Episode 2109 Scott Adams： Trump & Suburban Women, Anti-White Movement Pushback, Freedom Crappers
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 5 minutes
Words per Minute
142.85065
Summary
Comedian Dave Chappelle visits San Francisco and discovers that the whole city has been turned into the tenderloin capital of the world, and he has a suggestion to fix it. Plus, Batman gets criticized for his views on race and ethnicity.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization, which looks a little
00:00:09.440
bit less lighted than usual, but I think I could deal with that today.
00:00:13.420
If you would like your day to be the most amazing, amazing day in all the history of
00:00:18.400
days, all you need this day is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein,
00:00:24.420
a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like
00:00:30.800
coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the
00:00:35.020
day, the thing that makes everything better. You can probably feel your oxytocin starting
00:00:39.200
to come online, can't you? Can't you? Yeah, this is called the simultaneous sip. Happens
00:00:44.740
now, and it's the best thing that's ever happened. Go.
00:00:47.020
Ah. And may I say happy 65th birthday to, to, I didn't catch the name, but one of you
00:00:59.940
is having a 65th birthday today. So happy birthday. Senior citizen, welcome to the club. Well, we
00:01:10.620
got news all over the place. Dave Chappelle made a surprise stand-up visit in San
00:01:16.960
Francisco and he was a little distressed to find out what had happened to his, what he
00:01:22.520
calls his second home, San Francisco. Apparently he was going into a restaurant and as he was
00:01:29.120
walking into the restaurant, there was a, one of the freedom grappers was defecating in front
00:01:35.560
of the restaurant. Now, I don't know about you, but that does not, that does not help my
00:01:42.420
dining experience. I'll tell, let me tell you something I learned owning a couple of
00:01:47.000
restaurants. The restaurant business is very, let's say, different from what you imagine
00:01:54.060
it would be in terms of how people conceive it as customers. People don't really go to
00:02:00.000
a restaurant for just the food. Obviously, they can buy food somewhere else. It's an experience.
00:02:05.800
And so one of the things that you find is that one of the most important criteria for whether
00:02:12.320
someone likes a restaurant is the lighting. I've told you that before. Very, it's very
00:02:18.160
non-obvious. If you get the lighting right, people will like being in your restaurant. If
00:02:24.520
you get it wrong, it makes everybody look ugly. So your date will look a little less attractive.
00:02:29.840
You'll look a little less attractive. You know, if you have down light, that makes everybody
00:02:34.580
look less good. But if you have nice accent lights and, you know, orangey lights and stuff,
00:02:40.080
everybody looks good. So I can't imagine what it does to your, excuse me, dining experience
00:02:47.780
to walk past a freedom grapper. Now, if you don't know, in the old days, they used to call
00:02:56.580
people the homeless. Now, they used to, in the old, old days, the people who did not
00:03:01.660
live indoors were called hobos or bums. And that was pretty bad, right? Hobos and bums,
00:03:09.140
very degrading. So the left wanted to turn that into homeless because homeless is more of
00:03:16.900
an objective statement. It's not an insult. They just don't have a home. But then it turned
00:03:22.220
into, it wasn't so much the people who didn't have a home, because most of them had options.
00:03:28.800
But rather, they chose to be outside. They chose the freedom of the streets. And so we've
00:03:36.520
evolved from bums and hobos to the homeless. Then I think there was the unhoused, right?
00:03:43.620
They weren't homeless because they didn't want homes. They were just unhoused. But I think
00:03:49.500
we could do a little bit better than that. I think, as one of the locals' folks suggested,
00:03:56.840
that they should be called the freedom grappers. Because they can crap anywhere. Sort of the
00:04:03.860
ultimate freedom. So I say, don't judge it until you try it. But Dave Chappelle seems to
00:04:11.720
be a little unhappy about what happened. He thinks the whole place turned into the tenderloin.
00:04:19.500
Which doesn't mean anything to you unless you know San Francisco. To say that the whole
00:04:23.640
city turned into the tenderloin is a really bad insult to the city. But Dave Chappelle
00:04:29.620
at least has a suggestion. You know, a lot of people complain about things. But rarely
00:04:36.920
does anybody have a productive suggestion. And finally, Dave Chappelle has a good suggestion
00:04:43.180
for fixing San Francisco. He says, what you need is Batman. Batman. Okay, well, that's maybe
00:04:54.320
less practical than I was hoping. But he does have a suggestion. At least it's a suggestion.
00:05:01.260
All right. I asked Bard the AI a little bit more about me to see if it thought I was a good person
00:05:13.580
or a bad person. And it said a few things about me. Let's see. Adams has been criticized for his
00:05:21.100
views on race and ethnicity. Whoa. That's what Bard AI thinks of me. I've been criticized about my views
00:05:30.300
on race and ethnicity. My God, what is it that I've said? Well, let's read on. In 2020, he said on Twitter
00:05:37.100
that the Dilbert TV show was canceled because he was white. And UPN had decided to focus on
00:05:43.960
African-American audience on Monday night. Not every night. But on the night that my show was on,
00:05:50.800
they decided to do an all-black comedy block, a black block, which is a perfectly good business
00:06:01.400
idea in terms of business. You know, you like people to tune in and then stay where they tuned
00:06:07.600
in. That was the old business model anyway. So it made sense to have an African-American comedy night.
00:06:13.120
Unfortunately, that was my night when my show was on. So I got moved. And when you move a show
00:06:18.320
out of its time slot, there's a long history where that pretty much kills a show. That's a well-understood
00:06:24.720
phenomenon. So somehow that is the example given of why I was criticized for my views on race.
