you say that's a fair assessment?
00:05:50.260
He seems to be real good on the risk management. Like, what's the risk? What's the benefit?
00:05:56.200
Because he's done some things that look closer to the risk line than you're used to. Like, he feeds
00:06:03.280
the base better than other people. And as close as he's been flying, you know, to the sun, he has not
00:06:09.580
touched the sun yet. Could we say that? I think we could say that. And actually, that's the most
00:06:15.440
impressive thing about him so far, is he has the best ratio of close to the sun without actually
00:06:23.360
touching the sun. So, you know, who knows if that means it's more dangerous or he's just better at it.
00:06:29.900
So, that's subjective. All right. Yeah, he doesn't have the Trump dance moves. That's true.
00:06:36.640
All right. We'll keep an eye on that. So, there's some news that might be fake news about fake news.
00:06:45.860
This could be a double fake news. So, I only saw it from one source. I would want to see this from
00:06:52.040
another source. So, I'm going to put the big question mark on this one. And allegedly, there's
00:06:58.920
some insider reports that the Biden administration would be disciplining the Department of Homeland
00:07:07.260
Security, you know, the Border Patrol agents who are on horses, who are accused of whipping the
00:07:13.540
immigrants coming across the border. Now, the photographic evidence completely exonerates them
00:07:22.060
as they were whipping their horses in a way that you control these specific kind of horses,
00:07:28.800
right? So, they have this big... Is it even a whip? I'm not even sure if you call it a whip,
00:07:34.500
right? Or is it just the reins? It's the reins, right? Yeah. So, they have the extra long reins
00:07:39.800
that they can sort of, you know, control the horse with. So, I believe the real story is they were
00:07:45.900
controlling the horse, but if you saw it from the wrong angle, it would look like they were aiming at the
00:07:52.020
the immigrants. So, the base of fake news is that they were whipping the immigrants. So, that's
00:08:02.140
where the fake news started. But now there's a report that the people who did not whip any immigrants
00:08:08.120
at all are going to be disciplined, or at least they'll be, you know, part of an investigation or
00:08:13.700
something. And I thought to myself, I'm not sure if that story is true. This might be fake news about
00:08:20.440
the fake news. So, you know what you should think about this? Nothing, because there's not
00:08:28.080
enough substance study of this. It's literally fake news about fake news. Let's just forget
00:08:32.920
that one, like it didn't even happen. Or that's just like an appetizer or something. All right,
00:08:39.040
here's an interesting story. And it's going to cause me to be able to completely solve a gun control
00:08:52.560
debate in this country. Would you like me to do that? Who would like me to reframe the gun debate
00:09:00.760
in this country and just completely solve it? And by solve it, I mean come up with an answer that both
00:09:06.100
Democrats and Republicans would say, you know, well, that's not perfect. But you know, I think
00:09:13.780
you're on to something. That's something we could agree on. Do you think I could do it? Challenge
00:09:19.820
me. Can I come up with a solution that would be loved by both Democrats and Republicans? It's
00:09:27.700
impossible. It's impossible. Can't be done. All right. So, I was looking at a tweet by Claire
00:09:35.780
Lehmann. And it showed a graph where it showed the number of gun, the gun ownership per capita
00:09:43.700
of a number of major countries. And then on one, so on one axis was the number of guns,
00:09:52.340
you know, per thousand people. The other axis was the number of murders per thousand people.
00:09:57.900
So, everything's per capita, right? You know, adjusted for population. And it showed that,
00:10:04.260
you know, there's a big clump of countries, the majority of them were all down there in the lower,
00:10:10.160
lower area, where they had the fewest guns and the fewest murders. And then way up in the right,
00:10:18.460
completely an outlier from all this, you know, other civilized countries, was the United States.
00:10:24.320
Far and away the most guns. Far and away the most murders. And so, Michael, and the point of it was
00:10:36.340
to show that the more guns you have, the more murders you have. I presume that was the point of
00:10:41.900
it. I'm not a mind reader, but I would think that would be the point of publishing that, right?
00:10:47.520
Now, first of all, do you believe that that's true? Do you believe the data is true? I think it's true,
00:10:53.820
isn't it? On a per capita basis. Now, remember, we're not, we weren't, we weren't comparing to
00:11:01.700
every country in the world. It was sort of the, you know, the closer to the peer group.
