Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1985 Scott Adams： Funny Antics Of Democrats Defending Biden's Handling Secret Documents

00:00:00.000 Maybe somebody you can tell.

00:00:03.760 Hello, everybody.

00:00:05.320 We're doing another experiment to see if I can live stream on YouTube and Rumble at the same time through StreamYard.

00:00:12.280 It hasn't worked yet.

00:00:13.960 I'm 0 for 3.

00:00:15.140 But quickly, let me just check Rumble and see if it's streaming there.

00:00:21.200 Because apparently I can't spell Rumble.

00:00:25.400 We'll call that up and see if I'm there.

00:00:28.100 That looks like now, huh?

00:00:30.000 Apparently not, right?

00:00:34.600 So, interesting.

00:00:36.960 All right.

00:00:38.040 Can anybody confirm that it's not working on Rumble and then we'll never try that again?

00:00:43.280 Okay.

00:00:45.240 Can you confirm?

00:00:46.440 It's definitely not there on Rumble, right?

00:00:49.120 Okay.

00:00:50.240 So, that's the last time I'll try.

00:00:55.920 Let's do the opening show, okay?

00:01:00.000 Do-do-do-do-do-do-do.

00:01:02.120 Because I know you have OCD.

00:01:04.460 And I've got to do it the same every time.

00:01:07.000 Do-do-do-do-do.

00:01:08.460 Do-do-do.

00:01:10.300 La-da-da. 0.93

00:01:13.000 Good morning, everybody.

00:01:14.200 And welcome to the highlight of civilization.

00:01:16.300 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and there's never been a finer moment in your entire life.

00:01:21.540 But if you'd like to make it even finer, we call it gilding the lily, you can do that.

00:01:28.540 And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:01:35.220 Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:01:37.460 I like coffee.

00:01:39.100 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:01:45.100 It's called Simultaneous Sip.

00:01:47.400 Go.

00:01:53.560 Oh, yeah.

00:01:58.080 Yeah, I know there's a whole bunch of people who can't stand sipping or eating noises.

00:02:04.780 It's a pretty big deal.

00:02:06.140 Like, if you have that, it's like a big deal in your life.

00:02:09.320 And I was just seeing somebody in Locals who says they mute that part.

00:02:13.680 And maybe you should, too.

00:02:20.560 So get your finger on the mute button if you don't like to hear that sort of thing, which is perfectly reasonable.

00:02:25.920 All right.

00:02:27.840 News about me.

00:02:30.020 I believe my manic phase has ended.

00:02:33.280 I'm not positive, but I think it has because I slept so well last night.

00:02:36.000 So I had, like, a good almost three days of a manic phase.

00:02:43.000 And, oh, my God, those are enjoyable.

00:02:44.960 It's not enjoyable for you, necessarily, if you have to observe me.

00:02:50.400 It's not necessarily a good day for you, but it's really good for me.

00:02:54.240 Really creative, and I get a lot done.

00:02:56.120 It feels good.

00:02:57.280 I got infinite energy.

00:02:58.620 But it doesn't last long.

00:03:01.080 Two, three days, and I'm done.

00:03:02.760 Now, here's a little lesson for you on success.

00:03:08.720 I'm going to give you one of the most useful things I've ever taught anybody.

00:03:14.220 And this is in one of my books.

00:03:17.200 Some people are simplifiers, and some are optimizers.

00:03:22.300 A simplifier will say, yes, I know it would be a good idea to do this and this and this,

00:03:28.380 but it would be so complicated that it will make everything break.

00:03:33.000 So instead, I'm just going to do the simple thing that I know will work every time,

00:03:37.560 and I will give up, you know, maybe 50% of my revenue or whatever

00:03:42.140 because I know I just want it to work.

00:03:45.880 An optimizer will say, well, wait a minute.

00:03:48.760 Are you telling me that if I just do these other steps, I can get another 10% of goodness,

00:03:54.580 you know, maybe profit or whatever you're looking for?

00:03:58.240 And I would like to submit that simplifiers be optimizers.

00:04:06.200 Now, not every time.

00:04:08.260 Optimizers work.

00:04:09.720 The optimizing works often enough that it becomes addicting.

00:04:13.700 And you'll think, oh, that one time I optimized and it worked great.

00:04:17.740 I better do that every time because it was such a good hit when that worked. 0.92

00:04:21.500 My dopamine felt good.

00:04:23.140 So you can get addicted to optimizing, even though it's the worst strategy.

00:04:28.980 All right, here is your perfect example.

00:04:32.340 For maybe two years, my followers here on Livestream have been asking,

00:04:40.160 and it's a reasonable ask, to Livestream on Rumble at the same time I'm doing YouTube and Locals.

00:04:46.480 And I looked into it, and I realized that I couldn't do it in a simple way.

00:04:53.800 The simple way would be add another device, because I had separate devices for the two platforms,

00:05:00.540 and just call it up, just like the other two.

00:05:03.740 Now, that would have been more complicated than having two,

00:05:06.880 but in all cases, it's just putting on a title and saying, go.

00:05:12.500 But Rumble doesn't do a direct livestream like that yet.

00:05:17.060 You have to go through StreamYard.

00:05:19.540 And I've been telling all of you, everybody who asked me to do the Rumble,

00:05:24.720 do you remember what I said for two years?

00:05:26.340 If you add a little bit of complexity, just a little bit, the entire livestream will fall apart.

00:05:34.220 And I know that seemed impossible to believe, because it looks like I just turn it on and I go, right?

00:05:42.940 But I promise you, I have lots of experience in this domain of adding complexity to a simple thing.

00:05:49.480 But it breaks it every time.

00:05:52.180 So the only way I could get past the, why don't you use Rumble, is I had to do it right in front of you.

00:05:59.260 I had to show you that that little extra complexity makes the whole thing fall apart.

00:06:05.920 So this is the third day in a row in which I completely know how to do it, all right?

00:06:11.720 The problem is not the learning curve.

00:06:14.180 I absolutely know how to do this.

00:06:16.720 Three days in a row, it's failed.

00:06:18.200 Because a little extra complexity is all it takes.

00:06:23.520 Now, what is a little extra complexity?

00:06:26.800 Adding the Rumble's step added approximately 35 steps.

00:06:33.060 Would you have anticipated that?

00:06:35.940 Now, it's about 35 steps.

00:06:38.040 And I have to get them all right and on time.

00:06:41.460 So the first thing that that did to me is it made my wonderful morning routine.

00:06:49.000 I love the morning.

00:06:51.000 I love being up at, you know, 4 a.m.

00:06:54.420 Nobody's around.

00:06:55.400 I'm just doing my business, getting everything done.

00:06:58.000 It's a wonderful time.

00:06:59.840 Making, adding those 35 steps for Rumble ruined my morning.

00:07:03.660 So do you think I would do as much work on your behalf if I hate it as I do when I love it, which is the case every other day?

00:07:14.040 Of course not.

00:07:15.380 No, of course not.

00:07:16.120 You would eventually talk yourself out of doing it.

00:07:18.180 You'd find something else to do that doesn't bother you, right?

00:07:23.340 So I added about 35 extra steps.

00:07:28.080 Now, what are those steps?

00:07:30.040 One of those steps is I have to go get my laptop because I'm using it for other things during the day.

00:07:36.080 My other things are just in place all the time.

00:07:37.920 Then I've got to get the power cord.

00:07:41.140 Then I've got to clear out my programs that are on there so they're not interfering.

00:07:46.640 I've got to find my microphone because it's not connected all the time.

00:07:52.120 I've got to rewire everything.

00:07:54.220 I've got to open two different apps, and then I've got to fill in, I don't know, maybe 25 fields, probably 25 fields.

00:08:02.620 I haven't counted them, something like that.

00:08:04.800 Now, I also tested it before I went live.

00:08:08.340 So I've now tested going live on Rumble to make sure that I know how the software works three times, two or three times.

00:08:17.760 So I definitely know how to do it.

00:08:19.580 Every time I've tested it, it worked.

00:08:21.520 But every time I've gone live, it didn't.

00:08:24.220 Do you know why?

00:08:25.980 Complexity.

00:08:26.840 Yeah.

00:08:27.200 This was 100% predictable, but it wasn't obvious to you.

00:08:31.760 So I did this for you, basically.

00:08:33.780 Mostly the people and locals were asking me to do it.

00:08:36.800 I knew it was going to be a lot of work, and it was.

00:08:40.140 And I knew that the complexity would make the entire operation crumble, which it did, because it ruined my show three days in a row.

00:08:47.100 So this is the last day I'm going to try Rumble.

00:08:49.120 And look, just so you know, full disclosure, I own stock in Rumble.

00:08:55.780 I'm a stockholder.

00:08:57.240 I want Rumble to be the main thing you look at.

00:09:00.260 But it doesn't work for live streaming unless, and let me give you the caveat, if I had a full-time engineer, it would work.

00:09:08.860 Because the engineer would just have it set up.

00:09:11.480 I would just show up and do my show.

00:09:12.820 To go from my current operation, where I wake up happy every day and do stuff I love the whole time, as soon as I add a second person, how much am I going to enjoy that?

00:09:28.240 Can't do it.

00:09:29.480 It would take all of my focus away in the morning.

00:09:31.960 Because the engineer, I'd be, like, preparing my content.

00:09:35.740 And what would the engineer do?

00:09:36.900 Send me a message to tell me there was something different.

00:09:41.620 And then I would be interrupted.

00:09:43.960 And then I'd be, all right, all right.

00:09:45.100 And I'd try to get back to work.

00:09:46.740 And then the engineer would say, all right, we're ready.

00:09:49.760 And I'd be like, okay, you interrupted me again.

00:09:53.300 And now I don't know where I was.

00:09:54.700 I have to go back to that, right?

00:09:56.240 So you can't really add an engineer unless you're adding, like, a whole network show.

00:10:01.080 So if you do it like the Daily Wire, you know, they have a whole operation, that makes total sense, right?

00:10:07.740 Because they're going for a big market.

00:10:09.600 They're going for bigger money.

00:10:11.320 They can afford that.

00:10:12.200 That makes sense.

00:10:13.720 The complexity makes sense in that sense.

00:10:15.720 But there's this whole middle ground where it doesn't make any sense at all.

00:10:19.360 And that's sort of where I'm at.

00:10:21.800 Now, to that same point, CNN had actually a pretty useful article about attention spans shrinking.

00:10:31.820 Have you noticed that?

00:10:34.420 Yeah.

00:10:36.300 To your point, somebody says Sticks and Hammer does rumble.

00:10:41.000 I, too, could do rumble quite easily if it were my only platform.

00:10:46.160 Does that make sense?

00:10:47.400 It's only the adding it to what I'm doing that gets to the crumble point.

00:10:52.780 If the only thing I did was one show, I think, actually, the software would work if there were only one thing strong.

00:10:58.520 It's been, yeah.

00:11:00.120 And I think Viva might have an engineer.

00:11:06.500 Is that the case?

00:11:08.600 Do you know if he has anybody helping him?

00:11:10.780 Because if he doesn't have an engineer, I will guarantee he does not.

00:11:15.400 How many times has it not worked?

00:11:18.340 Have you seen him have technical difficulties during his show?

00:11:21.500 I think I have.

00:11:26.920 I think I have seen it not work.

00:11:28.640 And I don't watch it that often.

00:11:30.520 Yeah.

00:11:30.820 He has it.

00:11:31.560 Often he has problems, right?

00:11:33.340 And it totally detracts from the flow.

00:11:36.600 Yeah.

00:11:36.760 He has problems all the time.

00:11:37.960 Sure.

00:11:39.240 All right.

00:11:39.720 So, apparently, it's a real thing.

00:11:42.320 Our attention spans have been shrinking.

00:11:43.920 There's some book on it.

00:11:45.680 CNN was talking about it.

00:11:46.840 And so, in 2004, people's average attention to a screen, if they were looking at one, they'd look at it for two and a half minutes.

00:11:55.300 But today, that's down to 75 seconds.

00:12:00.520 So, you can actually measure the difference in how much we can look at one thing and be happy.

00:12:07.120 Oh, now it's down to 47 seconds.

00:12:09.040 I'm sorry.

00:12:09.520 It's actually all the way down to 47 seconds.

00:12:12.600 And here's the hard part.

00:12:14.760 If you get distracted, it takes 25 minutes to refocus on your task.

00:12:20.860 Do you believe that?

00:12:21.620 Do you believe that if you're working away happily and you get distracted, it takes 25 minutes to do your task?

00:12:31.320 Here's the explanation.

00:12:33.940 Because, let's say, you're doing your task, you're working at home.

00:12:37.500 And then the dog needs to be fed.

00:12:39.760 So, you say to yourself, I'll feed the dog.

00:12:42.140 Then I'll go back to my task.

00:12:43.600 Five minutes, right?

00:12:45.100 Most.

00:12:45.640 Five minutes.

00:12:46.880 Right?

00:12:47.700 So, you go feed the dog.

00:12:49.000 And while you're feeding the dog, you realize that there might be a package at the door that you haven't checked.

00:12:57.300 So, you check the door, and there is a package.

00:13:00.740 So, you bring it in.