00:06:32.560
What was my view? Was there any opinion in that? That was just a statement of fact which nobody
00:06:40.900
disagrees with. Nobody disagrees that UPN started a black comedy block on Monday night where my show
00:06:49.560
was running. That's not, there's no controversy to that. Is there? And I, did I say that there was
00:06:56.860
anything illegal or wrong or immoral or unethical about UPN wanting an all-black comedy night? I don't
00:07:04.720
have any problem with that at all. It was actually seemed like a good business idea. It just wasn't
00:07:09.240
good for me. So that's, so that's, but then he goes more, goes on, says he, meaning me, has also been
00:07:18.020
criticized for his support of Donald Trump. Wait a minute. Is that something about being criticized for
00:07:24.220
views on race and ethnicity? Somehow that got lumped in there? Uh, and his views on white
00:07:30.540
nationalism? Wait, what? What? My views on white nationalism? Have I ever expressed a positive
00:07:43.440
view about white nationalism? Ever? Even once? Am I the guy who has ever said that America is
00:07:52.640
better with just white people in it or stop any additional non-white? Never. I'm the most
00:07:59.460
annoyingly pro-immigration person you know. At least, you know, who has an audience that's
00:08:06.400
right-leaning. There's nobody with a right-leaning audience who's more pro-immigration than I am.
00:08:11.160
That's just a fact. Right? Name anybody. Name anybody. In fact, I'm probably as pro-immigration
00:08:18.640
as the left. It's just, I think, you have to do some smart stuff too. You can't just never do smart
00:08:23.980
stuff. You have to do some smart stuff, you know, at the same time. But do you see the problem with
00:08:32.280
Bard and AI? This is clearly just picking up a leftist, biased, bigoted view. Bard is just a racist.
00:08:42.640
Could you conclude from this answer that Bard is a racist? What do you think? I would say yes. To
00:08:51.160
me, this looks clearly racist. Very anti-white, basically. Yeah. Now, I don't think it's the
00:08:59.500
end of the world. We'll probably, you know, clean it up and maybe it'll get better. But, oh my
00:09:06.540
God, the fact that we built an advanced intelligence and then we ruined it by making it like people.
00:09:11.620
We ruined it by making it like people. It'll never be smart. We'll never let it be smart.
00:09:21.380
So, well, keep an eye on that. Here's some CNN biased news. I forget who wrote it, some opinion
00:09:33.800
piece, I think. And it's talking about whether the so-called Biden crime family has committed
00:09:43.820
any actual crimes. And you may have missed this because it was a surprise to me. But the article
00:09:52.440
said that even the Republicans, even the Republicans have not accused Joe Biden of a crime. Is that
00:10:00.100
true? I think it is true, right? There's no actual specific crime. No, Joe Biden. Joe Biden. I'm not
00:10:07.520
talking about Hunter. Hunter Biden has specific crimes. But Joe Biden is not accused of a specific
00:10:14.600
crime, is he? And then I thought, I'm not aware of one. Because, well, bribery is a suspicion.
00:10:23.420
Right? Bribery is a suspicion. But it's short of an accusation because there's not a direct, you know,
00:10:32.800
it's not in context. I'll give you that the evidence strongly suggests something unethical going on.
00:10:44.940
But if you can't tie that unethical behavior to, let's say, a policy change and prove it, it's
00:10:53.440
kind of short of a crime, isn't it? It's just something you wish would not be happening, which
00:10:58.300
is different. So that was interesting. But, and maybe that's good for us, if it helps your bias
00:11:05.640
at all. But here's something it said that this is just such a head shaker. CNN, in this least
00:11:16.100
opinion piece, wanted to make a comparison to the Biden family having lots of shell companies
00:11:22.920
whose businesses are unclear. And the accusation is that these, all these companies are set up
00:11:30.700
just to make it harder to see that money is flowing from foreign entities to the Biden family
00:11:36.200
pockets. Now, that is being compared to Trump also having lots of, what did they say? Opaque
00:11:45.760
business deals invite suspicion. So that's, they're admitting that the opacity or the fact
00:11:52.440
that you can't see what's going on in the Biden family businesses always makes people suspicious.
00:11:58.560
Just, hey, we can't tell what's going on in there. But they compared that, but they said,
00:12:03.180
but it's a little strange to see Republicans who defend Trump's business, which is divided into
00:12:16.020
Have I ever mentioned that argument by analogy is not persuasive? Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
00:12:25.360
Let me do a little fact check on this. Is it not the case that the Biden companies,
00:12:32.140
the number of companies they've created, have no known business? And that's the whole point,
00:12:38.220
that there's no known legitimate business. There might be, but it's not, it's not, you know,
00:12:43.760
we're not aware of it. Whereas the Trump businesses, and there were hundreds of them,
00:12:49.460
every single one of them has a specific line of business and a revenue and a cost structure.
00:12:55.600
Every one of them. That's completely different. That's closer to the opposite, right? One is an
00:13:04.040
example of setting up businesses to do business, perfectly acceptable, no matter how many you do.
00:13:11.240
In fact, that's the smart way to do it, because you don't want any one of those businesses to be a
00:13:15.900
problem and crash the other business. Whereas Bidens don't have any, any actual business purpose to
00:13:23.440
their businesses that we know of. Could be, just we don't know of them. But so if you're, if you're,
00:13:31.540
let's say, a casual reader of CNN, wouldn't you read this as Trump is just as sketchy as the Biden
00:13:39.800
family? That doesn't that read that way to you? Oh, they both have these, these, a whole bunch of
00:13:46.760
companies. Oh, oh, they both have a whole bunch of companies, don't they? Well, I guess that's just
00:13:53.440
something rich people do. They just all have a bunch of companies. No, they don't all have a bunch
00:13:59.440
of companies that aren't doing any business. That's not the same. All right. Rasmussen poll on Trump.