00:11:09.780
All right. Well, murders, yeah, murder is not equal to guns, but I, maybe I misstated what the,
00:11:17.320
one of the axes was. But the point is that we have the most guns and the murder rate is
00:11:25.140
high. And most of that's guns. So, all right, so that's the starting point. And then I saw that
00:11:32.260
retweeted by Michael Shermer. And he noted that he's been arguing that, you know, how could you argue
00:11:38.760
against the point that, I guess, Michael Shermer has made before a number of times? I take that in
00:11:46.640
context. That his case is that the more gun ownership there is, the more murder there is.
00:11:54.360
So, he was sort of boosting this by saying, here you go. You know, what other, what other
00:12:02.560
explanation is there? So, what other explanation is there? Has he made his case? Does the data speak
00:12:09.680
for itself? I mean, if, if that data were true, would you accept the fact that even though you might,
00:12:18.880
now, hold on for a second before we go any further, let me tell you, don't try to anticipate what my
00:12:24.440
opinion is yet. Don't try to anticipate what my opinion is yet. Because you'll just get all twisted
00:12:31.880
up. So, just, just go with me. Okay. Just, just take the trip. It's just a journey. Enjoy the journey.
00:12:40.620
All right. So, what's interesting about Michael Shermer is I've, I've read his stuff for a long time.
00:12:46.740
And he is, I would say, uniquely data and logic oriented. Which is different from saying I always
00:12:56.120
agree with his takes. But he's always very, look at the data, look at the logic, you know, escape from
00:13:03.720
the politics of it. So, he's very good in terms of trying to be reasonable. I would put him in the,
00:13:10.240
you know, the serious people category. People you should pay attention to. And he says,
00:13:16.740
he just looks at this and says, you know, duh, basically. The most gun ownership, the most
00:13:22.880
murderers by far. How in the world does he, has he not made his case?
00:13:30.320
And he said, what else could it be? And he listed some other possibilities. You know,
00:13:34.520
is it racism? Is it, is it, uh, something else?
00:13:39.480
To which I answered and accidentally realized that I had solved the gun debate. And I responded
00:13:48.260
to his tweet this way and said, it's obviously systemic racism. That chart is literally showing
00:13:59.240
you systemic racism, which is caused by the school, the school system, which is caused by the
00:14:07.420
teachers' unions. That chart shows that. Let me prove it to you in, if you don't, if you
00:14:15.440
don't follow that chain, let me make the case in 10 seconds, right? Here's a 10-second argument
00:14:22.920
to make the case that that chart is showing you systemic racism. 10 seconds. I think I can
00:14:31.020
to attend, maybe 15. Imagine if for the last 30 years, the school system had produced, uh, just as
00:14:41.800
good black students as every other group. In other words, everybody had a good education, which is very
00:14:49.320
much not the case for the past, however many decades you want to go, 50 years, whatever. Just imagine,
00:14:55.900
it's just a thought experiment. I'm done. I'm done. I just proved that that graph is from systemic
00:15:04.960
racism. Because here's what you just did. In your own mind, you just connected all the doubts. You
00:15:09.440
just said, okay, wait a minute. If the teachers' unions had not prevented competition for decades,
00:15:19.120
wouldn't we have better education for everybody? Because the free market system and competition
00:15:24.660
would have, you know, helped us along? The answer is yes. Now, we may not have reached something
00:15:30.720
that you would call equality, but imagine if just everybody got a better education.
00:15:37.420
Now, don't you think that there's a pretty direct correlation between your level of education
00:15:43.720
and your economics and your likelihood to murder somebody? Yes, of course. And so I asked,
00:15:54.040
what would that gun chart look like if you separated it by race in the United States? Suppose you said the
00:16:03.540
United States is two countries. It's the black population. Just look at it separately, as if the
00:16:10.260
United States is just the black population of the United States. And then say, what is the gun violence
00:16:16.320
rate in that community? It would be off the chart. And then say, all right, let's look at the everything but black
00:16:24.480
community, just to simplify, right? And you say, what is the gun rate there? And it's way lower.
00:16:31.420
So really, the United States is not one average. It's basically it operates like two countries in this
00:16:39.000
specific example. Now, why is it the United States would have off the chart black gun violence? Well,
00:16:47.940
if you were a racist, you would say, well, there's something wrong with black people.
00:16:53.160
Right? Because you're a racist, you'd say that, right? But isn't it a little bit more likely that if
00:17:00.980
everybody had a good education, you wouldn't see anything like that? Seriously. Even if there are
00:17:08.540
some racists watching, even if there are some racists watching this, you know who you are.