00:13:02.540 And then you think, oh, I've got to open this package.

00:13:05.240 I'll be thinking about it.

00:13:06.740 So, what happens is, it's not that you do a thing and go back.

00:13:10.080 That would only take you a few minutes.

00:13:12.000 What you do is you do a thing that makes you do a thing that makes you do a thing.

00:13:15.000 And that's sort of modern life.

00:13:17.520 Everything leads to another thing.

00:13:18.960 You're getting a lot done.

00:13:20.760 It's just you can't concentrate on your one thing.

00:13:24.120 So, it's a gigantic problem.

00:13:26.800 And, you know, there's some suggestion that there's something you do about it.

00:13:31.300 But I'm not sure.

00:13:33.600 I'm not sure you can do anything about it.

00:13:35.460 I think we've just permanently rewired ourselves to be unable to concentrate.

00:13:41.680 Now, back to my earlier topic.

00:13:44.440 The thing that was so special about being in my manic phase is that that went away.

00:13:50.680 During my few days of mania, or I think it's actually hypomania.

00:13:58.440 I think I was using technically a slightly wrong word.

00:14:01.500 It's like hypomania.

00:14:02.440 So, you get the good stuff without much of the bad stuff.

00:14:05.780 And during that period, I could concentrate as much as I wanted.

00:14:10.700 And it was unbelievable.

00:14:13.660 Like, it was like being a different person for a while.

00:14:16.300 Well, I guess I was.

00:14:17.880 Now, I'm going to tie this to yet another topic.

00:14:20.700 If the problem in the modern world is we can't concentrate when there are any distractions,

00:14:27.540 doesn't that mean that if you went to Starbucks or a cafe and there were, like, people wandering

00:14:33.280 around, everybody's talking and shit, that that would be the hardest place to work?

00:14:38.420 Common sense, right?

00:14:40.340 Your common sense says if distractions are a problem, you need to go where there are the

00:14:45.080 fewest distractions.

00:14:46.420 That's where you'll be best.

00:14:47.580 Common sense.

00:14:48.280 Do you know common sense is just magical thinking?

00:14:53.620 Common sense is whatever you decided was true.

00:14:56.600 And then you reason backwards to why it was totally common sense, right?

00:15:00.720 Common sense is completely magical thinking.

00:15:04.020 Nobody has common sense except for the simplest decisions, right?

00:15:09.320 We all get those right.

00:15:10.380 But as soon as there's any complexity, you know, anything that's judgmental, anything

00:15:16.280 that hasn't been fully settled for millennium, common sense is an absurd, subjective experience

00:15:23.540 which you convince yourself is a rational experience.

00:15:27.260 It's just, it's purely an illusion that happens in your mind that you have common sense.

00:15:31.820 Now, you do have it for simple stuff.

00:15:33.580 That's why it's so easy to fool yourself.

00:15:36.740 You do have it for real easy stuff only.

00:15:42.200 So, but in fact, if you, the studies show it and my experience shows it.

00:15:48.760 If I go to Starbucks and it's busy and there's all kinds of stuff happening, that's the place

00:15:53.340 I can concentrate the best.

00:15:54.780 I don't know why exactly.

00:15:57.900 I'll give you my best guess.

00:16:01.180 The guess is when there are lots of distractions, there are no distractions.

00:16:08.160 There's some amount of distraction where the distraction becomes the background.

00:16:13.720 And then the background just becomes static.

00:16:16.180 It's like white noise.

00:16:17.840 You know, everybody talking equals nobody talking, right?

00:16:21.220 Now, would your common sense have ever been able to get to that point?

00:16:27.380 Would you have been able to use your common sense to think your way from, oh, there are

00:16:32.940 too many distractions, so the way I'll solve it is to quadruple the number of distractions?

00:16:39.780 Your common sense doesn't get you there at all.

00:16:42.600 So don't trust your common sense.

00:16:45.300 Sometimes you just have to test it.

00:16:46.860 All right, let me give you the best explanation I can give as to why the people on Twitter

00:16:56.440 think I'm an entirely different person than the people who watch me on Livestream and the

00:17:02.960 people who know me in person.

00:17:05.160 And I think it's this one mistake that they make.

00:17:09.620 And let me explain it this way.

00:17:11.180 If I wrote a blog post, you know, a long blog post, or I did a long video in which I said

00:17:19.840 my car's electrical systems are terrible, they're always, which is true, I have a BMW, and

00:17:28.120 all of my BMWs have always been Christmas trees, meaning the front panel is lit up basically

00:17:34.560 all the time.

00:17:35.240 Maybe 90% of the time I've ever owned a BMW, I've owned several models, probably 90% of

00:17:42.740 the time there's a warning light that's on.

00:17:45.160 Now, I consider that, you know, suboptimal customer experience.

00:17:50.860 Now, suppose I wrote a blog post or I did a video, and that's the only thing I talked

00:17:54.880 about.

00:17:55.960 The only thing I talked about was, damn, these things have terrible or, let's say, suboptimal

00:18:02.460 user experience because of all the errors that are always in.

00:18:06.060 What would you conclude about my opinion if the only thing I talked about was what was

00:18:10.820 wrong with it?

00:18:13.280 You would reasonably assume that I had all this time that I could have said there's something

00:18:19.540 good about it too, right?

00:18:21.500 Wouldn't it be reasonable if I left out anything good, a reasonable person could say, okay,

00:18:26.880 you talked for half an hour, and you didn't mention anything good about the car.

00:18:30.660 Clearly, you don't like the car.

00:18:32.840 Would that be a reasonable assumption?

00:18:35.500 Yeah, it might not be true, but that would be a very reasonable assumption.

00:18:39.540 All right, now, let's say I send a tweet.

00:18:42.780 It's the only thing you see.

00:18:44.920 And my tweet says, damn, the electrical, I always have a, let's say, a warning light on

00:18:51.460 my car by BMW.

00:18:54.540 It's the only thing I tweet.

00:18:55.740 And then maybe, maybe a year later, I tweet, you know, why are the cars, why are the tires

00:19:03.080 so expensive on my model car?

00:19:07.480 And then later, I say, I love my car.

00:19:10.480 Then what do the, what do the, the clop birds do? 0.90

00:19:16.880 If I say, I love my car, they say, do you?

00:19:19.580 Let's check your Twitter feed.

00:19:20.900 Um, you've said two things about your car.

00:19:24.440 One, the tires are expensive.

00:19:26.940 Two, there's always a warning light on.

00:19:30.420 So where, where's the tweet about how good your car is?

00:19:33.740 Where's the tweet about how you love the sound of the engine?

00:19:37.020 Where's the tweet about how you only have to think about where you want the car and it

00:19:41.240 will be there?

00:19:42.180 Where's the part about how the steering is really good?

00:19:44.840 Where's the part about how the, the sound system is excellent?

00:19:47.660 Where's the part about how when you close the door, it's a nice solid feel?

00:19:50.980 Where's the part about how when people look at it, they say, oh, looks like you know

00:19:54.640 how to pick a good car.

00:19:56.660 Where's all that?

00:19:58.420 And the clop birds will say, oh, you lying clop bird, you, you've clearly been saying

00:20:05.360 this is a terrible car and now you're flip-flopping or are you on the fence?

00:20:09.180 Are you on the fence or are you flip-flopping?

00:20:12.480 So here's my advice to you.

00:20:15.200 Twitter is not where you add context.

00:20:17.380 If you see a tweet, you should judge the tweet in isolation, right?

00:20:24.920 If I say Joy Behar has a good fashion sense, what should you conclude on that?

00:20:33.860 If that's my tweet, that's the only thing I've ever said about Joy Behar.

00:20:37.640 She has a good fashion sense. 1.00

00:20:39.680 Should you conclude as a smart Twitter user that therefore I'd like to have sex with her 0.98

00:20:45.480 and also her political opinions are gold?

00:20:49.200 Because that's what the clop birds would say.

00:20:51.980 The clop birds would say, you're only ever complimenting Joy Behar.

00:20:55.920 So I think that makes you a Democrat, right?

00:21:02.040 So if you have any confusion about why the Twitter people think I'm literally a different person,

00:21:09.840 it's because they believe the missing part is the important part.

00:21:14.680 Think about that.

00:21:15.380 On Twitter, the clop birds believe the part I don't say is actually the important part.

00:21:23.220 It doesn't work like that.

00:21:24.840 On Twitter, the tweet is just about the thing.

00:21:27.560 That's the only thing you can conclude.

00:21:30.000 But if I do long form and I leave out with something that obviously I have plenty of time to put in there,

00:21:35.640 it probably does mean something.

00:21:36.700 So there's your explanation of how to interpret my Twitter personality,

00:21:43.620 which is entirely different from my long form personality.

00:21:48.840 Do you accept that?

00:21:51.520 Yeah.

00:21:52.180 Yeah.

00:21:52.680 If you only see me on Twitter, I'm a flip-flopping, backpedaling, indecisive guy.

00:22:00.740 Yeah.

00:22:01.260 Okay.

00:22:01.640 Well, now we've explained it.

00:22:02.680 Don't have to wonder about that anymore.

00:22:04.860 It's way too much about me.

00:22:06.700 But sometimes you have to do it.

00:22:09.000 All right.

00:22:09.400 Rasmussen asked what people thought about the whole Matt Gaetz and his band of rogues holding up Congress and the speakership.

00:22:18.380 And I was kind of curious about this.

00:22:21.020 But interestingly, 39% of voters say McCarthy was more to blame for the delay.

00:22:28.260 And about the same number, exactly the same,

00:22:30.800 39% believe that Matt Gaetz and the opponents to McCarthy were to blame.

00:22:37.880 What do you conclude from the fact that there are equal number of people who think McCarthy was to blame versus Matt Gaetz?

00:22:45.220 Give me your interpretation.

00:22:47.500 And that means what?

00:22:51.560 I'll give you my interpretation.

00:22:54.500 There you go.

00:22:55.200 Yeah.

00:22:55.900 Matt Gaetz won.

00:22:57.340 Matt Gaetz won.

00:22:58.000 Matt Gaetz won as hard as you can win.

00:23:01.220 Right?

00:23:02.440 Because here's what I expected.

00:23:05.480 If nothing good had come from this, Matt Gaetz would just look like an idiot.

00:23:10.680 Am I right?

00:23:11.080 If the public hadn't appreciated on some level that they were pushing, he would have lost.

00:23:19.500 I mean, he rolled the dice.

00:23:22.660 Sometimes you need people who have nothing to lose.

00:23:25.460 They're very valuable.

00:23:27.880 There's probably nothing more valuable to the Republic than somebody who has nothing to lose.

00:23:32.820 So his political fortunes were well stunted.

00:23:37.920 But he's back.

00:23:39.920 He became much more of a national name.

00:23:43.620 And he's now branded more for this at the moment than his other actions of the past.

00:23:52.600 What a win.

00:23:53.500 This is like the cleanest, smartest win in politics you might see this year.

00:24:01.500 All right.

00:24:01.920 Here's another story.

00:24:02.740 Apparently, the ex-CTO of the Trump Organization has been convicted of his tax-related crimes.

00:24:14.800 Apparently, he was receiving money in a variety of ways that he had control over because he was the CTO,

00:24:20.780 which allowed him to avoid taxes until he got caught.

00:24:25.160 One of those things was he paid a fake check to his wife so she could get Social Security.

00:24:34.520 That's pretty much a crime.

00:24:37.440 I pay Social Security.

00:24:39.320 I'd like everybody to get it who deserves it.

00:24:42.060 And nobody who doesn't.

00:24:43.880 But somehow, none of this affected Trump's family.

00:24:49.900 This crime, apparently, was very isolated to an individual, his own benefit.

00:24:55.740 It wasn't the Trump company benefit at all.

00:24:59.120 Indeed, he defrauded the Trump Organization.

00:25:03.800 Am I wrong about that?

00:25:06.200 This is an interpretation of mine.

00:25:08.540 But if what he was doing was taking money from the Trump Organization

00:25:11.880 and treating it like it wasn't compensation, that's what he got busted for.

00:25:17.660 So he didn't have to pay for it because it was treated as not compensation.

00:25:23.040 But did the Trump Organization get to write it off?

00:25:27.780 I'm not sure they got the same write-off because that's why you don't pay people in cash.

00:25:33.160 The reason the employer doesn't want to pay cash sometimes is because they don't get the write-off.

00:25:39.020 It's just money that disappeared.

00:25:40.940 So I don't know how they handled it.

00:25:42.260 They might have taken the write-off anyway in a different way.

00:25:44.440 But this is all a long way to get to the punchline of the story.

00:25:52.400 Does anybody know the last name of the CTO who apparently did some sketchy things with taxes?

00:26:00.520 What's his last name in the simulation?

00:26:04.460 What would the simulation name somebody like that?

00:26:07.240 Let me check.

00:26:10.920 His last name is Weaselberg.

00:26:15.400 Weaselberg.

00:26:19.920 That's a real thing.

00:26:21.660 That's his actual name, Weaselberg.

00:26:24.180 Now, I think it sounds racist.

00:26:26.940 You know, maybe that's why it's funny.

00:26:28.780 So we'll call that out.