00:14:09.240
And his legal problems. So 58% of likely us U.S. voters believe that Trump will get criminal
00:14:20.660
charges. So 58% of voters think he will be charged criminally while he's at the, at the moment
00:14:29.440
leading in the polls. So according to, I think it's Washington Post ABC poll, Trump is seven points
00:14:35.480
said of Biden in the general election. Seven points is quite a bit, isn't it? You know, now,
00:14:42.500
obviously that always tightens up toward election day, but it feels like a pretty healthy lead if
00:14:49.820
that's a valid poll. All right. Back to Rasmussen, though. 44% of likely voters think Trump is being
00:14:59.600
investigated because of actual crimes that he has committed. Well, 50% believe the government is
00:15:06.320
just trying to stop Trump from running for president. Now, we often look for signals that the country is in
00:15:15.020
trouble because that's sort of how Americans act. Oh, no, we're all falling apart. The Republic is
00:15:21.620
falling apart. This or that signal are telling us everything's falling apart. But here's a pretty
00:15:28.980
strong flashing signal that 50% of the voters, the likely voters, think the government is trying to
00:15:36.940
stop a legitimate candidate for president with a bogus Department of Justice action. 50%. Half of the
00:15:47.460
country thinks the country is corrupt in a really fundamental way, because that would be as corrupt
00:15:54.860
as you could get. That'd be like the peak of corruptness, peak of corruption, let's say, to actually
00:16:02.300
stop a legal candidate for running for president. You can't get much more corrupt than that. That's
00:16:09.220
sort of the pinnacle. But that's where we are. How many voters do you think believe Trump will
00:16:19.200
actually be sentenced to prison? How many think he will be sentenced? Oh, good guess. You're very close.
00:16:26.760
28%. Yeah, your guesses were very close. Very smart. Yeah. 28% think you'll be sentenced to prison.
00:16:37.120
So that means that 28% of the people are either wishful thinking, might be wishful thinking,
00:16:44.100
or they believe that when he talked to the Georgia, what was the phone call in Georgia where he said,
00:16:50.840
you only need to find so many votes, 28% think that you could go to jail for using the word find
00:16:58.060
if someone else determines that the word find means make up. That would be the case. You'd have to
00:17:07.800
convince a jury that when somebody said find in the context of believing that the election had not
00:17:14.080
been properly counted, that what he really secretly meant, and everybody knew it, was just make up some
00:17:20.320
votes and that'll be fine. Like, that's going to work. Like, do you think that Trump believed that
00:17:27.340
Georgia could just make up some votes and that that would fly? And that you'd just go into office
00:17:34.620
and nobody'd have a problem with that? Oh, no. Yeah, we just changed the vote by adding a bunch of votes
00:17:40.920
for Trump, and now he really won. There's nothing to see here. Do you really think that Trump was so dumb
00:17:49.300
that he thought he could ask them in a phone call where people are listening, so it's basically
00:17:55.900
public or will be soon, that he could just tell them to find some, you know, make up some votes and
00:18:03.220
that he could get into office and he would stay there and that would all be good? No, there's literally
00:18:10.300
nobody that dumb. To imagine that Trump is the only one in the world who would be dumb enough to think
00:18:17.060
that he could say in front of witnesses, just pretend the election didn't matter and make me up some votes
00:18:23.500
and that would just fly through. And that he, like a real living, a living human being with experience in
00:18:30.400
the world would believe that that would work. It's ridiculous. Of course he didn't think that.
00:18:38.400
Now, I'm not a mind reader, but it would be true that literally no one would say that.
00:18:47.180
No one. Not Trump, not anybody. There's no one who would say that in front of witnesses.
00:18:52.160
Go get me some fake votes. Especially with this much scrutiny. The entire world was looking at
00:19:00.420
Georgia. Everybody was looking at it. And they already had a result. Do you think nobody would
00:19:06.820
notice if they changed the result to the opposite of the result? Nobody's going to look into that a
00:19:11.640
little bit? How in the world would Trump imagine that that could have worked? All right. In your
00:19:17.360
criminal, suspicious mind, how do you imagine that he thought that plan was going to work?
00:19:23.020
Of course that wasn't his plan. Do you know what kind of plan would work really well?
00:19:29.400
Here's a plan that would work really well. Make sure you've counted all the votes.
00:19:36.140
There's a plan people would believe. Yeah, we looked and we found some votes. It's transparent. We can
00:19:42.460
show you. Here are these bags. We didn't count these. Now we're going to count them.
00:19:47.360
The only way that Trump's phone call could have produced anything for Trump is if it had
00:19:55.700
gone through a legal process and everybody knew it. Everybody knew the one and only path was if
00:20:02.880
it was totally legal. And to imagine that 28% of our citizens have been persuaded that that was an
00:20:11.480
actual criminal plan that couldn't have worked. It's like the insurrection on January 6th.
00:20:19.820
Were they going to conquer the country by taking over some real estate? One building? Who thought that
00:20:26.580
was going to work? Were the Joint Chiefs of Staff going to just hand over the control? Oh, they got our
00:20:32.460
building. There's a bunch of unarmed people standing in a building. I guess we better give them the keys to
00:20:38.300
the nukes. Literally, no one thought that was an insurrection. Who was actually there? Yeah.
00:20:45.560
So, but once again, this one quarter of the country or this 28% will actually believe anything.