00:17:14.120
You would admit that if everybody had a good education, everybody, the gun violence wouldn't look
00:17:24.080
anything like it looks in the United States. Who disagrees with that? Now, you know, there's no
00:17:31.320
quick fix to that. But here's the thing. Where could the left and the right completely come together
00:17:37.260
on gun violence? If you improved education, it would go away.
00:17:44.120
Right? And let's just agree that systemic racism exists and that its primary foundational source,
00:17:53.980
you know, the thing that fuels it more than anything, is the lack of good educational paths
00:18:00.420
to success for everybody. Right? So how in the world does the left and the right not agree that
00:18:10.080
if you fix everybody's education, all of these other problems get better. What does the left think is the
00:18:20.620
problem with the right? Let's say climate change. Pick any topic. The left would say, well, the problem
00:18:26.260
with the right is that they're not educated enough about the risks of climate change. That's what the left
00:18:31.980
would say about the right. So wouldn't the left want better education? Because by their view, that would
00:18:38.760
get them more of what they want. There'd be more citizens who believe what they believe. Now, you might
00:18:44.160
say it could go the opposite way. But you still want more education. So no matter where you think the
00:18:50.460
education takes you, everybody believes it's good. So it's like the one thing, the one thing everybody agrees on
00:18:58.940
also solves all the other problems. You just have to sort of think it through why that is the case.
00:19:07.660
So imagine you had a candidate running for president who just said half of what Joe Biden says and half of
00:19:14.860
what Trump says. I'm imagining an imaginary president. What Joe Biden says, sort of laughably, is,
00:19:22.960
you know these big problems? There's nothing we can do about it. What am I going to do about inflation?
00:19:28.940
I'm not Putin. So the half that's Joe Biden is, you know, what can you do about it? Somebody else caused this.
00:19:36.900
It wasn't my fault. You know, and then the half that's Trump is that he can do things that even, you know,
00:19:44.540
are not doable. It's like, I'll make the economy zoom and, you know, everything will be great.
00:19:50.900
So you've got the, you know, ridiculous optimist in Trump and you've got the, you know, can't do it
00:19:58.220
in Biden. Suppose you put them together and you created the following candidate. You know,
00:20:06.020
there's almost nothing you can do about systemic racism today. I've got to be honest with you.
00:20:11.660
There's almost nothing you can do about what's already here. And you can try really hard and I think
00:20:17.180
we should, but you're not going to move it very much because once somebody is 45 and, you know,
00:20:24.960
their life has been sort of carved pretty hard into the rocks, you can't change it much. But here's
00:20:31.800
where we can all agree. How about we just put all of our combined left and right disagreeing energy
00:20:38.780
into fixing schools for everybody, whatever it takes. Let's just make it a national conversation.
00:20:44.640
If it's something about the teachers unions, then that's on the table. If it's something about
00:20:49.620
something else, that's on the table too. So why don't we just take all of our disagreements and
00:20:54.560
say, you know, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it today, but I bet we can fix it for the
00:20:59.720
next generation and just make it a next generation effort. Say, you know, sorry, sorry about your
00:21:07.980
generation. If we could fix it easily, we'd be willing to do it. But nobody has really a good
00:21:17.620
idea how to like fix some things easily. But could you fix the schools? That feels like the most doable
00:21:24.360
thing for an advanced civilization, you know, a successful country, give or take our debt.
00:21:32.180
It seems like that's well within our ability to fix education for everybody. And then, you know,
00:21:41.220
then at least you have an argument that you're doing something about violence. It's not going to
00:21:45.960
help this generation as much. But at least you could say you're doing something and you found some way
00:21:50.460
to come together. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where you fix everything at the same time.
00:21:56.980
You're welcome. I saw a little video and it looked like it came from TikTok. It was up, but it was on
00:22:06.300
Twitter. And I didn't, I didn't see who to credit exactly. But there was this sort of a man on the
00:22:11.880
street interview in which someone I took to be probably associated with the right based on the
00:22:17.780
context was asking people who appeared to be associated with the left based on context if they supported bodily
00:22:26.200
autonomy. And I think it was being asked that some kind of an abortion rally, pro-abortion rally.