00:26:32.360 We'll call that out as, you know, it may be that it's like vaguely racist, which is why it's funny.

00:26:36.880 But it's the weasel part that's the funny.

00:26:39.160 Like, if you have a weasel writing your name, let me just give you some advice.

00:26:46.880 If you're looking to hire somebody who will be in charge of your money,

00:26:50.120 Hey, I'd like to hire you to be in charge of my money.

00:26:55.240 Don't hire anybody who has a name like Weasel or Thief or McSteeler.

00:27:05.580 Let's take it into a more diverse domain.

00:27:10.540 If his last name is McTheft, just think twice.

00:27:16.180 We've got a new CTO.

00:27:17.460 His name is Bob McTheft.

00:27:21.680 Think twice.

00:27:22.880 Think twice.

00:27:24.780 All right.

00:27:25.080 Well, the FAA computers were down, which grounded most of the domestic flights.

00:27:30.680 Are they back?

00:27:32.200 Do you have an update yet?

00:27:33.500 The flights were supposed to be back online like right now, but I doubt it.

00:27:38.400 Oh, yes.

00:27:39.160 They're actually back up.

00:27:40.920 Okay.

00:27:41.540 So it wasn't the most critical system.

00:27:44.440 There was some kind of a notification system that was down, but it was important enough because you have to have your notifications if there's any problems or danger.

00:27:53.440 The thought was that it was not a cyber crime.

00:27:59.900 Nobody hacked them.

00:28:01.420 And do you know on what basis the White House spokesperson said it was not a cyber crime?

00:28:10.100 Do you know what evidence was presented to suggest it was not a hacking problem?

00:28:15.520 Oh, none.

00:28:19.940 None.

00:28:21.780 But don't worry about it.

00:28:23.700 Now, my guess is it probably wasn't a hacking situation, but it could have been.

00:28:28.480 I don't think you could know in the fog of war, like when it first happens in the first few hours.

00:28:35.260 Do you think the White House knows what the problem is?

00:28:37.160 I doubt the FAA even knows the problem yet.

00:28:41.040 So how can you, you know, rule something out?

00:28:44.000 But here's my the funniest take.

00:28:46.320 Of course, Pete Buttigieg being the secretary of transportation, he's, you know, in the hot seat.

00:28:53.040 Now, let me ask you this.

00:28:54.180 When you first heard that Pete Buttigieg would be the secretary of transportation, did you not say to yourself, well, there's a sleepy job where he'll be forgotten and nothing important is ever going to happen?

00:29:09.540 I kind of thought we would never hear from him again.

00:29:12.920 But it turns out that maybe, maybe the Democrats knew how to end his political career.

00:29:18.380 It's like this guy's getting a little, he's getting a little too much attention.

00:29:21.560 Let's put him in the Department of Transportation, because I think we've got some problems coming.

00:29:28.300 That Department of Transportation has some big problems coming.

00:29:31.680 We better put Pete there and see what he can do.

00:29:34.220 Now, what in the world can Pete Buttigieg actually do about the FAA's computer problems?

00:29:40.500 Will he make a statement?

00:29:42.280 I'm just going to guess.

00:29:43.960 I think he's going to make a statement saying it's very important that things work properly.

00:29:49.500 Yes, yes, that feels fair.

00:29:52.400 He says they should work properly, and we're going to do everything we can, pretty generic, to make sure this never happens again, and we'll make sure that whoever is responsible is held to account.

00:30:08.080 So, problem solved.

00:30:10.320 Pete Buttigieg is going to say some words on television.

00:30:12.720 Do you think he's going to say a bunch of statements on TV that will cause the person who is trying to fix the problem,

00:30:28.780 I think I found that bug, to get distracted?

00:30:32.600 And if Pete Buttigieg distracts the people trying to solve the problem, how long does it take him to get back to the problem?

00:30:41.740 25 minutes, according to CNN.

00:30:44.180 25 minutes.

00:30:45.960 So, I think it's hilarious he's going to get the blame, and there's absolutely nothing he can do to fix it, except say stuff on TV.

00:30:54.700 But he's good at saying stuff on TV, so at least he's got that going for him.

00:31:00.940 All right, you all want to talk about those classified government documents that were found in Biden's office at the University of Pennsylvania,

00:31:10.100 where he had an office to do some important-sounding things.

00:31:16.720 We don't know if he ever showed up to that office.

00:31:18.780 That was between his vice presidency and his presidency for several years.

00:31:22.980 And we know that as soon as that office started, the Biden blah, blah, blah office,

00:31:29.120 that China donated a whole bunch of money to the college,

00:31:32.780 and some of that money may have gone to fund his million dollars a year pay for doing who knows what.

00:31:39.740 So, it appears that we have untangled, we, the right-leaning press and those of us watching,

00:31:47.060 have untangled how the, pretty much how the Bidens profit from China and profit from their positions.

00:31:57.360 And it looks obvious to me.

00:31:59.420 Am I missing something?

00:32:01.180 Is it not obvious that Biden was being used as an attractor for Chinese funding?

00:32:09.440 And why in the world was China funding the University of Pennsylvania's anything?

00:32:15.480 Maybe we should start there.

00:32:18.120 Why in the world, why in the world was China funding anything at the University of Pennsylvania?

00:32:25.320 Anything.

00:32:26.820 Anything at all.

00:32:28.420 Just anything.

00:32:29.000 Why is that okay?

00:32:32.280 Why is that okay?

00:32:34.080 That should be so not okay.

00:32:37.980 Then we heard the story, if you were watching Tucker Carlson last night, it was another master class.

00:32:44.120 You know, every once in a while there would be a news topic where only Tucker Carlson can do it right.

00:32:49.960 Have you noticed that?

00:32:52.040 Have you had that experience yet?

00:32:53.560 You know, there's some things that only Tucker can do right.

00:32:57.480 Right.

00:32:57.620 And he just, it was just a master class yesterday.

00:33:01.220 Just the way he was tying everything together.

00:33:04.020 It was very entertaining, very informative.

00:33:07.760 It's about as good as you can do anything on television, honestly.

00:33:12.220 He is so at the top of his game.

00:33:13.740 It's just fun to watch.

00:33:14.980 Even if you disagree with him, you'd have to agree that his, you know, his work right now is just crazy good.

00:33:22.380 On a lot of topics.

00:33:23.440 But one of the things he mentioned, which I hadn't heard, is that we now know that a professor at University of Pennsylvania contacted, I guess, Biden's granddaughter, who was attending there.

00:33:40.880 Suspiciously, everybody in the Biden family is smart enough to get into an Ivy League school because he's associated with it.

00:33:47.940 You know, no big surprise there.

00:33:50.200 But she was offered from China to have an expense paid business class trip, hotel paid for, come to China and attend some seminar.

00:34:00.080 And the professor said directly, you know, it's because of your family connection.

00:34:07.620 And this is the way China does business.

00:34:09.800 And it's just right there.

00:34:14.480 It's like right in front of you.

00:34:16.780 What possible benefit could Biden's granddaughter have to China? 0.84

00:34:23.580 China's really like, oh, we'll never be able to handle our demographic collapse unless we hear from Biden's granddaughter, who's still in college. 0.92

00:34:33.640 So you've got this money flow that clearly ended up in Biden's pocket indirectly from China to the University of Pennsylvania to Biden.

00:34:44.120 And then you've got the flow directly to his granddaughter.

00:34:47.280 I don't remember if she said yes or no, but, you know, it was there.

00:34:51.240 Yeah, the think tank, the think tank.

00:34:53.560 So I guess it was a think tank at the University of Pennsylvania.

00:34:57.560 But really, it was a fundraising mechanism, it looks like.

00:35:01.580 Yeah, it's just cultural differences.

00:35:02.940 Yes, it's just a cultural difference.

00:35:05.460 The Chinese just like to talk to people who are connected to people.

00:35:09.720 Just a cultural difference.

00:35:12.160 So every part of that looks funny.

00:35:14.400 But the funniest part is watching the Democrats explain why Biden's classified documents were completely different than Trump's.

00:35:26.220 Have you ever heard me say that analogies never work for winning an argument?

00:35:32.940 And so we have this natural analogy.

00:35:35.460 So people's brains are just obviously going to compare it to the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents.

00:35:40.920 Can't help it.

00:35:42.100 Is that a fair comparison?

00:35:44.560 Well, yes, if you know how to use an analogy.

00:35:48.320 And no, if you don't.

00:35:50.840 Here would be the proper way to use an analogy.

00:35:53.220 Oh, there are some important parts of both of these stories that are similar.

00:35:58.780 The wrong way, the wrong way to use an analogy is the way the Democrats are doing it.

00:36:05.380 Oh, this is so different.

00:36:08.560 Are you kidding me?

00:36:09.980 I can't believe that Republicans are trying to make this, trying to make political hay out of this.

00:36:15.720 These stories are so different.

00:36:17.120 For example, one of them happened to Biden.

00:36:19.820 And one of them happened to Trump.

00:36:22.000 I mean, how could you call that the same?

00:36:25.260 What, you think Biden and Trump are the same person?

00:36:27.760 Just listen to Joy Behar.

00:36:30.020 Joy Behar explains it this way.

00:36:32.520 Since we know that Joe Biden is honest and not a thief, as opposed to what you know about Trump, she would say.

00:36:39.780 Then you could know that Biden's explanation of why they were there and that it was probably an accident must be true.

00:36:47.200 Because you start with a conclusion that a person is honest and he doesn't lie.

00:36:54.340 There's no evidence of Biden lying, apparently, according to Joy Behar.

00:36:58.620 No evidence at all that he's a liar.

00:37:01.100 But also no evidence of theft, at least in a mugging you with a gun kind of way.

00:37:07.580 And so since we know that Biden is this good person, but we know, by contrast, that orange man bad, people, how can you compare the best man you've ever heard of, Joe Biden, with his honesty?

00:37:25.020 How do you compare that to orange man bad? 0.81

00:37:26.920 I mean, that's like night and day, night and day.

00:37:30.160 And so the Democrats have literally, they're literally selling to their public that they can start with the conclusion that he's honest and use that to reason backwards to the crime didn't happen.

00:37:47.660 I'm not making that up.

00:37:49.900 You check for yourself.

00:37:52.020 Joy Behar said that on TV.

00:37:54.160 If you're starting with an honest person, you can reason backwards to know the crime didn't happen.

00:37:58.380 Do you know who was honest until he wasn't?

00:38:03.780 Alan Wieselberg.

00:38:07.740 Until he was accused and convicted of cheating on tax-related stuff, he had no criminal record.

00:38:16.980 As far as anybody knew, he was the honest guy who never stole anything.

00:38:22.080 Until he didn't.

00:38:24.080 So why don't the Democrats use their same logic?

00:38:26.440 He hadn't done any crimes for 74 years or whatever.

00:38:32.440 Therefore, if you think he did a crime, you can reason backwards to prove he didn't.

00:38:36.880 Because he's not a criminal.

00:38:40.060 How can you do a crime if you're not a criminal?

00:38:43.280 Duh.

00:38:43.540 Well, now, so CNN and everybody else is trying hard to explain this as completely different.

00:38:53.760 Now, I'm using an exaggerated example.

00:38:57.060 But the differences that they say are completely ridiculous.

00:39:01.540 Sometimes they're talking about the contents.

00:39:05.860 And they're thinking it's completely different.

00:39:08.080 Because there were different contents.

00:39:11.500 You don't know what the contents are of either one.

00:39:14.640 You probably never will.

00:39:16.880 How do you know the contents were different?

00:39:19.780 Those two things we'll never know.

00:39:21.380 The contents.

00:39:22.060 How about when Trump's documents were discovered, the Democrats were saying, it's going to risk these sources and methods.

00:39:34.520 And my God, it could be nuclear secrets.

00:39:37.740 And that's totally different than the unknown documents that happen to be about three countries that are the most sensitive in our world.

00:39:44.880 So, am I wrong that watching the Democrats try to respond to this is hilarious?

00:39:52.740 I'm not wrong, right?

00:39:55.040 It's literally hilarious watching them spin.

00:39:59.100 It's really fun.

00:40:01.780 Now, let's see what else is happening.

00:40:07.340 Here are some things that CNN said.

00:40:09.920 So, Stephen Collinson, you might know him.

00:40:12.700 He's the major anti-Trump guy.

00:40:14.880 Back when CNN was more directly biased.

00:40:20.280 And I'll give CNN some credit.

00:40:22.360 They've definitely made a shift.

00:40:23.740 But they've got some work to do.

00:40:25.620 They're moving in the right direction.

00:40:27.080 Toward the middle.

00:40:27.760 But some work to do.

00:40:29.560 And here's how Stephen Collinson said it.

00:40:32.940 Quote, Republicans are dot, dot, dot.

00:40:35.400 Because I'm leaving out an unimportant part of the sentence.

00:40:38.040 Republicans are dot, dot, dot.

00:40:39.680 Belatedly voicing concerns.

00:40:42.000 Why are they belatedly voicing concerns?

00:40:45.320 What makes the Republicans' voicing of the concerns belated?

00:40:52.840 What would you intuit from that?

00:40:55.460 I would intuit from that that they've known about it for a long time.