00:20:53.720
25% of the country will believe anything. Just anything. All right. So there's some dispute
00:21:05.660
about Tucker's being removed from his show on Fox, not technically fired. But apparently
00:21:13.100
Carlson is being reported, told a member of the networks was told. So this is from Tucker
00:21:20.300
Carlson, apparently. He's reporting that a member of the network's board of directors,
00:21:24.300
Fox News board of directors, told them that he was taken off the air as part of Fox News settlement
00:21:29.800
with Dominion. Do you believe that? Do you believe that Tucker was taken off the air as part of the
00:21:38.160
settlement with Dominion? Now, Dominion says they never asked for that. And Fox News has officially
00:21:46.540
said absolutely not. That was not part of the negotiations. Now, I believe it was not part
00:21:52.360
of any written negotiations. Because I don't think they would give a blanket no if it was discoverable.
00:22:02.340
You know, I'm sure it's all non-disclosure situation, but that stuff always comes out. So I would guess
00:22:08.020
that that's true. That it's not written down. But does that mean it wasn't part of it?
00:22:15.000
I would say it wasn't. I'm leaning toward it wasn't. And the reason is,
00:22:25.860
Because you would have to write that down. So that's the sort of thing that nobody would take
00:22:34.280
on a handshake. Because you wouldn't want to agree, let's say you're Dominion. You wouldn't
00:22:40.000
want to say, all right, I'll cut my, what I'm asking in half, or whatever the settlement was.
00:22:45.460
In return, part of what you're going to do is get rid of Tucker Carlson. But then not ask them to
00:22:50.980
write that down. Because you could settle the thing, and then Fox News could say, ah,
00:22:55.340
change your mind, we're going to keep them. And then the settlement would be done.
00:22:59.660
There's no lawyer that would let you not write that down.
00:23:03.460
Nobody's going to make a deal of that size with a component that's a handshake. It's just all going
00:23:08.960
to be written down, or it doesn't count. So I think that Fox News would not give an outright
00:23:16.260
denial if, in fact, it would ever be discoverable in anybody's paperwork that it was, it was false.
00:23:24.060
So, but that does open up the possibility that it was part of, let's say, a suggested
00:23:30.880
outcome. Like, maybe if I told you that there's no chance that Tucker will be on the air again,
00:23:40.800
maybe if I told you that, you'd be a little more likely to, you know, negotiate a settlement.
00:23:46.260
You can't guarantee it. You know, we can't put it in writing. But between us, yeah, this
00:23:55.140
is going to happen. Maybe. Yeah, so, and you have to weigh that against the fact that Tucker
00:24:00.560
is not a liar. There's no history of Tucker being a liar that I've ever heard. You know,
00:24:06.300
people argue that he's wrong. But I've never heard anybody say he lied. Have you? I've never
00:24:12.640
even heard it. I've never even heard that accusation. So I think I would rule that out. So I think
00:24:20.300
that it's possible both of them are telling the truth, meaning that it's not part of the
00:24:26.900
deal in terms of being written down. But it might have been discussed. It might have been
00:24:33.640
discussed. And it might have been discussed enough that both sides knew what was going to
00:24:39.420
happen, but they didn't have to write it down. Maybe. So I feel like maybe the stories are
00:24:48.240
not incompatible. It might be just the difference of what's written and what's not written.
00:24:52.700
Anyway, speaking of lawsuits, do you remember when there was the Biden administration had the
00:25:03.600
Ministry of Truth? Do you remember the brief Ministry of Truth? That's what the critics called it.
00:25:11.520
What it was supposed to be is a disinformation organization that would help get rid of foreign
00:25:18.900
disinformation. But it quickly, you know, the Fox News opinion people turned it into the Office
00:25:25.600
of Disinformation or something. But now the woman who was in that job and quit because of all the
00:25:32.400
pressure is suing. So apparently she was mentioned by name 300 times by Fox News. And she says she was
00:25:42.320
mischaracterized that her job was not to stop, you know, free speech, but rather to stop disinformation
00:25:50.940
from foreign sources and stuff. Now, I don't know if there's a difference in opinion there, because I
00:25:59.420
feel like the opinion people were saying, yeah, that's what you say your job is. But we know it's going
00:26:05.960
to drift into this other domain of just censoring Americans. So I don't know if there's really a
00:26:12.080
difference in fact, but there might be a difference in at least how she was portrayed.
00:26:20.640
So she's suing. So it turns out that the only thing that matters is lawfare. Like we are so far
00:26:30.300
from a world where citizens, you know, become informed and vote and that's how we do government.
00:26:37.300
There's nothing like that happening. It's basically, it's a legal battle, you know, of who can change
00:26:43.720
the voting laws and, you know, what kind of ballots you can use and then stuff like this. You know,
00:26:50.540
if Fox News gets sued out of business, which looks like it might be the plan, the plan might be to just
00:26:57.700
sue them out of business if you get enough of these. Then this gigantic voice for, you know,
00:27:05.880
half of the country or so, 40% of the country would be removed. And that would change the election
00:27:11.960
outcome. If Fox News stopped operating tomorrow, don't you think that would change election outcomes?
00:27:19.600
I do. I think it would change them a lot. So we don't really have a government that's run by anything
00:27:26.080
like voting or informed citizenry or republic. None of that. It's basically just lawyers fighting
00:27:34.560
and then we find out how they did. Oh, yay, our lawyers beat their lawyers this year. Let's play
00:27:41.720
again in four years. All right, lawyers, get going. Yeah, it's just a legal contest. And the voting is
00:27:50.320
just ridiculous at this point. Although I still recommend it. All right. Vivek Ramaswamy making some
00:27:59.520
news on a few policy things. Now, this one is interesting. He wants to consider raising the voting
00:28:06.820
age to 25, but make exceptions for young adults who fulfill some kind of a service requirement. So that
00:28:15.120
can include six months in the military or a first responder role. Or the third one is pass a civics
00:28:22.480
test administered to naturalized immigrants, which is really clever. You have to be at least as smart as
00:28:29.360
foreigners to vote in America. Well, actually, they would not be foreigners because they would be
00:28:34.800
naturalized at the point of taking the test. So they would be our beloved residents. So if you did not,
00:28:42.420
if you couldn't pass the test to become a resident, and you're under 25, you can't vote.