00:22:33.340
And so the people on the left were saying, yes, bodily autonomy, my body, you know, keep your
00:22:39.900
government away from my body. It's my body. And then the second question was what they thought about
00:22:46.660
vaccine mandates. And would they say that's the same argument that, you know, stay away from my body
00:22:54.960
would apply to abortion. But would they take their argument and say, stay away from my body
00:23:01.200
with your vaccinations. And you have to watch the looks on the faces of the people being asked the
00:23:11.840
question. Their facial expression is almost better than what they say, which ends up being closer to
00:23:20.340
the nonsense that it should be. And you, I've told you before that there's a cognitive dissonance look.
00:23:29.540
And until you've seen it a number of times, you can't recognize it. But once you have seen it a
00:23:34.340
number of times, you spot it right away. And it's when you see somebody's brain just reboot.
00:23:40.540
It's like, for a moment, they go blank. And their brain just stops. It's almost like, huh?
00:23:47.780
And then whatever comes out next, after the, huh? Is just nonsense. It's just, I think I retweeted it,
00:23:56.780
so you can see it in my Twitter feed today. But it's sort of hilarious. And you can even,
00:24:03.900
you can even abstract this from politics, right? I'm only like marginally interested in the fact
00:24:11.680
that the content here is politics. What's really interesting is legitimately they're triggered
00:24:19.860
into cognitive dissonance. And I think there was one of them that almost slithered out by saying,
00:24:30.220
well, one was an emergency, but no. No. That's not really an argument against not having bodily
00:24:41.160
autonomy, right? Now, my take on this, the whole bodily autonomy, is that nobody has ever had it.
00:24:51.140
It's just an illusion if you think you have any bodily autonomy. Because the government can make
00:24:56.420
your body do anything it wants. Because they have guns. You don't have any bodily autonomy.
00:25:02.540
You can't go do a crime with your body. I can't go rub my body against your body just because I want
00:25:09.160
to. I don't have any bodily autonomy. Now, that said, I would still like to have as much as I
00:25:21.060
could get. Like, if it's, if it's only about me, I want as much as I can get. But sometimes it's not
00:25:34.180
Jason Riley writing for the Wall Street Journal, I think, I guess it would be an opinion piece,
00:25:41.320
but it was so factual that it's hard to say. Suggests that we should raise the immigration caps
00:25:48.240
because there's going to be a massive, already is, massive worker shortage. Now, he's talking about
00:25:53.920
the more qualified workers, the immigrants who often become entrepreneurs in STEM areas, etc.
00:26:01.560
So, he's saying we should do more of that. And that the, that the two-year pause or so from the
00:26:07.480
pandemic, where we were not bringing in these highly qualified immigrants, probably is going to show up
00:26:13.300
in the economy. That, that we had a two-year pause where probably our most qualified group of
00:26:21.680
entrepreneurs, the ones who come in already qualified from another country, they, they didn't get to do their
00:26:30.620
thing for two years. That might actually have a big impact on our economy down the road.
00:26:35.960
And you suggested that we do, we do more of it. Now, I would go back to my argument, and this would
00:26:43.120
be so easy for somebody like DeSantis to take an argument like this. Because the, one of the big things
00:26:51.220
that Trump got completely wrong with the border argument is that once he won the nomination,
00:26:56.160
he should have said what I say, which is, let's have an economic opinion about who to let in,
00:27:04.660
and have the ability to control it, so that when there's an opinion about who to let in and how
00:27:10.420
many, and it changes, we can just change it. That argument would be so easy to win. Imagine being on
00:27:18.700
stage and trying to argue against that. Well, my, my opinion is that we should let the economist tell us
00:27:24.680
how many people to come in for the best interest of the country, and then have enough control to make
00:27:30.720
that happen. What the hell are you going to say to that? Well, really, that's a racist idea.