00:40:58.760 And they didn't think it was important until now.

00:41:01.880 So now they're bringing it up because they're going to make some political hay out of it, right?

00:41:06.660 No.

00:41:07.180 The reason it's belated is because Biden hid it from the public until now because he wanted to hide it until the midterms were over.

00:41:20.000 Didn't they hide it until the midterms were over?

00:41:22.000 By the way, give me a fact check on that.

00:41:24.020 I don't want to be wrong on that.

00:41:25.260 It's being reported that they hid it, they knew it, and they concealed it until after the midterms.

00:41:35.620 Amazing.

00:41:37.100 Amazing.

00:41:37.620 All right.

00:41:40.100 So the belated is a propaganda word.

00:41:43.860 There was nothing belated about what the Republicans did.

00:41:47.320 The Republicans pounced.

00:41:49.220 So if you're on the left, whatever the Democrats do is either a pounce or it's belated.

00:41:59.440 There's no such thing as Republicans doing something in the right time and appropriate way.

00:42:05.900 It's either pouncing or belated.

00:42:08.760 I was pouncing.

00:42:10.220 I was pouncing.

00:42:11.180 I was pouncing.

00:42:12.000 Now it's belated.

00:42:13.520 Too late.

00:42:14.680 Too late.

00:42:15.540 Too...

00:42:15.960 Yeah.

00:42:17.020 I know you tried to transition from pouncing into just right, but you didn't make it.

00:42:23.480 You didn't make it.

00:42:24.600 Well, you went all the way to belated.

00:42:26.460 Sorry.

00:42:27.540 Credibility gone.

00:42:31.000 All right.

00:42:31.640 What else?

00:42:32.180 I love you looking at the word choice because that's where all the bias comes out.

00:42:39.040 And then this again.

00:42:41.540 According to available evidence so far,

00:42:44.300 Now, when did a CNN opinion person ever say,

00:42:50.820 according to the evidence so far?

00:42:53.860 Only with Biden.

00:42:56.680 Do you think they've ever used that phrase, talking about Trump?

00:43:00.300 Maybe they have, but I would imagine it's less often.

00:43:03.620 Right?

00:43:03.760 Maybe with Trump, they'd say, what if?

00:43:08.420 With Trump, they wouldn't say, available evidence so far.

00:43:12.500 They would say, it might be nuclear.

00:43:15.720 It might be sources and methods.

00:43:17.860 We may have compromised the entire intelligence operation of the United States.

00:43:22.380 We may have surrendered to Russia. 0.76

00:43:25.460 That's the way they would handle it.

00:43:29.240 But with Biden, it's like, well, available evidence so far.

00:43:33.840 I mean, so far.

00:43:35.220 So far, Alan Weaselberg has never done a thing.

00:43:37.660 And then the next part of the same sentence.

00:43:44.340 According to available evidence so far,

00:43:46.100 Biden appears to be giving it to Americans straight,

00:43:50.080 as he promised to do on the campaign trail.

00:43:53.940 Did he promise to give it to Americans straight on the campaign trail

00:43:59.360 before or after he used the find people hoax as his main campaign theme?

00:44:08.960 Literally, Biden ran on the most well-known lie in American politics.

00:44:15.640 Now, well-known by, let's say, half of the country.

00:44:18.980 But well-documented.

00:44:20.300 I mean, there's no question about it.

00:44:22.000 It's a lie.

00:44:23.940 He literally ran his campaign on a lie.

00:44:27.680 And he still says that Trump suggested drinking bleach.

00:44:31.640 A lie.

00:44:32.880 He didn't say any other kind of disinfectant except light.

00:44:40.180 Now, this is hilarious to me.

00:44:44.720 All right.

00:44:47.480 But yet, so Stephen Collinson wants to soften this.

00:44:50.620 He doesn't want to look like some kind of a pro-Biden,

00:44:53.940 completely in-the-tank kind of guy.

00:44:56.000 Well, you know, his bosses have told him to, like, play a straight.

00:44:59.960 So he softens that.

00:45:00.900 He says, yet that does not mean we shouldn't have to consider questions

00:45:04.820 about how the documents came to be in that office.

00:45:09.100 Listen to the sentence.

00:45:10.720 Yet that does not mean we shouldn't.

00:45:13.160 When do you ever write a sentence like that?

00:45:16.220 It does not mean we shouldn't.

00:45:19.440 Wouldn't another way to write that sentence, Joshua Lysak,

00:45:23.640 wouldn't a better way to say, there's a good reason to do this?

00:45:28.900 Shouldn't you say, we'd better look into this?

00:45:31.740 There's certainly a strong signal that says we shouldn't research it.

00:45:35.840 Why would you not use a direct sentence?

00:45:38.840 Do you know when people don't use direct sentences?

00:45:42.200 It's when they're trying to decrease your reading comprehension.

00:45:46.200 Literally.

00:45:47.820 Literally.

00:45:49.160 This is a sentence that's written to decrease your ability to understand it.

00:45:53.960 It's written as a double negative.

00:45:55.640 If he wanted you to understand it, he would say, it's important we look into it.

00:46:02.660 How hard would that be?

00:46:04.680 How hard is it to say, you know, we don't think there's anything there?

00:46:08.960 I mean, that's an opinion, right?

00:46:11.200 A reasonable opinion would be, there's no evidence of anything bad.

00:46:16.300 True.

00:46:17.300 True.

00:46:18.160 And then, but it's important we look into it.

00:46:20.400 By the time you're done with his double negative,

00:46:25.880 you're not even sure what he was talking about.

00:46:33.440 Let's see, what else?

00:46:36.260 Let's say, special counsel, or he talks about Trump as the comparison.

00:46:43.960 And also, the Democrats are complaining that the Republicans are going to take advantage

00:46:53.520 of this for political purposes.

00:46:55.840 Can you imagine that?

00:46:57.680 Oh, can we all share some disgust that the Republicans would, really?

00:47:04.340 You would try to take advantage of the fact that the guy who's been blaming you for a jailable

00:47:12.040 crime was committing the crime as he was accusing you?

00:47:17.040 Oh, and you're going to make that a thing?

00:47:19.540 Well, suddenly, suddenly that's important.

00:47:22.120 Oh, oh, belatedly?

00:47:24.280 So belatedly, now suddenly it's important if you've got top secret government documents

00:47:31.080 in your office.

00:47:32.100 Oh, yeah.

00:47:32.740 Oh, yeah.

00:47:33.060 Suddenly that's important.

00:47:34.340 You can't even describe the Democrat position on this without making a face like you're

00:47:42.460 an idiot. 0.91

00:47:44.040 Like I could try.

00:47:45.200 Watch.

00:47:46.700 I'm going to try to describe the Democrat view.

00:47:51.300 I'm going to try to keep a straight face and see how long I can maintain it.

00:47:54.680 Hold on, hold on.

00:47:58.880 Okay, let me try.

00:47:59.920 And we can see that the documents in the University of Penn that Biden had there, we can see that

00:48:08.800 there's a completely different, very different case than the Trump documents because the Trump

00:48:14.620 documents seem to seem to have like top secret information.

00:48:19.880 I don't know.

00:48:21.120 But, whoa, completely different.

00:48:27.000 I couldn't do it.

00:48:28.000 I couldn't do it.

00:48:29.080 All right, so I was watching CNN failing on this topic.

00:48:34.140 A hilarious thing.

00:48:35.660 I don't know the name of the correspondent, but if you saw Anderson Cooper talking to one

00:48:41.160 of their CNN correspondents about this topic, you could see Anderson Cooper understanding

00:48:49.240 what his employer wanted him to do, which is not overly politicizing.

00:48:54.840 And I thought during the brief clip I watched, I thought he did.

00:48:59.680 I thought he actually was trying to cover it as a story which has facts, and then we'll

00:49:06.100 just give you the facts.

00:49:07.680 But his correspondent did the Trump face.

00:49:13.020 Do you know what the Trump face is?

00:49:14.740 It's when a CNN or an MSNBC person talks about Trump, and they do the face.

00:49:21.060 And I'll just make this one up, but it's like, you know, if you're not doing the face, you'd

00:49:25.700 say, and President Trump had very similar, you know, situation with his documents.

00:49:31.240 But here's the CNN face or the MSNBC face about Trump.

00:49:37.000 Like, and a lot of people are saying Trump had a similar situation, but it's obvious it's

00:49:44.520 very different.

00:49:46.080 It's very different.

00:49:47.020 Like, when you see the CNN face, the MSNBC face, that is either, I can't, I'm not sure

00:49:59.560 how to interpret it, because I can't tell if they believe what they're saying, because

00:50:03.680 this is a trigger for cognitive dissonance.

00:50:07.200 So in theory, they should be just operating in cognitive dissonance and don't know that

00:50:12.100 they're being ridiculous.

00:50:12.900 I think maybe they don't know, but other times they must know they're lying.

00:50:18.780 Don't you think?

00:50:20.760 It does look like they should know they're lying, meaning saying that the comparison is

00:50:26.280 inappropriate.

00:50:27.380 It's a very appropriate comparison.

00:50:30.540 Now, I don't think you should treat one the same just because there's some similarities.

00:50:34.320 They have to still be treated individually.

00:50:36.500 But the comparison is fair. 0.95

00:50:38.840 You know, it's a fair comparison.

00:50:40.500 And I actually thought Anderson Cooper was feeling uncomfortable, but that's probably just me

00:50:47.420 reading it into it, because here's something I like to say often.

00:50:54.640 Anderson Cooper is very smart, as are, I would guess, most of the people on CNN.

00:51:01.600 So he must have known, as he was listening to the correspondent, I feel like he knew the

00:51:09.980 same as I did, because it was obvious, that Anderson was trying to do his actual job as

00:51:15.640 his employer wants him to do it, which gives us the facts.

00:51:19.640 Whereas his correspondent was clearly still on the Orange Man Bad channel.

00:51:25.380 It's like she hadn't got the memo from Chris Licht, I don't know how to say his name, the new boss.

00:51:34.300 And I felt like Anderson was probably thinking, and again, this is just my mind.

00:51:38.080 I don't know what Anderson Cooper is thinking, of course.

00:51:40.900 But in my mind, it looked like he was being uncomfortable, because like, did you not get the memo?

00:51:45.620 We're not supposed to act like that anymore.

00:51:47.520 It's not all about Orange Man Bad anymore.

00:51:49.920 Sometimes we can just tell the news.

00:51:53.460 So I'll make a distinction between Anderson Cooper, who appeared to be playing it the way

00:51:59.380 you would want him to, and his correspondent, whose name I can't remember.

00:52:06.120 So the Republicans, now that they've got control of the House, and they've got their own speaker

00:52:10.120 and everything, they're starting this big committee to investigate the, quote, weaponization

00:52:14.560 of the government.

00:52:15.240 Of course, it was approved on a straight party line concept, and they're going to look into

00:52:21.000 Biden administration efforts, they say, to influence, well, it's pretty well documented,

00:52:27.660 to influence content on social media platforms.

00:52:31.020 Now, what do you think of that?

00:52:35.100 What is your impression of the, let's talk first about the branding of it.

00:52:41.080 What do you think of the branding of it as, quote, weaponization of the government?

00:52:45.240 Does that sound right?

00:52:48.600 Does that sound like that's the proper way to frame it?

00:52:54.520 No.

00:52:56.560 No.

00:52:57.480 No.

00:52:57.980 If you think that's right, you're just being political.

00:53:01.660 That is so not right.

00:53:04.560 What did I just get done telling you?

00:53:07.200 I just got done telling you that the left was starting with a conclusion.

00:53:12.620 They're starting with the conclusion that Joe Biden is honest, therefore, everything he

00:53:17.420 did must have been appropriate.

00:53:20.520 The Republicans are trying the same play.

00:53:23.900 The Republicans are saying, weaponization of the government, and they're going to make

00:53:27.880 you think that that's a fact.

00:53:29.860 And then they're going to work backwards to prove it happened.

00:53:33.660 All right.

00:53:34.140 I'll tell you what did happen, for sure.

00:53:38.260 For sure, there were Democrats who took advantage of the fact that they could work with private

00:53:43.800 industry and get a good result.

00:53:46.620 That seems to be a fact.

00:53:48.340 Would you agree?

00:53:49.880 There is a pattern of Democrats working with private industry in a way that from the outside,

00:53:56.900 it looks like too much pressure and inappropriate for our Constitution and our system.

00:54:02.920 That seems true.

00:54:04.380 So I think that the things that they're looking for will definitely be there.

00:54:08.280 But do you think that weaponization of the government is a fair and balanced way to describe what

00:54:16.060 they're doing?

00:54:19.580 Now, I do get that they're trying to lump several things together, right?

00:54:25.360 So, for example, if you use the IRS to go after your enemies, I guess Obama did, right?

00:54:32.400 That's the reporting.

00:54:34.160 That would be a weaponization of government. 0.80

00:54:36.800 So if you were to take the IRS example and add it to, let's say, the, what do you call

00:54:43.620 it, the Patriot Act, where they're spying on people, that looks like weaponization.

00:54:50.220 If you look at the fine people hoax, that does look like a collusion between the Democrats

00:54:57.980 and the media.