00:28:51.140
Now, I have two feelings about this plan. Number one, it's brilliant. Would you agree? It would
00:28:58.900
absolutely make the country a better run place. It would make our votes more rational. Right. So as an idea,
00:29:07.700
it's solid, which Vivek Ramaswamy is, he has now created a body of work where you can see that
00:29:15.780
every time he enters a topic, he comes with some good ideas. However, I feel like this one doesn't
00:29:24.260
have a chance. Because if you have fewer young voters, you have fewer democratic voters. And that's
00:29:30.340
the end of the conversation. Am I wrong? There's no way you could put, there's no way you're going to get
00:29:37.220
away with putting on restrictions, restrictions on mostly Democrats. That's not going to happen. No, it
00:29:46.180
would never pass any kind of, you know, if it got to the Supreme Court, I can't imagine it working. Can you?
00:29:52.740
I don't even know if it's legal. I don't even know if you could make such a rule. Seems to me you
00:30:00.340
either can vote or you can't vote. You know, there's an argument to be made that either make
00:30:06.980
everybody, make everybody pass that test, which is not a terrible idea. I've often said you should
00:30:14.260
have an IQ, sort of a general IQ test that's just about politics, you know, not about math or whatever,
00:30:20.100
just politics. And then find out who the people who can pass the test favor. Wouldn't you like to
00:30:29.380
know who the smart people want as their leaders? The smart people would be the ones who can pass the
00:30:35.140
test. And they know enough about politics that, you know, their opinion has some some weight,
00:30:40.820
some weight that's deserved. Yeah. So I don't think this plan has a chance, but I'm going to evaluate
00:30:47.620
him the way I would evaluate Trump. I'm going to evaluate as a political strategy. So as a law,
00:31:02.420
I don't know, popular for the base. I liked it. You probably liked it. It just doesn't have a chance.
00:31:09.620
But I don't mind that he brought it up. The fact that he brought it up is both reasonable
00:31:16.180
and it shows his thinking. And his thinking was solid. It's just not politically, doesn't have
00:31:22.500
much chance. But in terms of positioning who he is, and for us to understand the, let's say,
00:31:29.060
the boldness of his ideas, and that they're all based on science and data, it does a good job of that.
00:31:36.260
It does a good job of showing that he's data driven. It's just that it's too political. There's
00:31:44.260
no chance. All right. Also making news against, once again, talking about using the military to take
00:31:52.180
on the cartels. Everybody knows that would not be a complete solution to fentanyl. Maybe not any
00:31:59.460
solution at all. But you still have to do it. Now, anybody who says, but Scott, that will not
00:32:05.620
change the number of people who die of fentanyl whatsoever. I say, so? So? If somebody murders you,
00:32:16.260
you don't say, well, they only murdered one person. If you put this person in jail, you know,
00:32:23.140
they went their whole life and only murdered one person. If you put them in jail, is that really
00:32:28.180
going to stop any murders? Because really, they murdered one person their whole life. It was
00:32:32.980
a special case. It's not going to happen again. So why put them in jail? Right? It's not going to
00:32:39.060
stop any future murders. That's how I think of the cartels. I don't care how many future fentanyl
00:32:46.180
overdoses, it changes. Maybe none. But they all need to be killed. Because that's just the
00:32:57.460
way it has to be. I'm not even going to give you an argument. If you're in the business of killing
00:33:04.980
my people, you're going to fucking die. I don't care what the law is. I don't care what the
00:33:12.100
precedent is. I don't care what the ramifications are. I don't care if it helps the process or not.
00:33:18.100
If you're killing my people, you're going to fucking die. And if it takes Ramaswami to do it,
00:33:24.260
I'm all in. Vivek is also the only one who's saying, I don't know if I've ever heard a presidential
00:33:33.220
candidate say this. Maybe you can do a fact check. Or maybe it happened in the 60s or something. But
00:33:39.300
when was the last time a candidate said he wanted to get rid of affirmative action? Has that ever been
00:33:46.900
a thing? And by the way, just to be clear, historically, I have favored affirmative action.
00:33:56.180
Because I think we needed some kind of a big hammer to get things a little closer to even.
00:34:04.180
But at the moment, I think it's counterproductive. If I were a black college graduate, and I was
00:34:10.340
looking for a job, I would not want anybody to think I didn't get there on merit. I would want
00:34:15.940
everybody to think. College news. So, Larry Elder, maybe. Yeah, Larry Elder. I don't know if he wanted
00:34:23.940
to get rid of it, or he was just against it. There's a slight difference there. But I do appreciate
00:34:32.100
Vivek being in the conversation on that. Yeah, I think we're at the point where affirmative action
00:34:38.100
at the moment hurts more than it helps. But I do think there was a long period where it probably
00:34:44.900
helped more than it hurt, even though it hurt a number of people. All right. RFK Jr. on nuclear
00:34:53.940
energy. I still, I haven't seen his most updated opinion, but I'm hearing from good sources that he's
00:35:01.860
still anti-nuclear energy. But I don't want to characterize his opinion too much, because I'm
00:35:08.900
a little, I'm a little, let's say, under-informed. But this is his biggest problem, I think. Would you agree?
00:35:20.100
RFK Jr.'s biggest problem is nuclear. Because I don't think he can win enough votes on the right
00:35:29.060
to win in a general election unless he's pro-nuclear energy.
00:35:36.100
And I don't know if he can win on the left if he's pro-nuclear energy.