00:27:39.040
To which I'd say, well, can you explain which race in the United States is not in favor of
00:27:46.180
a better economy in the United States that would include them? I mean, it's really just a killer
00:27:54.540
end of discussion argument. All you have to do is frame it, right? And you're done. It's almost the
00:28:01.920
easiest, it's probably the easiest argument you could ever win in politics, in my opinion. You just
00:28:08.960
take the emotion out of it. You know, you want Republicans to say, you know what? We've really
00:28:14.860
gotten, you know, great benefits from immigration. Let's, let's have some more of that. But we really want to
00:28:20.880
do it the Republican way. And the Republican way is to control the parts that we need to control and let the
00:28:31.200
free market do the rest. It's just so easy to sell. It's just so frustrating watching nobody make the most
00:28:40.140
obvious argument there. All right, so what else is happening? Kimberly Guilfoyle reportedly got $60,000
00:28:53.260
for basically just introducing Don Jr. at, I think, a January 6 rally or something. I don't know what it
00:29:01.020
was. It was a while ago. And people are suggesting that she was overpaid. What do you think? Do you
00:29:12.280
think she was overpaid $60,000 just to introduce Don Jr.? Nope. No, nobody who understands the speaker's
00:29:23.020
market would say she was overpaid. Here's the thing that the news, and I saw David Axelrod
00:29:30.220
said something like, you know, I wonder what that is per word. Do you think, do you think when they
00:29:37.060
hired her or agreed to pay this, do you think that what they thought they were buying were her words?
00:29:45.420
That's not what they're buying. Let me explain how this market works. And it's funny because David
00:29:50.660
Axelrod knows how this market works. So I guess it was a clever way to frame it for political points or
00:29:58.180
something. But David Axelrod knows that on the speaker's circuit, they pay for the personality,
00:30:06.540
the name recognition. You're more likely to go someplace where Kimberly Guilfoyle will be in
00:30:14.320
person. No matter what she does, you're more likely to want to go there if she's going to be there.
00:30:20.480
And if Don Jr. is going to be there, you're more likely to go. And if they're both going to be
00:30:26.900
there, you're a little bit more than twice as likely to go, because then you might see the
00:30:32.380
interaction and that would be even more interesting. So if you are the organizers, what are you really
00:30:38.580
paying Kimberly Guilfoyle for? Well, you're sort of paying her for, you know, the name recognition
00:30:45.220
so that you can say, hey, she'll be here, so bring the crowds. But you're kind of paying her
00:30:51.640
an inconvenience fee, meaning that she almost certainly has somewhere else to be that day.
00:30:58.880
And it's not easy to, you know, pack up and, you know, probably you've got hair and makeup and,
00:31:05.280
you know, outfit and what are you going to say? You got to get there. It's a pretty big commitment
00:31:10.820
to get your ass somewhere and stand in front of a big crowd and do a thing. And in my opinion,
00:31:18.980
under those circumstances, the specific circumstances that she was like exactly the right person to be
00:31:25.040
doing the exactly right thing at that time, $60,000, I'd say she did a good job in negotiating.
00:31:32.240
That's all. She just did a good job in negotiating. So Don Lemon was talking to Biden's spokesperson,
00:31:46.540
Karine Jean-Pierre, and Don Lemon was actually giving her a hard time, which I guess is the
00:31:53.400
first part of the big story. So CNN's new chief reportedly wants them to start reporting the news
00:32:03.160
straight without the bias. Now, I don't know how Don Lemon's going to pull that off, but he did,
00:32:10.900
to his credit, to his credit, so I'll give him credit, we're due. He did push her a bit and he asked
00:32:19.460
this question directly and he wasn't smiling when he said it. He said, does the president have the
00:32:25.840
stamina, physically and mentally, do you think to continue on after 2024? Now, what is the, if you're
00:32:34.260
the spokesperson for the president and CNN asks you, does your boss have the stamina physically and
00:32:41.340
mentally? What is the only right answer to that question? Yes. What does it mean if you say anything
00:32:52.840
else? How would you interpret any other words that did not include Y-E-S? Well, I would interpret it as
00:33:07.040
no. Here's what she said. The first thing out of her mouth was, that is not a question that we
00:33:15.640
should even be asking. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, it makes me laugh. Oh, look at it. The question is so
00:33:25.360
silly. Can you look at the sincere smile on my face? I mean, look at me. It's to laugh. It's to laugh.