00:54:59.320 That looks like weaponization.

00:55:01.100 If you look at all the other hoaxes, those are weaponization.

00:55:06.840 If you look at the laptop scheme, you know, saying that the laptop was, that looks like

00:55:14.020 weaponization.

00:55:14.580 So we do have a bunch of examples which absolutely fit that label, right?

00:55:22.660 There's no shortage of well-documented examples that you could put in that category.

00:55:28.740 I just have an objection with calling it the weaponization of government, even though it

00:55:36.120 is, because it's a little bit conclusion-y, right?

00:55:40.260 It's a little bit conclusion-y, it's a little too far for me.

00:55:45.180 And let me, now, do you see, do you see how, if I tweeted my opinion on this, it would

00:55:52.900 be taken wrong, right?

00:55:55.460 If I tweeted this, all I would say is, that seems like you're starting with a conclusion,

00:56:01.460 right?

00:56:02.800 It would look like I disagreed with having an investigation.

00:56:06.940 No, no, I disagree with that.

00:56:10.260 So on Twitter, they'll think that I'm attacking Republicans.

00:56:16.340 But if they see the live stream, they'll say, oh, I see you're totally on board with this

00:56:20.740 investigation.

00:56:21.680 I am totally on board.

00:56:22.960 But maybe the way they framed it is a little more political.

00:56:26.440 That's all.

00:56:27.600 Just be aware of it.

00:56:28.440 Thomas Massey spoke to this bill and used the word transparency.

00:56:39.940 That's what I want to say.

00:56:41.140 Yeah.

00:56:41.500 He described this as increasing transparency, because the public absolutely needs to know.

00:56:47.520 We absolutely need to know what happened.

00:56:49.500 If you're already concluding it was weaponization of the government, you've gone a little too

00:56:53.860 far too soon for me.

00:56:56.200 Just a personal preference.

00:56:58.300 But yes, when you see Thomas Massey speak, he says rational things that do not seem to be

00:57:07.640 intended for anything except helping the country.

00:57:09.840 Now, he went further and he said, make sure you put some serious Democrats on the investigation.

00:57:17.000 He said, they exist.

00:57:18.560 I've worked with them.

00:57:20.080 We've got legislation to get through.

00:57:23.560 So get some Democrats on the thing.

00:57:27.040 Now, when he says that, do you think he means it?

00:57:30.520 Or is that just a political thing?

00:57:32.580 What do you think?

00:57:33.180 Can't read his mind.

00:57:37.520 Nobody can read anybody's mind.

00:57:39.720 But everything he is, every action so far suggests he means it.

00:57:46.680 Because he approaches it like an engineer.

00:57:49.760 An engineer just looks at the engine and says, okay, this part needs to be replaced.

00:57:55.720 The politician looks at it and says, oh, this part's good, this part's bad.

00:58:00.220 Because this part agrees with me and this part doesn't.

00:58:03.180 Like, he's just looking at the engine.

00:58:05.580 And he's saying, this engine requires some oil in the form of transparency.

00:58:11.880 And if you're going to add that oil, the wrong way to do it is bipartisan.

00:58:18.280 The right way to do it is with, I'm sorry, the right way to do it is bipartisan.

00:58:23.320 So do it the way the machine needs it done, right?

00:58:27.040 If you look at the government as a machine, he's just saying, this part's broken.

00:58:31.720 Here's the oil to fix it. 0.92

00:58:34.080 You know, the transparency.

00:58:35.540 So of course we need it.

00:58:36.880 But the transparency won't be effective unless you put some serious Democrats on the committee.

00:58:42.100 Now, you tell me what politician has said something smarter or more useful than that lately.

00:58:54.380 Like, nothing.

00:58:55.820 Like, that's just the most practical, smart, clean narrative.

00:59:01.060 And I'll say everything's a narrative.

00:59:02.660 But some of them are clean, meaning that it's not overly politicized.

00:59:06.440 That was what I want to say, right?

00:59:09.420 I want him to be my president.

00:59:12.280 Like, just based on that.

00:59:13.800 Not just on that, of course.

00:59:15.440 But that's what I want to say.

00:59:17.400 Now, and he also said, the very words expressed by those opposed to the creation of this select committee

00:59:24.860 on the weaponization of the federal government demonstrate the dire need for it.

00:59:30.440 So in other words, the people arguing that you should not have more transparency

00:59:34.580 that's all you need.

00:59:38.200 That's the whole argument.

00:59:39.940 Wait a minute, wait a minute.

00:59:41.400 Are you telling me that the Republicans want transparency

00:59:44.340 and the Democrats are saying, no, if you get that transparency,

00:59:49.520 you can imagine all the problems.

00:59:52.100 All the problems.

00:59:52.740 See the face.

00:59:54.240 I can't even do it without the face.

00:59:56.520 You have to do the face to say things ridiculous.

00:59:59.360 It's like, oh, we don't want any transparency happening.

01:00:04.580 How do you even argue against transparency in public?

01:00:08.440 And I love the fact that Massey called them out.

01:00:10.680 If you're arguing against transparency, we really need some transparency.

01:00:16.900 Like, that is a good point.

01:00:18.180 They proved his point. 0.75

01:00:19.460 Which brings me to my related topic of useless people.

01:00:26.580 I need you to give me a bias check.

01:00:29.840 Okay?

01:00:30.940 I think there's something going on, a pattern,

01:00:34.300 but I could be completely in confirmation bias territory.

01:00:37.880 If there's one thing I can teach you

01:00:39.780 that I'll try to stay consistent to

01:00:43.120 is if you're having confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance,

01:00:46.900 you're the only one who doesn't know what's happening.

01:00:50.160 So if it's happening to me right now,

01:00:52.580 I'm the only one who doesn't know it.

01:00:55.720 Right?

01:00:56.420 Or you should be able to spot it.

01:00:58.980 So I'm going to tell you what I think is true

01:01:01.440 that even I think is, I don't know,

01:01:06.140 like it's even sketchy in my own mind

01:01:08.540 why I think this is true.

01:01:10.360 Right?

01:01:10.520 So here's my bias, and you tell me.

01:01:13.560 The people that the Democrats put forward

01:01:16.200 as their spokespeople

01:01:17.400 are different in a very important way

01:01:21.480 than the people the Republicans put forward.

01:01:25.400 Okay?

01:01:26.700 For example,

01:01:28.340 Democrats put Adam Schiff,

01:01:31.700 Swalwell.

01:01:33.340 On the entertainment side,

01:01:35.360 you would see your Joy Behar's.

01:01:37.520 So those are the kind of voices

01:01:40.720 that seem to get elevated on the left.

01:01:43.640 Now, what voices on the right?

01:01:47.020 Tom Cotton,

01:01:48.660 serious, smart guy.

01:01:51.040 Thomas Massey,

01:01:53.240 the most reasonable person

01:01:54.740 who's ever held office, in my opinion.

01:01:59.080 Let's see,

01:01:59.780 DeSantis,

01:02:01.440 one of the strongest,

01:02:02.380 Mike Lee,

01:02:02.920 reasonable,

01:02:05.620 strong,

01:02:06.900 in every way.

01:02:08.620 Right?

01:02:09.560 Now, I know some of you

01:02:10.540 have like some Tom Cotton issues

01:02:12.640 because he voted for something

01:02:14.500 that you couldn't avoid.

01:02:16.680 I don't know,

01:02:17.360 what was he supposed to do?

01:02:18.460 It didn't matter.

01:02:19.680 But,

01:02:20.120 but you tell me

01:02:23.220 that there's not a difference there.

01:02:26.540 Now, I have a theory

01:02:27.700 for why there's a difference.

01:02:29.700 You want to hear it?

01:02:31.120 Do you have a theory?

01:02:32.200 Like an actual theory

01:02:33.400 of how we got here

01:02:35.400 that you could say

01:02:36.520 yes or no to.

01:02:38.580 All right?

01:02:41.540 Here's my hypothesis.

01:02:43.140 Not a theory.

01:02:43.740 It's a hypothesis.

01:02:45.140 The hypothesis is

01:02:46.560 that because the Democrats

01:02:48.400 controlled all the canceling,

01:02:51.420 all the clowns on the right

01:02:53.180 got canceled.

01:02:56.160 If there were more clowns

01:02:57.780 on the right,

01:02:58.360 you would see them more.

01:02:59.840 But they got canceled.

01:03:01.780 If the canceling

01:03:05.180 had worked in the other way,

01:03:06.400 Schiff and Swallow

01:03:07.100 would have been canceled.

01:03:08.860 Am I right?

01:03:10.380 Right?

01:03:10.840 The crazy people on the left

01:03:12.320 have been free

01:03:13.640 to run,

01:03:14.340 run around

01:03:15.340 and get attention.

01:03:17.000 And the news

01:03:17.740 will always focus on

01:03:19.020 who?

01:03:20.320 The news will always go

01:03:21.620 for the crazy people.

01:03:23.360 But,

01:03:24.580 and I'll just give you

01:03:25.860 one example.

01:03:26.440 Now,

01:03:27.480 if you will allow me,

01:03:29.840 I'm using the phrase 1.00

01:03:31.100 crazy people

01:03:31.940 as a sort of a

01:03:34.840 approximate stand-in

01:03:36.320 for credibility.

01:03:38.300 Will you accept that?

01:03:40.320 When I say the crazy people

01:03:41.620 and the clowns,

01:03:42.400 I'm really talking about

01:03:43.220 credibility

01:03:43.920 mostly to the other side.

01:03:46.320 Because I think the Democrats

01:03:47.660 believe Schiff and Swallow,

01:03:49.020 right?

01:03:49.620 It's just,

01:03:50.320 you look like a clown

01:03:51.500 to the other side.

01:03:53.180 So,

01:03:54.500 imagine if you will

01:03:55.520 that Alex Jones

01:03:56.580 had never been canceled.

01:03:58.860 And that every time

01:03:59.740 there was a national story,

01:04:02.120 the press put Alex Jones

01:04:03.540 on for his comments.

01:04:05.380 And he was still

01:04:05.980 exactly Alex Jones.

01:04:08.400 Nothing's different.

01:04:09.740 Right?

01:04:10.940 Right?

01:04:11.220 I'm not trying to insult

01:04:12.280 Alex Jones.

01:04:13.280 I'm just saying

01:04:13.920 as a point of

01:04:15.120 objective truth,

01:04:17.400 he's considered

01:04:18.320 non-credible

01:04:19.200 by half of the country

01:04:20.420 at least.

01:04:21.460 Right?

01:04:22.460 So,

01:04:23.020 on the Republican side,

01:04:24.580 they never have to deal

01:04:25.380 with that

01:04:25.740 because they've already

01:04:26.300 been canceled.

01:04:28.680 So,

01:04:29.340 if Fox News

01:04:31.220 is looking for somebody

01:04:32.200 to put on for a comment,

01:04:34.560 they can't even find

01:04:35.520 a Joy Behar.

01:04:38.360 Canceled.

01:04:40.140 All they can find

01:04:41.240 is like a serious senator

01:04:42.780 or a serious

01:04:43.700 member of Congress.

01:04:46.160 That's all they got.

01:04:47.500 So,

01:04:47.720 they have to...

01:04:48.280 Now,

01:04:48.780 what do you think

01:04:49.220 of the hypothesis?

01:04:49.860 that the canceling

01:04:52.340 worked against

01:04:53.520 the Democrats

01:04:54.160 in a very

01:04:54.660 non-obvious way?

01:04:56.400 What do you think?

01:05:01.820 Yeah,

01:05:02.300 I think there's

01:05:03.140 something to it.

01:05:03.980 It's not the whole story,

01:05:05.780 but there's definitely

01:05:06.380 something to it.

01:05:08.640 And I think

01:05:09.500 we need some kind

01:05:10.180 of new name

01:05:10.860 for the useless people

01:05:12.380 because useless

01:05:13.720 is, you know,

01:05:14.300 sort of

01:05:14.780 not fun.

01:05:15.520 And also,

01:05:19.860 that worse

01:05:20.220 than Watergate guy,

01:05:23.340 you know,

01:05:23.920 Bernstein.

01:05:24.960 Now,

01:05:25.300 the worse

01:05:25.640 than Watergate guy

01:05:26.500 is literally

01:05:27.500 just a clown,

01:05:28.460 isn't he?

01:05:29.760 Not literally,

01:05:30.640 but you know

01:05:30.940 what I mean.

01:05:31.560 If you bring

01:05:32.260 the worse

01:05:32.640 than Watergate guy

01:05:33.500 on just to say

01:05:35.040 it's worse

01:05:35.460 than Watergate,

01:05:36.560 which is all

01:05:37.420 he's done for years.

01:05:38.820 That's all he does.

01:05:40.780 How do you

01:05:41.440 take that seriously?

01:05:42.260 Now,

01:05:44.320 let me ask you,

01:05:45.560 what does the right

01:05:46.840 do when they have

01:05:47.960 somebody who's like that?

01:05:51.380 What does Fox News do

01:05:52.960 if there's somebody

01:05:54.140 in their universe

01:05:55.000 who's sort of

01:05:57.120 the Carl Bernstein?

01:06:00.260 They move them

01:06:01.180 to a show

01:06:01.620 on Fox Nation.