00:35:40.100
But I do think that he's persuasive enough that he could change the left to have a more, let's say,
00:35:49.700
a better risk-reward opinion of nuclear. And so what the world needs is a public debate or conversation
00:36:01.780
between RFK Jr., because I respect that he's a good communicator. I'd like to see a really
00:36:08.260
well-informed, good communicator who is anti-nuclear energy. Or at least, I don't know if anti is the
00:36:15.380
right word. So again, I don't want to characterize his opinion. But it's not a super pro-nuclear energy.
00:36:23.140
I think he needs to have a public conversation with Michael Schellenberger. Don't you?
00:36:30.420
Just think how much that would help the country. Because here's what those two people have in common.
00:36:36.180
As far as you know, they don't lie to you. They don't lie to you. And they know what they're talking
00:36:44.900
about at a deeper level than people generally know anything. Now, neither of them are scientists,
00:36:54.260
but I think they're both close enough to what the argument is that they can represent them.
00:36:58.740
So I don't think there's anything that the United States needs more than a public conversation between
00:37:06.340
Michael Schellenberger and RFK Jr. on the topic of nuclear energy. Wouldn't you agree? It's like it's
00:37:14.260
a screaming need. Because if it turns out that RFK Jr. has some good points that I'm not aware of,
00:37:20.580
I want to hear him. He might have a good point. You know, I'm actually, I have enough respect for his
00:37:29.620
intellectual capacity and his honesty that if he had a different opinion than I do,
00:37:36.180
I would first assume that he was well informed. Second, I would be, I would assume he's trying to
00:37:42.020
figure out what's good for the country. You know, he's not trying to make a buck somehow. And I would listen
00:37:47.060
to it. And if he had a good argument, maybe he could persuade me. But he has, he has the credibility,
00:37:53.220
at least going into it. But Schellenberger has that too. Schellenberger has a long history of being
00:37:59.460
credible and not being a partisan. So those are the two you want to hear talk. I hope that happens.
00:38:07.220
All right. What else is going on? Two, two black guys are getting in trouble in the news.
00:38:17.060
For not being anti-white enough. So I'm wondering if this is going to be a thing now.
00:38:24.420
So two prominent black leaders, and I'll tell you the details, are both in trouble today
00:38:31.300
from critics for not being anti-white. That's like a real thing. So the first one is in Virginia.
00:38:40.660
So Martin Brown, who's taking over the DEI department, I guess. And instead of chasing equity,
00:38:49.940
he wants to go for merit and equality. And he's a black man. And he's getting lots of pushback.
00:38:58.900
Because he wants merit instead of your race to determine your outcomes. And he's getting pushback.
00:39:10.980
So this is one of those Doug Youngkin, the new governor's plays to take out DEI. So we'll see.
00:39:17.940
We'll see how that goes. So the only thing, even the NAACP is calling on Mr. Brown to resign.
00:39:28.180
Because he wants merit over these other things.
00:39:34.100
All right. Also, Mayor Adams, Eric Adams, no relationship to me that I know of, was at some law school,
00:39:46.180
I guess, graduation commencement address. And a number of the students turned their backs on him.
00:39:51.660
And here's their complaint. On the issue of Daniel Penny, the Marine, who's white,
00:39:59.180
who controlled the black, mentally disturbed guy on the subway.
00:40:06.300
And the black guy died later. We don't know exactly the details of what made him die.
00:40:11.660
But Eric Adams, because he's a legitimate leader, like an actual leader, not just a pretend one,
00:40:19.980
said you should wait to see the details before you make up your mind.
00:40:26.220
Basically, he supported innocent until proven guilty.
00:40:29.740
And a bunch of lawyers turned their back on him. Just hold that in your mind.
00:40:40.060
And lawyers, lawyers turned their back on him for supporting innocent until proven guilty.
00:40:47.660
Every one of the people who turned their back on him, they should have their degrees just
00:40:53.500
yanked away. Not really, but I feel like that's a real bad look for the law school.
00:41:00.620
I forget what law school it is. But if you're producing lawyers who don't agree with the concept
00:41:05.180
of innocent until proven guilty, as long as it's a white person who's involved,
00:41:09.340
I'm sorry. You're not going to be my lawyer. That's for sure.
00:41:16.860
So, but maybe this is the thing. Maybe there are black leaders who have decided not to be anti-white,
00:41:24.540
and maybe you'll see more of it. Because, you know, both of them still have their jobs.
00:41:29.900
So they haven't been run out of town for not being anti-white enough. They're just getting criticism.
00:41:35.820
So maybe it's safe. So again, big props to Mayor Adams. Now, I don't agree with him on everything he
00:41:44.300
does, of course, but that's true of all politicians. But good work on this. You know, sticking to the
00:41:50.540
Constitution. So there's a big controversy whether Trump can win over suburban women.
00:41:56.860
That's his big problem. Especially because he's a pussy grabbing insulter of women. And to me,
00:42:07.820
this is like a fascinating question. Because on one hand, it's hard to change a whole demographic
00:42:15.420
group that's against you to be for you. On the other hand, if anybody could do it, it would be Trump.
00:42:23.740
I don't think he will do it. But he might be the only one who could. And I was trying to think,
00:42:32.380
is there any way he could pull that off? He's always going to have abortion working against him.
00:42:38.540
But he's taken that clever view that it's not his opinion of abortion that matters. He wants the
00:42:45.580
individuals to work it out at the state level. That's a pretty strong constitutional argument.
00:42:50.700
It just isn't persuasive, though. I mean, it's rational. It's just not persuasive.