00:33:32.020
It's to laugh. It's so funny. Look, because look at the sincerity. I mean, I've got sincerity all
00:33:37.780
over my face. With this smile, I think this puts it in context, doesn't it? You know, would I be
00:33:45.260
smiling like this all sincerely, unless I honestly believe what I was saying? He is so physically and
00:33:53.220
mentally fit? Let me tell you another thing. Let me tell you another thing. Let me tell you another
00:34:00.880
thing. He, he, he's the president. The president's schedule, like a spittle, I'm so excited about the
00:34:10.020
president's schedule. It's so much more than mine. Let me tell you, compared to the president,
00:34:15.580
Biden, it's like I sleep under my desk. It's like, I don't even show up. I do so little work
00:34:22.560
compared to Biden. You should be asking me why I even get paid. Because, because he's like this
00:34:31.560
energy ball. He's like the sun. He's like the sun. And, you know, compared to me, I'd be like,
00:34:38.180
I don't know, a mosquito or something. Like, I'm nothing compared to him, to his greatness and his
00:34:47.240
energy. He's the greatest man of all time. And really. And see. So, why can't we just report
00:35:03.020
that the president's spokesperson just confirmed that she does not believe he is, has the stamina
00:35:10.340
physically and mentally to continue on after 2024? Because that's what she said. I don't care what
00:35:19.360
you tell me you think she said. I don't know what you're hallucinating she said. But she just
00:35:26.940
confirmed that he's not up to the job. And to her credit, do you know why she confirmed
00:35:34.100
it? Because even though she's being paid to lie, she couldn't pull this one off. It made
00:35:43.600
me like her. Honestly. Like, when I saw that she couldn't answer the question, like it was
00:35:50.400
so ridiculously painful hard, I realized that it's because she's probably honest.
00:35:58.220
I'm just guessing. I mean, I don't know her. But I worry that her natural personality might be honest.
00:36:05.640
Like, maybe she doesn't lie to her friends. You know, doesn't lie to her romantic partners or
00:36:11.980
whatever. She might be honest. Imagine being an honest person and being put in that job.
00:36:17.880
Well, that would be like a living hell. And she looked like she was being tortured.
00:36:33.200
So, according to economist Julia Pollack in a tweet, the Fed is finally beginning to do
00:36:41.000
quantitative tightening today. So that $9 trillion balance sheet is going to start coming down
00:36:46.460
and dragging inflation down with it. Here's the way I like to summarize all stories about
00:36:55.120
inflation and about the Fed. Because sometimes when the economists talk, it's a little complicated,
00:37:02.600
hard to follow. So let me just break this down. There's something called the Fed that you don't
00:37:09.160
understand, that does something with money you don't understand, that causes the quantitativeness
00:37:15.740
of the supply of the inflation trend to mitigate over, I don't know, they just do things and then
00:37:26.840
things happen. I'm pretty sure nobody even understands economics. It does feel a little like astrology.
00:37:33.160
And I remember, I won't name names, but there was someone I knew who went to school to be a chiropractor
00:37:44.560
and learned that there were a number of things that chiropractors could do that would make a
00:37:51.600
difference and help people. But the chiropractic school went a little bit beyond the things that
00:37:58.720
seemed to have good data backing them up. You know, things like curing the common cold and
00:38:04.920
your cancer and every other damn thing. And eventually, when he had been completely trained
00:38:12.020
as a chiropractor, he said to himself, I can't do this for a living. It's too bogus. So he actually
00:38:19.100
completed the training and said, I can't even do this. Now, even though, and let me be clear,
00:38:27.000
there do appear to be parts of chiropractic that are valuable and medically supported and all that.
00:38:35.540
But you do hear stories of chiropractors with claims that are just so obviously not true.
00:38:46.520
Anyway, so when I studied economics in college, I got to the point where I learned enough about
00:38:55.880
economics to think that most of what I saw was guessing, because things are too complicated
00:39:02.720
to really predict well. And so the more you know about your own field, the less credibility it has.
00:39:11.100
Have you ever noticed that? Everything looks good until you learn about it. And then you're like,
00:39:16.380
that Russian army sure looks good. Well, let's take a closer look. Although, to their credit,
00:39:25.700
they did win. So it does look like Russia is just solidly winning. And what would you say of the
00:39:38.740
U.S. strategy? Can we be pleased with our strategy? Could it be said that Russia won and NATO won,
00:39:51.520
but Ukraine lost? Could that be said? Because NATO sort of had to push back a little bit, right?
00:40:00.440
Even if it's this indirect way by supporting them? No? You don't think NATO needed to show that it had a
00:40:10.400
little bit of backbone to make it harder for Russia to expand? But I suppose you could say that
00:40:18.640
Russia always thought that Ukraine was part of it, so it's not an expansion, except depending on your
00:40:26.020
point of view. NATO lost, too. Yeah, maybe so. Although NATO is gaining members.