01:06:06.960 I'm not going

01:06:07.740 to name names,

01:06:08.560 but they put

01:06:10.060 their least credible

01:06:10.960 people into the,

01:06:13.340 what do you call it,

01:06:14.300 the minor leagues?

01:06:15.660 They put them

01:06:16.300 in the minor leagues.

01:06:18.140 And they still

01:06:18.980 have a show

01:06:19.700 and an audience

01:06:20.400 and people are happy.

01:06:22.080 People who watch

01:06:22.800 the show are happy.

01:06:24.500 But they do

01:06:25.520 take it off

01:06:26.080 of the main

01:06:26.700 enterprise.

01:06:30.640 There's a difference.

01:06:31.940 All right.

01:06:32.700 There's a story

01:06:33.300 that the left

01:06:33.880 wants to ban

01:06:34.600 gas stoves,

01:06:36.400 apparently based

01:06:37.780 on no data

01:06:38.820 whatsoever,

01:06:39.340 but they're not

01:06:40.600 banning existing

01:06:41.560 ones.

01:06:42.080 They would ban

01:06:42.640 sale of new ones.

01:06:44.680 But I can't

01:06:45.400 in my,

01:06:46.300 I just can't

01:06:47.000 imagine this will

01:06:47.620 happen.

01:06:49.000 Can you?

01:06:50.240 Now,

01:06:50.720 they say it's

01:06:51.580 because

01:06:52.040 there's a,

01:06:54.020 you know,

01:06:54.200 ventilation problem

01:06:55.160 in some homes.

01:06:55.980 Probably,

01:06:56.360 probably there is.

01:06:57.320 But apparently

01:06:57.860 there's no data

01:06:58.560 to back it.

01:06:59.400 And if you're

01:06:59.900 well ventilated,

01:07:00.660 it doesn't seem

01:07:01.340 to be a problem

01:07:02.000 based on tests.

01:07:04.640 So,

01:07:05.180 I don't know.

01:07:05.820 It's just a silly

01:07:06.820 little thing.

01:07:07.420 I don't think

01:07:08.040 it's going to

01:07:08.380 become law,

01:07:09.020 but anything

01:07:09.460 could happen.

01:07:10.540 Did you know,

01:07:11.280 according to

01:07:11.640 the Will Street

01:07:12.180 Journal,

01:07:12.640 that oil and

01:07:13.240 gas production

01:07:14.720 are booming

01:07:15.220 in the United

01:07:15.740 States?

01:07:16.960 Gas production

01:07:17.900 is at an

01:07:18.460 all-time high.

01:07:20.820 All right.

01:07:21.780 Now,

01:07:22.400 here I'm going

01:07:22.900 to do something

01:07:23.440 that the Twitter

01:07:24.160 people would

01:07:24.880 never see.

01:07:26.440 This is something

01:07:27.220 I only do in

01:07:27.880 long form,

01:07:28.600 but rarely in

01:07:29.300 short form.

01:07:30.480 I'm going to

01:07:31.120 say that the

01:07:31.840 Biden administration

01:07:32.800 did something

01:07:33.480 right.

01:07:36.080 Not everything.

01:07:37.420 But I do

01:07:39.580 believe that

01:07:40.480 from a purely

01:07:41.160 financial perspective,

01:07:43.280 squashing Russia's 1.00

01:07:45.560 energy program

01:07:46.600 is probably

01:07:48.520 good for business.

01:07:50.780 And I've said

01:07:51.660 this before,

01:07:52.260 that I think

01:07:53.540 there's a really

01:07:54.200 good chance

01:07:54.960 that the

01:07:56.520 Biden-Ukraine

01:07:57.800 focus,

01:07:58.460 which never

01:07:59.020 made sense

01:07:59.560 to a lot

01:07:59.980 of us,

01:08:00.880 I think it's

01:08:01.480 going to be

01:08:01.760 a good investment.

01:08:02.400 It's way

01:08:04.640 too early

01:08:05.040 to say,

01:08:06.040 because anything

01:08:06.580 could happen,

01:08:07.260 you know,

01:08:07.460 war is war. 0.61

01:08:08.460 But at the

01:08:09.260 moment,

01:08:09.500 it looks like

01:08:10.000 it's working

01:08:10.660 as an actual

01:08:12.380 investment.

01:08:13.700 I never would,

01:08:14.660 oh, NPR

01:08:15.180 said it yesterday?

01:08:16.460 Yeah,

01:08:16.800 that could turn

01:08:17.400 into a narrative.

01:08:19.980 Now,

01:08:20.620 here's where I'm

01:08:21.280 trying to be

01:08:21.900 an honest broker

01:08:22.900 on this.

01:08:24.180 If Trump

01:08:25.500 had been the

01:08:26.100 one behind

01:08:27.180 this Ukraine

01:08:27.960 stuff,

01:08:29.060 don't you think

01:08:29.820 I would be saying

01:08:30.560 it was a good

01:08:31.080 investment?

01:08:32.700 You would

01:08:33.200 expect that,

01:08:33.780 right?

01:08:34.300 Because it

01:08:34.800 looks like

01:08:35.140 it might

01:08:35.400 be.

01:08:36.300 And so

01:08:36.600 I'll just

01:08:37.100 say the

01:08:37.380 same thing

01:08:37.740 about Biden.

01:08:38.900 If what we

01:08:39.740 did was spend,

01:08:40.640 let's say in

01:08:41.080 the end we

01:08:41.460 spent $200

01:08:42.140 billion.

01:08:43.900 If we

01:08:44.500 spend $200

01:08:45.140 billion and

01:08:46.220 take Russia 0.93

01:08:47.020 out of the

01:08:47.580 energy game,

01:08:49.360 you know,

01:08:49.680 or degrade it

01:08:50.700 enough so our

01:08:51.400 energy program

01:08:52.300 takes off,

01:08:53.500 I think it

01:08:55.080 was worthwhile

01:08:55.720 financially.

01:08:58.020 Certainly not

01:08:58.820 in terms of

01:08:59.400 life and

01:09:00.120 destruction.

01:09:00.560 and the

01:09:01.460 things that

01:09:01.860 happened over

01:09:02.840 there, but

01:09:04.160 financially.

01:09:05.860 So don't be

01:09:06.780 surprised about

01:09:07.660 that.

01:09:09.740 I have a

01:09:10.660 new strategy

01:09:11.300 to suggest to

01:09:12.180 the Ukrainians

01:09:12.940 because I

01:09:13.520 know they've

01:09:14.700 been waiting

01:09:15.080 for this.

01:09:16.840 So there's a

01:09:17.760 little bit of

01:09:18.100 news coming out

01:09:18.800 that could be

01:09:19.280 interpreted

01:09:19.640 different ways.

01:09:20.920 Here's something

01:09:21.500 that the people

01:09:22.100 who watch

01:09:22.560 Twitter only

01:09:23.500 will never

01:09:24.760 know about

01:09:25.320 me.

01:09:26.460 I do not

01:09:27.420 believe anything

01:09:28.440 that comes out

01:09:29.120 of Ukraine

01:09:29.640 pro or

01:09:31.540 negative

01:09:32.060 Ukrainians

01:09:33.560 or Russians.

01:09:35.180 It's all

01:09:36.160 unreliable

01:09:36.880 information.

01:09:38.180 I do,

01:09:38.720 however,

01:09:39.180 speak about

01:09:39.920 it in some

01:09:40.520 cases as

01:09:42.240 if it's

01:09:42.660 true.

01:09:43.580 But I tell

01:09:44.420 you that

01:09:44.700 directly.

01:09:45.500 I'm speaking

01:09:46.080 as if it's

01:09:46.920 true.

01:09:47.240 We don't

01:09:47.500 know.

01:09:48.220 Can't trust

01:09:49.000 anything.

01:09:49.680 All right?

01:09:50.100 So one of the

01:09:50.920 reports,

01:09:51.540 as if it's

01:09:52.460 true,

01:09:53.040 is that the

01:09:53.700 Russian artillery

01:09:54.440 strikes are

01:09:55.060 down 75%

01:09:56.320 in some

01:09:57.800 important

01:09:58.180 places.

01:09:59.200 Now,

01:09:59.880 how would

01:10:00.340 you interpret

01:10:00.720 that?

01:10:01.700 Is it

01:10:02.320 because it's

01:10:03.180 winter and

01:10:04.800 there aren't

01:10:05.160 going to be

01:10:05.440 any gains

01:10:05.980 either way

01:10:06.500 and there's

01:10:06.900 not much

01:10:07.340 benefit of

01:10:08.100 artillery?

01:10:09.120 Is it

01:10:09.740 because they're

01:10:10.420 saving it

01:10:11.100 for a big

01:10:12.220 push? 0.56

01:10:13.340 Is it that

01:10:14.140 they're saving

01:10:14.700 it for the

01:10:15.140 spring?

01:10:16.420 Or are they

01:10:17.200 running out

01:10:17.660 of artillery

01:10:18.120 shells?

01:10:20.380 Don't know,

01:10:21.160 do you?

01:10:22.220 But there's

01:10:23.080 at least some

01:10:23.620 suggestion that

01:10:24.320 they might be

01:10:24.760 running low on

01:10:25.420 supplies.

01:10:26.320 Or maybe

01:10:27.520 running low

01:10:28.120 on the

01:10:29.380 actual

01:10:29.680 artillery.

01:10:30.620 What would

01:10:30.860 you call

01:10:31.120 the device

01:10:33.780 that launches

01:10:34.580 the artillery

01:10:35.500 munitions?

01:10:37.740 That would

01:10:38.060 be just

01:10:39.620 artillery?

01:10:41.280 Cannons?

01:10:42.100 Guns?

01:10:43.300 You call

01:10:43.800 them artillery

01:10:44.400 guns or

01:10:45.280 mortars?

01:10:46.660 Launchers,

01:10:47.260 whatever they

01:10:47.560 are.

01:10:48.420 So maybe

01:10:48.840 they don't

01:10:49.620 have enough

01:10:50.300 launchers to

01:10:50.980 do what

01:10:51.200 they need

01:10:51.500 to do.

01:10:51.820 Who knows?

01:10:53.760 But I

01:10:54.880 read an

01:10:55.240 interesting

01:10:55.560 thing.

01:10:56.320 Oh,

01:10:56.920 so another

01:10:57.340 fact,

01:10:58.420 again,

01:10:58.920 don't believe

01:10:59.400 anything,

01:11:00.280 is that

01:11:00.700 Patriot

01:11:01.200 systems are

01:11:01.960 coming to

01:11:02.440 Ukraine soon.

01:11:03.480 Those would

01:11:03.760 be the

01:11:04.060 defensive

01:11:04.500 systems.

01:11:05.680 At the

01:11:05.980 same time,

01:11:06.420 they're getting

01:11:06.680 more Bradley

01:11:07.360 armored vehicles

01:11:08.660 for offensive

01:11:09.600 moves.

01:11:11.260 So if you

01:11:13.700 were to just

01:11:14.160 look at what

01:11:14.960 you're told

01:11:15.520 about Ukraine

01:11:16.280 at the

01:11:16.620 moment.

01:11:17.460 Oh,

01:11:17.620 and one

01:11:17.900 other thing,

01:11:18.880 that apparently

01:11:19.560 one of the

01:11:20.000 biggest critics

01:11:20.780 of Putin

01:11:21.420 within Russia,

01:11:22.480 Russia, who 0.92

01:11:23.360 has not

01:11:23.760 been killed,

01:11:25.120 is the

01:11:26.460 leaders of

01:11:27.100 the Wagner

01:11:27.520 group.

01:11:29.120 So the

01:11:29.360 Wagner group,

01:11:30.320 correct me if

01:11:30.740 I'm wrong,

01:11:31.080 they're mercenaries,

01:11:31.840 right?

01:11:32.520 So Russia is 0.77

01:11:33.360 using a

01:11:33.880 professional

01:11:34.500 mercenary group

01:11:35.420 that are

01:11:36.100 Russians,

01:11:37.220 because they're

01:11:38.360 badass fighters

01:11:39.160 and they want

01:11:40.320 to be there,

01:11:40.840 they're volunteers.

01:11:42.020 So, yeah,

01:11:42.640 they're professional

01:11:43.120 fighters.

01:11:43.960 So the Wagner

01:11:44.500 group has been

01:11:45.120 doing a lot of

01:11:45.680 damage,

01:11:45.980 and it's

01:11:46.900 a big part

01:11:47.500 of Russia's

01:11:48.860 whatever success

01:11:51.320 they get.

01:11:51.840 I think the

01:11:52.620 Wagner group

01:11:53.100 probably does

01:11:53.540 a lot of

01:11:53.940 it.

01:11:55.160 So we

01:11:56.100 know now

01:11:56.500 that the

01:11:56.760 head of the

01:11:57.040 Wagner group

01:11:57.540 thinks he's

01:11:58.140 not getting

01:11:58.540 enough support

01:11:59.300 from Putin.

01:12:00.780 So he's

01:12:01.440 actually criticized

01:12:02.500 him, which

01:12:03.180 is a big

01:12:03.960 deal.