00:42:56.380
So it might decrease a little bit the hatred that people have over that issue. But it's not
00:43:01.660
going to help him that much. So is there anything he could do? What could Trump do that would win him
00:43:15.340
They do like safety, but it hasn't made a difference yet, right? We haven't seen that shift yet,
00:43:21.500
and you think you would have seen it. Because certainly, the news is doing a good job of
00:43:25.580
telling you that everything is dangerous. I mean, everybody knows that crime is up. Everybody knows
00:43:30.460
that the freedom crappers numbers are growing. So crime doesn't seem to be able to get it done.
00:43:45.900
Now, he said he'd be willing to use the military on Mexico as well. But do you think suburban women
00:43:53.580
care about that, or even think that would make a difference? Probably not. I don't think suburban
00:43:58.780
women are big on using the military to take out anybody, are they? Do suburban women usually vote for war?
00:44:06.780
Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. So what is it that suburban women need and want
00:44:16.620
that, theoretically, Trump could offer them that would make a difference? Wine. Free wine. Kids.
00:44:25.980
Yeah, the more protecting kids, but that hasn't made a difference yet.
00:44:31.740
Education, yes, but it hasn't made a difference yet. So I don't, here's what I think. I think that
00:44:39.500
women can't get past the, oh, this is gonna sound really sexist. But I think this would apply to men
00:44:47.340
as well. So I think this will be less sexist than it sounds, because it would apply to men as well,
00:44:53.020
just in their own different way. I believe that people support candidates if they're not super
00:45:01.100
political people, which is different. They support candidates like accessories to their fashion.
00:45:10.460
That's what I think. In other words, you know, what a woman, and keep in mind, I'm gonna say that this
00:45:17.660
is true of men as well, right? Man puts on his, you know, expensive watch and puts on some cologne too.
00:45:24.140
So we're all, we're all using our accessories to market ourselves. I believe that a suburban woman
00:45:34.220
cannot say she's a Trump supporter because it's a bad accessory. The same reason suburban women don't
00:45:42.540
drive beat up pickup trucks, even if it's very functional. It's just not the right accessory.
00:45:49.340
Now, I think that would be true of men as well. You know, men, men don't want to be associated with
00:45:54.380
Marianne Williams, right? Marianna Williams. It doesn't feel like very manly to say you support
00:46:02.460
Marianna Williams. It makes you feel a little, I don't know, a little unsubstantial or something.
00:46:09.740
So I don't think that people choose their candidates entirely on policy, except for,
00:46:16.940
say, the 20% of the country that's trying to pay attention to that stuff. The 80% are going along.
00:46:23.660
They're just going along. And they want to make sure that they've got the accessory that everybody
00:46:27.820
else is wearing. So they're looking at their feet and they're saying, can I wear Uggs? Can I wear Uggs?
00:46:33.820
Uggs? They look at their friends and they go, okay, no Uggs. Uggs are out. Right? So I think that
00:46:40.700
Trump has that problem. That if you're a suburban woman, he's not the accessory that you can associate
00:46:45.900
yourself with. But if you're a suburban man, it doesn't feel the same, does it? I wouldn't feel,
00:46:56.300
I would not feel less of a man or anything else for supporting Trump. I would just feel people hating
00:47:02.380
me. But as a man, having people hate me is just sort of like routine. I'm just so used to it. It
00:47:12.700
just doesn't mean that much to me. But if you're a woman, could you support somebody that would make
00:47:17.980
your friends possibly hate you? It's a little different. There probably is, I don't know,
00:47:23.740
this might be just purely sexist. So you can call me on it if it is. But I don't believe men give a
00:47:29.020
shit as much as women do about what other people think of them. Is that generalization, does that
00:47:35.660
hold? Would you give me that generalization or is that just sexist? At least I'm aware of it. If it's
00:47:42.700
sexist, at least I'm aware of it. I think that generalization holds. The men are a little bit
00:47:49.900
much more F you. This is my opinion. I'll wear this hat if I feel like it. And women have to
00:47:56.060
get along, you know, men are more combative generally, right? So a man will take a contrarian
00:48:04.300
view because it's combative. It's like the combative kind of attracts us to it a little bit. Oh,
00:48:11.340
you hate this? Well, then I'm twice as likely to wear it. Do you really, really hate it? Then
00:48:17.260
I'm three times more likely to wear it. Whereas women, I think, are more likely to find a solution
00:48:24.460
that doesn't get anybody killed. And that is go long, you know, stick with the majority.
00:48:31.580
So how could Trump change his brand to make him accessible to women so that they're not embarrassed
00:48:41.180
to say they like somebody who's strong on crime? What could do that? Well,
00:48:52.540
well, trans? Nah, the trans issue won't get anybody any votes.
00:48:58.060
Four are against. It's too small. Date a man. Fix the economy. Well, but let me ask you,
00:49:07.980
what is it that women need the most to be happy? Let's say moms. Dick. No, the wrong, it's possible
00:49:19.180
that dick is the correct answer. But let's keep it in the political terms. I don't think Trump can get
00:49:24.700
to all of them. You say safety, but I don't think safety is working. Right? If safety were the button,
00:49:34.380
wouldn't it already be activated? I feel like he needs to be not the pussy grabber.
00:49:40.220
I think he needs to be more James Bond and less creepy, creepy guy.
00:49:52.300
If he could change his reputation to be Sean Connery, women would like him no matter how much he likes
00:50:01.660
slapping them. Because apparently Sean Connery was famous for saying, do a fact check on me. This is
00:50:08.860
true, right? Sean Connery famously said that sometimes you have to slap a woman. Is that
00:50:15.340
true? He really said that, right? Yeah. And do you think suburban women were still attracted to Sean
00:50:24.140
Connery? I mean, maybe not at the moment, but in his prime. I'm pretty sure they were. Because somehow
00:50:31.020
it fit with his vibe. Is there any way that Trump could change his battleship into more James Bond
00:50:40.620
so that even women would say, all right, well, he can grab me? I mean, Sean Connery can grab me by
00:50:45.900
the mert. No? I don't know. I'm just kind of noodling through it. I don't have a good idea here.