00:40:37.540
Yeah, it's an interesting argument. I heard the argument that we made a mistake, we, the West,
00:40:44.120
made a mistake challenging Putin because we should have understood history and understood that Russia
00:40:50.960
Russia is an imperialist country and they would never, they would never accept anybody, you know,
00:40:57.060
moving into their sort of territory that maybe they thought they should influence. To which I said to
00:41:03.620
myself, well, by that standard, you should let everybody who has bad behavior do it, because if you
00:41:11.040
don't, they'll be mad. I don't know. Maybe, maybe it depends how many nukes you have that changes the
00:41:19.060
calculation. By the way, I saw a meme of showing, I think it was Hiroshima after, after it had been
00:41:28.500
nuked, and then showing it today. So you see, in one picture, it's rubble, and then today it's,
00:41:35.280
you know, a gleaming city. And then it showed Detroit, the same year as Hiroshima, you know, a bustling
00:41:43.000
city. And then it shows Detroit today, not looking so good. And I'm thinking, uh, that's in one lifetime.
00:41:57.160
Yeah, so I see some people saying their chiropractors have helped them. That is, that is certainly true.
00:42:02.860
All right. I believe that's all that's happening today. Were there any stories I forgot about?
00:42:12.620
Now, um, there's one other way that the left and the right can come together. I forgot this one.
00:42:17.920
Now, it's, it's a smaller way, but I think every little, every little way that the left and right
00:42:22.260
can come together is, is useful. So one of the things that the, uh, the left wants is they want,
00:42:30.320
um, less gun violence. They also want, uh, in many cases, young people to be able to transition
00:42:39.740
from, uh, do you say transition their gender? Or is it, I'm not sure, I'm never sure if I'm using
00:42:49.160
the right words. But, uh, so the people on the left are more favorable toward younger people
00:42:55.320
transitioning. And here's the question I ask. How many mass murders have been committed
00:43:03.900
by someone who was trans? I think it's zero. So correct me if I'm wrong on the math. The
00:43:13.540
more people who are trans, the fewer murders per capita. Follow that logic? No, that doesn't
00:43:24.020
make sense at all. I'm not serious. How many people thought I was serious? Oh, don't get
00:43:32.160
serious on me. Okay. You're talking about, uh, suicides. That's serious. All right. Um, yeah,
00:43:46.300
it is remarkable that a community that small percentage-wise is having such a big impact
00:43:54.580
on our, on our psyche. And did you see the controversy of, I guess, um, I think, uh, Ben Shapiro
00:44:04.620
and Matt Walsh were mad at Fox News for running a piece that was, uh, if I would characterize it,
00:44:12.780
it would be pro-trans, I guess, and pro-trans for young kids. So it was a story about a, uh,
00:44:21.500
young kid who at five years old or even, even before, uh, so the kid is now identifying as male
00:44:30.200
and has transitioned. So we'll say he, but, but allegedly knew he was the wrong gender, uh, before he
00:44:41.240
could speak or something like that. Because the parents said, yes, he was obviously uncomfortable
00:44:47.220
in girls' clothing and stuff like that. Now, as some people have pointed out, there are quite
00:44:56.140
a few, uh, boys who were kind of fluid at that age and then it gets sorted out later. So can
00:45:04.120
you really tell what somebody's gender identity is at that age? Here's where I'm going to really
00:45:12.840
make you mad. I think you can sometimes. But here's the problem. How would you know you're
00:45:22.100
right? You don't have a way to know you're right. Uh, so let me say it again. If it's true,
00:45:28.900
true, if you, if you accept the notion that people are, you know, born in the wrong, they're
00:45:36.920
misgendered or whatever the word is, if you buy that notion that it's something that an adult
00:45:42.560
can later understand and make their own decision, if you buy that as a legitimate path, which I
00:45:51.580
do, because once you're an adult, make your own decisions. But that doesn't mean that it's
00:45:57.420
not always there. So by, by my way of thinking, sometimes at five, you know, but sometimes you
00:46:08.980
think, you know, and you're wrong. And then they just, you know, they're just normal fluid kids who
00:46:15.980
settle on, you know, the gender that they look. So would you disagree with my assessment that if it's
00:46:25.160
true that they will always be, let's say there's a five-year-old and if you could see the future,
00:46:30.640
if you didn't do anything, you know, if you just ignored it, they would grow up to be somebody who
00:46:36.300
as an adult says, you know, I'm going to have this transition. You know, it's, it's always been with
00:46:41.140
me. Nothing ever changed. I'm going to, I'm going to see if I can solve my problem with this transition.