01:12:05.040 Now, probably

01:12:06.320 that's the only

01:12:06.980 person in

01:12:07.620 Russia who

01:12:08.600 could criticize

01:12:09.260 Putin right

01:12:09.820 now,

01:12:10.640 because the

01:12:13.580 Wagner group

01:12:14.160 is too

01:12:14.500 important to

01:12:15.040 the war

01:12:15.340 effort.

01:12:15.600 You can't

01:12:16.160 kill the

01:12:16.480 head of

01:12:16.680 the Wagner

01:12:17.060 group right

01:12:17.600 away, maybe

01:12:18.780 later, but

01:12:19.960 at the moment

01:12:20.480 you can't

01:12:22.100 kill the

01:12:22.420 head of

01:12:22.760 your most

01:12:23.580 important

01:12:23.980 military wing

01:12:24.920 probably.

01:12:26.160 Yeah, and

01:12:26.500 the Wagner

01:12:26.860 group was a

01:12:28.660 big part of

01:12:29.360 why Chechnya

01:12:30.120 was eventually

01:12:32.100 what would

01:12:33.280 you call it

01:12:33.700 suppressed.

01:12:36.120 So here's

01:12:37.740 my strategy

01:12:38.440 for Ukraine.

01:12:39.260 You ready?

01:12:41.500 They should

01:12:42.560 retarget

01:12:44.800 everything.

01:12:45.600 and put

01:12:46.680 100% of

01:12:47.680 their efforts

01:12:48.080 on the

01:12:48.380 Wagner

01:12:48.660 group.

01:12:50.500 Because you

01:12:51.060 want that

01:12:51.440 Wagner group

01:12:52.080 to complain

01:12:52.740 even more

01:12:53.380 than they

01:12:53.720 are.

01:12:55.480 You want

01:12:56.480 to make

01:12:57.100 sure that

01:12:57.440 the Wagner

01:12:57.880 group knows

01:12:58.960 that no

01:12:59.340 matter what

01:12:59.820 else happens,

01:13:01.200 the Wagner

01:13:01.660 group will

01:13:02.180 be gone.

01:13:03.360 Because at

01:13:03.780 the moment

01:13:04.160 they're part

01:13:04.900 of the

01:13:05.240 bigger

01:13:06.880 military.

01:13:08.260 So I'm

01:13:08.780 sure Ukraine

01:13:09.540 gives them

01:13:10.240 a little

01:13:10.480 special attention

01:13:11.360 because they're

01:13:11.820 effective.

01:13:12.820 But they're

01:13:13.580 still spreading

01:13:14.240 their fire

01:13:14.800 across multiple

01:13:15.720 domains.

01:13:17.520 My strategy

01:13:18.340 is for the

01:13:18.920 winter anyway,

01:13:20.420 focus all of

01:13:21.320 your fire on

01:13:21.840 the Wagner

01:13:22.220 group and

01:13:23.220 make them

01:13:23.640 complain until

01:13:24.700 Putin has

01:13:25.420 to do

01:13:25.700 something.

01:13:27.000 What's he

01:13:27.380 going to do?

01:13:28.900 What's he

01:13:29.440 going to do?

01:13:30.720 Because the

01:13:31.340 last thing he

01:13:31.760 wants to do

01:13:32.140 is turn the

01:13:32.640 Wagner group

01:13:33.200 against him.

01:13:33.720 And then

01:13:35.080 before the

01:13:36.700 Wagner group

01:13:37.280 is completely

01:13:37.940 defeated,

01:13:38.940 you make

01:13:39.700 them an 0.87

01:13:39.960 offer to

01:13:40.400 change sides.

01:13:43.380 When there

01:13:43.980 aren't many

01:13:44.360 left, you

01:13:45.480 say, I'll

01:13:45.900 tell you

01:13:46.140 what, we're

01:13:47.720 just going to

01:13:48.140 keep going

01:13:48.540 until there

01:13:48.940 are none

01:13:49.160 of you left,

01:13:50.000 but we

01:13:51.000 wouldn't mind

01:13:51.440 having you on

01:13:51.960 our side to

01:13:52.500 finish this

01:13:52.980 war.

01:13:54.220 I doubt

01:13:54.960 they would

01:13:55.260 change sides.

01:13:56.480 Maybe some

01:13:57.020 would.

01:13:57.580 But you

01:13:57.860 want to put

01:13:58.600 those thoughts

01:13:59.380 in everybody's

01:14:00.000 head.

01:14:00.780 Like it

01:14:01.140 would only

01:14:01.480 take one

01:14:03.120 Wagner

01:14:03.720 person to

01:14:04.120 change sides

01:14:04.780 and then

01:14:05.680 Ukraine knows 0.53

01:14:06.820 how to turn

01:14:07.220 that into

01:14:07.600 propaganda.

01:14:08.980 Just one.

01:14:10.340 Just one to

01:14:11.120 say, oh,

01:14:11.640 Russia's a 1.00

01:14:12.320 waste of

01:14:12.640 time.

01:14:13.360 We'll make

01:14:14.040 twice as much

01:14:14.640 money for

01:14:15.060 Ukraine.

01:14:15.680 It looks

01:14:15.960 like they're

01:14:16.280 going to

01:14:16.440 win.

01:14:17.460 Boom.

01:14:21.260 Let me

01:14:21.960 speak to

01:14:23.040 our

01:14:23.380 Brugman's

01:14:24.420 comment.

01:14:26.980 Because remember

01:14:27.840 I started

01:14:28.280 saying nothing

01:14:28.920 can be

01:14:29.260 trusted.

01:14:30.720 And our

01:14:31.700 Brugman here

01:14:32.560 on the

01:14:33.120 says that

01:14:35.060 Ukraine isn't 0.98

01:14:35.960 winning anything

01:14:36.660 at the

01:14:37.540 moment.

01:14:38.400 There's no

01:14:38.900 winning going

01:14:39.380 on.

01:14:39.700 In fact,

01:14:40.000 they've lost

01:14:40.460 territory in

01:14:42.200 the war so

01:14:43.000 far.

01:14:43.680 Ukraine is

01:14:44.480 smaller and

01:14:45.980 in bad

01:14:46.560 shape.

01:14:47.500 So they're

01:14:48.120 certainly losing

01:14:48.840 in that sense.

01:14:49.820 And they're not

01:14:50.440 making gains on

01:14:51.420 the battlefield,

01:14:52.900 according to

01:14:53.500 reports that

01:14:55.440 are not

01:14:55.760 credible.

01:14:56.080 And also,

01:14:57.160 according to

01:14:57.900 not credible

01:14:58.600 reports,

01:14:59.220 the Russians

01:15:05.600 might be

01:15:06.000 gaining a

01:15:06.420 little bit.

01:15:07.280 But that's

01:15:07.800 disputed.

01:15:09.100 So,

01:15:10.280 does that

01:15:11.220 satisfy you

01:15:11.920 that I've

01:15:12.680 added the

01:15:13.140 proper context?

01:15:14.480 That I do

01:15:15.360 not believe

01:15:16.020 you could say

01:15:17.560 Ukraine is

01:15:18.200 winning in

01:15:19.540 the larger

01:15:20.400 sense yet.

01:15:22.700 But it

01:15:23.080 looks like

01:15:23.500 if you

01:15:25.080 believe the

01:15:25.520 reporting,

01:15:26.420 which maybe

01:15:26.940 you shouldn't,

01:15:27.840 it looks like

01:15:28.440 there is

01:15:28.800 something that

01:15:29.500 looks like a

01:15:30.020 momentum shift

01:15:30.900 that you can

01:15:32.100 never be sure

01:15:32.740 about because

01:15:33.860 it's still war.

01:15:34.800 Everything's

01:15:35.200 unpredictable.

01:15:36.140 But at the

01:15:36.640 moment, it

01:15:36.960 looks like a

01:15:37.660 momentum shift.

01:15:39.420 And then

01:15:39.680 secondly, I'll

01:15:40.440 just add that

01:15:41.060 focusing on the

01:15:41.960 Wagner group

01:15:42.520 could probably

01:15:43.100 get them to

01:15:43.600 the end of

01:15:44.020 this faster.

01:15:45.240 That's what I

01:15:45.900 think.

01:15:46.840 Now, it could

01:15:47.480 be that that's

01:15:48.000 exactly their

01:15:48.620 strategy and I

01:15:49.300 don't know.

01:15:50.320 All right.

01:15:50.760 Now, once

01:15:52.020 again, do you

01:15:52.600 see how if I

01:15:53.540 did any of

01:15:55.380 this on Twitter,

01:15:56.060 I would

01:15:57.740 not have

01:15:58.100 taken the

01:15:58.500 time to

01:15:59.880 agree with

01:16:00.440 the critic

01:16:00.820 who says my

01:16:01.680 context is

01:16:02.600 insufficient because

01:16:04.260 I actually

01:16:05.660 agree with

01:16:06.200 your comment.

01:16:07.480 My context

01:16:08.240 was a little

01:16:08.900 bit insufficient

01:16:09.580 and so you

01:16:10.920 challenged me

01:16:11.480 on it and so

01:16:11.980 I tried to

01:16:13.160 shore that up

01:16:13.860 a little bit.

01:16:14.780 That's the

01:16:15.160 way the long

01:16:15.680 form works.

01:16:16.720 If you think

01:16:17.340 that should be

01:16:18.020 happening on

01:16:18.540 Twitter, you

01:16:19.960 don't know

01:16:20.280 what Twitter

01:16:20.620 is.

01:16:22.600 Twitter is just

01:16:23.340 talking about

01:16:23.780 that one little

01:16:24.340 point and it's

01:16:25.280 all it means.

01:16:26.060 The stuff you

01:16:26.920 left out of

01:16:27.700 Twitter doesn't

01:16:28.980 tell you

01:16:29.260 anything.

01:16:30.020 But if I'd

01:16:30.820 left that out

01:16:31.520 of this, I

01:16:32.860 think it would

01:16:33.240 have told you

01:16:33.640 something, right?

01:16:34.980 Would you agree

01:16:35.780 with that statement?

01:16:36.860 If I had not

01:16:37.740 taken the time to

01:16:39.500 agree with you

01:16:40.280 that you really

01:16:40.820 don't know if

01:16:41.320 Russia or Ukraine

01:16:42.120 is winning or

01:16:43.100 will win, that

01:16:45.000 it would be

01:16:45.320 missing and it

01:16:46.360 would maybe be

01:16:47.060 misleading.

01:16:48.700 So I added it.

01:16:50.840 It was the same 0.52

01:16:51.540 problem with the

01:16:52.080 pandemic stuff.

01:16:53.520 All right.

01:16:53.720 So that's the

01:16:54.460 end of my

01:16:55.000 prepared comments.

01:16:59.220 And is there

01:17:01.320 anything I missed?

01:17:05.340 Anything you'd

01:17:06.220 like me to speak

01:17:07.000 about that I

01:17:07.580 have not?

01:17:08.440 By the way, if

01:17:09.760 you're following

01:17:10.280 the SpaceX stuff

01:17:11.720 with the starships

01:17:14.180 that they have

01:17:15.200 that big tower

01:17:16.300 that grabs them

01:17:17.380 like chopsticks,

01:17:18.920 apparently they

01:17:20.480 have four of

01:17:22.320 them that are

01:17:23.760 all loaded and

01:17:24.620 ready to go at

01:17:25.180 the same time?

01:17:27.860 When did that

01:17:28.680 happen?

01:17:30.580 When did we go

01:17:31.600 from, I think

01:17:32.920 we can launch a

01:17:34.720 ship like this

01:17:35.560 to four of them

01:17:37.080 fully loaded and

01:17:38.040 ready to go?

01:17:38.920 And it looks like

01:17:39.580 they're trying to

01:17:40.500 gear up where

01:17:41.800 they could just be

01:17:42.400 launching spaceships

01:17:43.360 all day long?

01:17:44.820 Like literally,

01:17:45.820 like an airport.

01:17:47.020 Just launch them

01:17:47.600 like an airport.

01:17:48.080 Or here's one,

01:17:49.080 here's one,

01:17:49.600 load one up,

01:17:50.160 here's one,

01:17:50.760 and then return

01:17:51.540 them and load

01:17:52.000 them up again?

01:17:54.100 Apparently we'll

01:17:54.740 be able to put

01:17:55.260 some pretty heavy

01:17:56.020 stuff up in

01:17:56.700 space.

01:17:58.600 And my first

01:17:59.600 question is,

01:18:00.240 what is all

01:18:00.800 that stuff?

01:18:01.300 Is it just

01:18:01.820 satellites?

01:18:03.100 At the moment

01:18:03.820 it's just

01:18:04.260 satellites, right?

01:18:05.060 Or maybe

01:18:06.040 something for

01:18:07.500 the ISS,

01:18:08.280 but there's

01:18:09.160 nothing heading

01:18:09.660 to Mars,

01:18:10.280 is there?

01:18:12.300 How soon

01:18:13.040 before Musk

01:18:14.420 actually sends

01:18:15.140 something to

01:18:15.800 Mars?

01:18:16.220 and what

01:18:18.240 would be the

01:18:18.680 first thing?