00:50:53.100
Before cancel culture, that was his reputation. I think you're right. Yeah, before cancel culture,
00:51:01.500
Trump was just a playboy, right? And people said, oh, rich playboy, that's okay.
00:51:08.780
That was Trump's point, that they let him, yeah.
00:51:10.740
You'd have to lose weight. You'd think if Trump lost weight, he would be more popular with women.
00:51:24.500
What if he shaved his head? What if he shaved his head and lost weight?
00:51:32.980
All right, it's never going to happen. Yeah, that's never going to happen.
00:51:36.020
All right. How do you stereotype women these days? I don't know if that was a question or a criticism.
00:51:48.420
Muscles. Well, I think he may have aged out of the playboy mode. An apology. You think if Trump
00:51:57.940
apologized, that would help him with women? Would it? Yeah, because he'd have to apologize for
00:52:07.140
something he said didn't happen. So I don't see that working. Now, apology seems like the wrong direction.
00:52:18.020
All right. Well, I still think there's something that women want
00:52:20.820
that he could provide, but he hasn't come up with it yet. I don't know what it is. It could be fentanyl.
00:52:30.100
I don't think there are any mothers of teens who are not panicked about fentanyl.
00:52:39.780
He could say something along the lines of, you can hate me, but I'm trying to save your children.
00:52:45.540
Oh, that would work. That would kind of work, wouldn't it? So the one thing that would take
00:52:52.900
women off of their, let's say, their accessory thinking that I can't be associated with Trump
00:53:01.700
is if Trump was unambiguously the one who could protect their children.
00:53:05.220
If he was unambiguously the protector of their children, all things would be forgiven. Because
00:53:12.340
women would put their children above themselves in that context. So I think he has to take it out
00:53:19.060
of the frame of women, who are of course thinking of themselves as we all think of ourselves,
00:53:25.220
and move it to children, where we all release our, somewhat instinctively and biologically,
00:53:33.300
we release our self-interest when it comes to children. Because we figure, rightly,
00:53:39.220
that the children are the greatest self-interest as well as interest.
00:53:47.780
Yeah, he doesn't have to, he doesn't have to convince every mother.
00:53:52.980
I think what he has to convince mothers is that, uh, reparations for women, oh my god.
00:53:58.820
He would, he would never recommend that, but it's such a weaselly play. He could form a commission,
00:54:13.380
he could do a Newsome, form a commission of women to look into giving reparations to women,
00:54:40.500
It used to be close, and then it was very close, but now it's very, very soon.
00:54:48.660
And already you can see the, uh, the media narrative propaganda forming.
00:54:54.740
So you can see the, the seeds of the propaganda, and it's going to go like this.
00:54:58.740
So the Ukrainian counter-offensive has not started, at least according to Zelensky.
00:55:06.580
But there's still intense fighting around Bakhmut.
00:55:10.500
Now, you're seeing stories that are different versions of this story.
00:55:18.620
Watch how often you see a story of Russians retreating.
00:55:22.440
Now, do you think that in the back and forth of a tense war in which the sides are roughly equal,
00:55:30.080
you don't think I could get video of Ukrainians retreating?
00:55:34.060
You think there are no Ukrainians who ever retreated?
00:55:37.400
No, no Ukrainian ever backed up to, you know, regroup, to fight again.
00:55:44.340
But every time, every time the Russians move from one place to another,
00:55:49.900
If they're hurrying, or they're all moving, and you hear gunfire,
00:55:55.240
you're going to see a video of them retreating.
00:56:02.380
You know, maybe they're getting a better position.
00:56:05.380
So, watch out for all the Russia is retreating narrative.
00:56:12.320
It looks like that's what the, you know, the intelligence people have decided is going to be the narrative.
00:56:17.080
Because you can see the seeds of it already, getting everybody primed.
00:56:23.640
You know, is it the Wagner group that's going to be retreating more?
00:56:27.560
Or, with all their terrible, you know, criminal conscripts?
00:56:32.140
Or, is it going to be the regular Russian army that's retreating more?
00:56:36.940
Which of those Russians is retreating the most?
00:56:41.500
Well, if you're arguing about which version is retreating the most,
00:56:45.840
you've already accepted that Russians are retreaters.
00:56:53.220
So, I'm not sure how much I'd believe anything during the counteroffensive.
00:56:57.680
When the counteroffensive starts, don't believe anything.
00:57:07.800
I wouldn't believe anything about the reporting on the military on the ground
00:57:14.640
It's going to be just complete garbage reporting.
00:57:17.980
Wagner group is going to be variously winning everything and losing everything.
00:57:28.080
But I will say again that Trump changed it from a war into a negotiation.
00:57:38.700
And am I the only person who's said that out loud so far?
00:58:19.940
So the California reparations group is at it again.
00:58:30.400
with their earlier recommendations about reparations
00:58:35.980
I think this is totally going in the right direction, don't you?
00:58:43.460
Let's see if you can make your head not explode.
00:58:45.560
And this is the perfect example of why Newsom is playing this
00:59:13.740
Don't you think that phone call never happened?
00:59:17.820
Well, let me tell you what the newest recommendation is.
00:59:20.640
And you tell me if he is productively talking to this group
00:59:24.160
or if he's letting them be as crazy as possible
00:59:29.320
So their latest thing the task force is calling for,
00:59:32.440
the state legislature to require all cities and counties
01:00:11.460
Newsom's playing the biggest prank on black Americans