00:46:46.620
Don't you think it was there when they were five? Because I do. I think it was there when they
00:46:53.700
were five. I just think you can't accurately identify it. I'm really interested in the people
00:47:02.000
saying, I saw a no. Are there people on here who think that's not biological? Are there some,
00:47:11.080
are there some people who think that's a hundred percent social construct? Really?
00:47:21.300
Because I don't think there's any chance of that. You know, I, here's, here's the sort of thing that
00:47:28.100
influences me on this. Did you ever see the show about the two twins who were separated at birth?
00:47:35.120
And it was two guys who both grew up and without knowing anything about each other,
00:47:39.740
literally separated at birth. They, they learned that they had a twin and then they decided to get
00:47:45.120
together and they had both grown up to become firemen. Now that would be quite a coincidence,
00:47:51.620
right? They both grew up to be firemen in different places, raised by different parents,
00:47:56.220
didn't know each other. I think they both showed up in suspenders. I think they, they bought the same
00:48:02.940
gift for each other. And there were a whole bunch of other things that they did that looked like
00:48:07.320
lifestyle choices that were identical. And they were raised completely differently without knowing
00:48:13.480
each other. Now, does that suggest that even really things that look like lifestyle choices
00:48:21.700
are baked in when you're born? I think it does. I think it does. You know, there, there are things
00:48:28.660
about me now that are clearly were obvious when I was five years old. When I was five years old,
00:48:35.140
I wanted to be a cartoonist. Like there's just some things that just don't change. Like it's just
00:48:41.260
baked into you and you know, I'm, I mean, I wanted to be a creative person. I think that's the part
00:48:46.620
that was baked in, not the cartoonist specifically, but doesn't mean biological. Well, what I'm saying
00:48:56.280
is that there does seem to be people who have a physical sex situation that differs from their
00:49:08.120
internal view. Would you agree that that's true? Would everybody agree that there are real people
00:49:14.440
who without society causing it, their, their brain feels one gender, but their body looks another?
00:49:23.400
Do you agree that they exist? I think they exist. Yeah. I mean, there are plenty of people who say
00:49:31.120
they are those people. I have no reason to doubt it. So I think they exist, but a lot of you say no.
00:49:37.020
Interesting. And on YouTube, a lot of people are saying no, that they think that that doesn't exist.
00:49:46.200
but I don't completely dismiss it because it's in the category of things that, well,
00:49:53.820
maybe, I mean, I think you're wrong. I do think that, I do think that that's the sort of difference
00:50:01.260
that could be baked in. Well, let me, let me tell you how easily that could be true.
00:50:08.600
Would you agree that you're, the chemistry when you're being formed, you know, the specific
00:50:16.740
chemistry would influence whether you're male or female? Like, or maybe that's too strong because
00:50:25.180
that's just the sperm and the egg. But if you, if you were to change the chemistry in which the sperm
00:50:31.080
and the egg were incubating, you could cause them to be more masculine and more feminine,
00:50:37.580
right? I think that's true. So even though their chromosomes are what the chromosomes are,
00:50:44.240
you can influence how masculine or how feminine they are within their, within their sex, right?
00:50:52.700
So if that's true, could you imagine a situation in which the chemistry was not the same all the way
00:50:59.780
through? In other words, could you imagine a case where the brain was forming after the genitals
00:51:07.660
or the other way around? That the, the brain part that influences your sexuality gets formed first
00:51:17.100
and then maybe your body chemistry is changes before your, I don't know, or something like that.
00:51:22.780
So I'm just, I'm just speculating that one could imagine that there are people who don't have the
00:51:28.660
same body chemistry all the way through pregnancy and that there might be some kind of a radical
00:51:34.360
change that would cause you to start developing one way and then finish developing another way
00:51:41.260
and be sort of a blended situation and then have to choose which one makes you happier, you know,
00:51:50.600
to, or, or not choose. I suppose that's a choice as well. All right. So enough about that.
00:52:04.420
Can you imagine a person with impulsive violence that is unaffected by education?
00:52:16.220
All right. That's enough for now. I'll talk to you, YouTube, tomorrow. Clearly one of the best
00:52:21.780
live streams you've ever seen. Not as good as yesterday, but one of the best. One of the best.
00:52:27.640
And tomorrow? Oh, wow. It's going to be great. Bye for now.