01:18:20.740 I'd love to

01:18:21.420 know they're

01:18:21.700 planning.

01:18:22.480 If I were

01:18:23.120 doing this,

01:18:23.700 the first thing

01:18:24.300 I'd send would

01:18:24.760 be robots,

01:18:25.440 right?

01:18:26.920 Wouldn't you

01:18:27.460 send the Tesla

01:18:28.160 robots to

01:18:29.120 space?

01:18:30.180 Assuming you

01:18:30.680 had some way

01:18:31.180 to recharge

01:18:31.660 them,

01:18:32.000 which you

01:18:32.360 would.

01:18:33.300 I think you

01:18:33.760 would,

01:18:34.020 right?

01:18:36.020 Let me put a

01:18:37.080 wild thought

01:18:37.760 into your

01:18:38.120 head.

01:18:38.320 it might

01:18:40.860 take a

01:18:41.180 long time

01:18:41.620 to get

01:18:42.120 humans

01:18:42.740 to Mars,

01:18:44.240 you know,

01:18:44.480 in any

01:18:44.800 kind of

01:18:45.320 quantity,

01:18:45.980 but we

01:18:46.540 might have

01:18:47.120 lots of

01:18:47.680 robots there

01:18:48.240 before them,

01:18:50.320 if the

01:18:51.720 robots can

01:18:52.240 handle the

01:18:53.640 climate,

01:18:55.520 et cetera.

01:18:57.400 Do you

01:18:57.980 think we

01:18:58.320 would ever

01:18:58.560 get to

01:18:58.820 the point

01:18:59.240 where the

01:19:00.120 robots could

01:19:00.940 be AI

01:19:02.460 driven and

01:19:04.280 simply build

01:19:05.040 a civilization

01:19:05.760 to be ready

01:19:06.900 when we

01:19:07.260 got there?

01:19:08.320 So we

01:19:09.040 didn't have

01:19:09.400 to give

01:19:09.680 them every

01:19:10.260 order.

01:19:11.440 We would

01:19:11.820 just give

01:19:12.180 them an 0.87

01:19:13.420 objective.

01:19:14.800 The same

01:19:15.260 way they're

01:19:16.240 teaching robots

01:19:17.040 now to

01:19:18.120 assemble IKEA

01:19:19.040 products,

01:19:20.260 successfully.

01:19:21.580 So the

01:19:22.220 robot can

01:19:22.700 actually pick

01:19:23.900 up the

01:19:24.220 directions and

01:19:25.960 then assemble

01:19:26.540 something it

01:19:27.220 had never

01:19:27.820 assembled before.

01:19:30.620 That's a

01:19:31.200 real thing

01:19:31.560 that's happening

01:19:32.080 now.

01:19:33.160 So if you

01:19:33.580 could do

01:19:33.900 that,

01:19:35.340 could Musk

01:19:36.620 get to the

01:19:37.220 point,

01:19:37.500 because he's

01:19:37.800 building robots.

01:19:39.020 They're almost

01:19:39.580 ready to

01:19:40.040 launch.

01:19:40.780 They'll be

01:19:41.060 the industrial

01:19:41.660 kind.

01:19:42.440 Could he

01:19:42.740 get to the

01:19:43.140 point where

01:19:44.420 he could

01:19:45.120 dump a

01:19:45.940 shitload of

01:19:46.500 robots on

01:19:47.100 a planet and

01:19:48.460 just say,

01:19:48.900 build a

01:19:49.240 civilization?

01:19:50.100 Here's your

01:19:50.660 end point,

01:19:51.860 and then figure

01:19:53.100 out what you

01:19:53.540 got.

01:19:54.320 You're going to

01:19:54.700 have to figure

01:19:55.120 out what

01:19:55.460 assets you

01:19:55.940 have there,

01:19:56.520 plus what

01:19:57.160 you brought,

01:19:57.960 and then figure

01:19:58.480 out how to

01:19:59.380 get to here,

01:20:00.520 and just figure

01:20:01.080 it out, and

01:20:01.920 we'll show up

01:20:02.800 when you're

01:20:03.080 done.

01:20:03.240 I feel

01:20:04.820 like I

01:20:05.120 could.

01:20:05.960 Yeah,

01:20:06.180 3D printing,

01:20:07.740 so you

01:20:07.920 need some

01:20:08.220 3D printing.

01:20:09.040 You might

01:20:09.500 need to be

01:20:09.960 able to

01:20:10.220 mine,

01:20:10.880 though.

01:20:12.120 So here's

01:20:12.500 a question

01:20:12.860 for you.

01:20:13.840 Are there

01:20:14.240 any

01:20:14.780 mineable

01:20:15.980 materials on

01:20:17.380 Mars?

01:20:21.120 Yes?

01:20:21.640 Do we know

01:20:21.940 that for sure?

01:20:22.860 You say

01:20:23.160 many?

01:20:24.420 Because

01:20:24.780 every orb

01:20:26.820 in space

01:20:27.320 has good

01:20:28.840 mineable

01:20:29.360 stuff,

01:20:29.800 don't they?

01:20:31.040 Like,

01:20:31.400 as far as

01:20:31.720 we know,

01:20:32.040 pretty much

01:20:32.380 all of them.

01:20:33.300 Whether it's

01:20:33.780 an asteroid

01:20:34.340 or a planet,

01:20:35.120 they'll have

01:20:35.420 something you

01:20:36.960 could mine.

01:20:38.500 Now,

01:20:39.000 I don't know

01:20:39.360 if they

01:20:39.840 would have

01:20:40.080 the right

01:20:40.540 mix of

01:20:41.260 stuff,

01:20:42.860 because the

01:20:44.380 very least

01:20:44.960 you would

01:20:45.300 want is

01:20:45.880 enough to

01:20:46.260 build another

01:20:46.780 robot.

01:20:48.620 So let me

01:20:49.360 ask you this

01:20:49.780 question.

01:20:50.600 Would Mars

01:20:51.260 have all the

01:20:51.940 minerals that

01:20:54.440 would be

01:20:55.020 necessary to

01:20:56.220 build the

01:20:56.820 robot that

01:20:58.760 goes to

01:20:59.160 Mars?

01:21:00.480 Would it?

01:21:02.440 It only

01:21:03.120 needs to

01:21:03.540 get close,

01:21:04.360 because if

01:21:04.860 it's close

01:21:05.440 but not

01:21:05.880 completely,

01:21:06.540 they can

01:21:06.820 always send

01:21:07.280 a rocket

01:21:07.700 with the

01:21:08.300 extra stuff

01:21:09.020 that's hard

01:21:10.000 to build

01:21:10.480 on Mars.

01:21:12.820 Not the

01:21:13.480 electronics.

01:21:15.180 Because the

01:21:15.820 electronics have

01:21:16.520 rare minerals.

01:21:20.280 We don't

01:21:20.920 know if

01:21:21.220 there are

01:21:21.440 rare minerals

01:21:22.040 on Mars,

01:21:22.620 do we?

01:21:23.920 So it

01:21:24.500 might be

01:21:24.800 that the

01:21:25.180 rare minerals

01:21:25.860 are the

01:21:26.120 stuff you

01:21:26.460 have to

01:21:26.700 ship up

01:21:27.140 there in

01:21:27.640 the short

01:21:27.960 run.

01:21:28.180 but the

01:21:30.040 rare minerals

01:21:30.680 tend to

01:21:31.000 be low

01:21:31.720 weight,

01:21:32.120 right?

01:21:32.800 Let me

01:21:33.320 ask you

01:21:33.600 this.

01:21:34.160 For a

01:21:34.800 robot,

01:21:36.000 what would

01:21:36.960 be the

01:21:37.440 total weight

01:21:38.280 of raw

01:21:40.060 rare minerals?

01:21:42.920 It would be

01:21:43.500 just like a

01:21:43.960 handful,

01:21:44.420 right?

01:21:45.140 Or less

01:21:45.780 than that?

01:21:47.080 Wouldn't it

01:21:47.700 be just

01:21:48.020 like an

01:21:49.960 ounce,

01:21:50.960 maybe an

01:21:51.560 ounce of

01:21:52.000 raw materials

01:21:52.640 for the

01:21:53.000 entire

01:21:53.260 robot?

01:21:54.400 Everything

01:21:54.720 else is

01:21:55.120 common

01:21:55.460 materials?

01:21:57.600 Does that

01:21:58.040 sound about

01:21:58.560 right?

01:22:00.740 You

01:22:01.240 wouldn't be

01:22:02.400 able to

01:22:02.660 do chip

01:22:03.120 fabrication

01:22:03.860 right away.

01:22:06.700 Or would

01:22:07.280 you?

01:22:08.300 Or would

01:22:08.700 you?

01:22:09.760 If you

01:22:10.620 knew what

01:22:11.040 kind of

01:22:11.420 chips you 0.73

01:22:12.000 were going

01:22:12.240 to make,

01:22:14.680 you

01:22:15.480 couldn't

01:22:15.800 ship up

01:22:16.280 enough

01:22:16.560 equipment

01:22:17.040 and build

01:22:18.420 an environment

01:22:19.360 for it?

01:22:21.080 Just

01:22:21.640 impossible.

01:22:22.640 It might

01:22:22.880 be impossible.

01:22:24.080 But I

01:22:24.620 could also

01:22:24.980 imagine that

01:22:25.500 you could

01:22:25.760 build a

01:22:26.540 mini

01:22:26.980 fabricator.

01:22:28.940 In other

01:22:29.340 words,

01:22:29.920 if the

01:22:30.540 earth

01:22:30.900 fabricators

01:22:31.600 require a

01:22:32.140 whole

01:22:32.300 building and

01:22:32.940 lots of

01:22:33.280 systems,

01:22:34.160 you don't

01:22:34.480 think there's

01:22:34.920 some chance,

01:22:35.720 just like a

01:22:36.520 nuclear plant

01:22:37.340 is usually a

01:22:38.600 big building

01:22:39.060 with domes

01:22:39.700 and stuff,

01:22:40.460 but you

01:22:40.740 can also

01:22:41.040 build a

01:22:41.420 little one

01:22:41.760 and put

01:22:42.040 it on

01:22:42.300 a submarine,

01:22:44.420 which always

01:22:44.880 puzzled me,

01:22:45.500 by the way,

01:22:46.540 that for

01:22:48.040 a long

01:22:49.140 time we've

01:22:49.720 been able to

01:22:50.180 build little

01:22:50.740 nuclear

01:22:51.200 reactors,

01:22:51.640 for military,

01:22:53.760 but not

01:22:54.560 for citizens.

01:22:59.520 I've never

01:22:59.820 understood why

01:23:00.580 that wasn't

01:23:01.700 happening.

01:23:02.680 But I

01:23:04.040 imagine there's

01:23:04.720 a way to

01:23:06.120 build a

01:23:06.800 mini self-contained

01:23:08.520 chip

01:23:11.140 fabricator,

01:23:12.340 especially if

01:23:13.800 it's only

01:23:14.180 going to

01:23:14.360 make one

01:23:14.840 or two

01:23:15.960 kinds of

01:23:16.380 chips.

01:23:17.060 It's just

01:23:17.500 for the

01:23:17.780 robots or

01:23:18.280 something like

01:23:18.620 that.

01:23:19.440 Seems like

01:23:20.120 it's doable.

01:23:20.520 because the

01:23:21.940 engineering would

01:23:22.680 still be

01:23:23.020 off-site,

01:23:23.640 so you

01:23:23.820 don't need

01:23:24.120 any

01:23:24.340 administrative

01:23:24.880 space.

01:23:26.660 It's just

01:23:27.360 the mechanical

01:23:28.740 fabrication

01:23:29.320 part.

01:23:30.080 I'll bet

01:23:30.320 you could

01:23:30.600 fit that

01:23:30.980 in a

01:23:31.240 rocket,

01:23:32.140 or maybe

01:23:32.960 several

01:23:33.360 rockets and

01:23:33.980 pieces,

01:23:34.520 something like

01:23:34.960 that.

01:23:40.140 Russia is 0.79

01:23:40.740 already...

01:23:41.520 all right.

01:23:49.040 Yeah, it'd

01:23:49.340 be expensive,

01:23:50.000 of course.

01:23:50.640 It's all

01:23:50.980 expensive.

01:23:53.060 Yeah, they'll

01:23:53.740 need those

01:23:54.160 dilithium

01:23:54.700 crystals,

01:23:55.260 that's for

01:23:55.540 sure.

01:23:56.640 All right,

01:23:57.060 ladies and 0.98

01:23:57.500 gentlemen,

01:24:00.420 I'm going to

01:24:01.280 say goodbye to

01:24:02.080 YouTube for

01:24:03.300 today, and

01:24:04.400 talk to the

01:24:04.900 locals' people

01:24:05.480 privately.

01:24:07.100 Thanks for

01:24:07.520 joining.

01:24:08.660 Greatest

01:24:09.140 livestream you've

01:24:09.940 ever seen.

01:24:11.940 com.

01:24:14.020 See you

01:24:16.620 next time.

01:24:37.000 Bye.

01:24:39.500 Bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 11, 2023

Episode 1985 Scott Adams： Funny Antics Of Democrats Defending Biden's Handling Secret Documents

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript