Real Coffee with Scott Adams - July 11, 2023


Episode 2166 Scott Adams： All The News That's Funny Enough To Mock. Goes Well With Coffee


Episode Stats


Length

1 hour and 15 minutes

Words per minute

147.1725

Word count

11,183

Sentence count

852

Harmful content

Misogyny

11

sentences flagged

Hate speech

18

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

A man finds blood on the front of his garage, and he can't figure out what could have caused it. Scott tries to figure out if it's a prank or if it was the work of a hawk.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.420 la, da, da, da, da, da, da, da, da, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba.
00:00:06.680 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization called Coffee
00:00:13.340 with Scott Adams.
00:00:14.340 There has never been a better time in your life or anybody's life.
00:00:18.520 It's so good, well, you can hardly believe it.
00:00:20.860 But if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody could ever dream are possible,
00:00:24.820 All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or
00:00:30.920 a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:35.060 I like coffee.
00:00:36.720 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day that makes
00:00:40.540 everything better.
00:00:41.560 It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
00:00:49.740 Ah, ah, delightful.
00:00:54.820 I love all of you a little bit better.
00:00:57.320 I like you one sip of coffee better.
00:01:00.980 That's my unit of pleasure.
00:01:03.440 Well, how did you like that event last night?
00:01:06.120 Oh, it was a three-cupper.
00:01:08.160 That was a three-cupper.
00:01:09.200 That's maximum enjoyment.
00:01:10.500 All right.
00:01:12.680 Well, yesterday I had this experience.
00:01:16.040 A gentleman who was doing some work at my house comes in, and he says, did you know that
00:01:22.020 there's blood spattered on the front of your garage?
00:01:26.480 And I said exactly what one says when somebody says that.
00:01:30.840 What's the next thing you say when somebody says, did you know there's blood spattered on
00:01:36.840 your garage, the next thing you say is, what?
00:01:44.060 There's literally nothing else you can say.
00:01:46.840 The next thing that comes out of your mouth is, what?
00:01:50.200 Well, so I go outside, and actually since yesterday, so we know when it happened.
00:01:57.780 It happened last, but it happened over the weekend maybe.
00:02:02.020 But there's actually red spots that looks like blood from the top of the front of the
00:02:09.140 garage, which is probably 20 feet above the ground.
00:02:11.840 And then, you know, just like spots down the front, and then on a ledge.
00:02:18.400 What do you think that was?
00:02:21.860 Pixar, Pixar didn't happen.
00:02:24.000 You want me to take you outside right now?
00:02:27.020 I can drag your ass right outside to show it to you. 1.00
00:02:31.080 If you don't believe me, well, you know what I haven't done yet?
00:02:34.800 I haven't looked on the roof to see if there's anything dead up there.
00:02:37.320 I can see the roof from this window.
00:02:41.360 I just haven't looked down yet.
00:02:42.980 If I go up these little stairs and look out a window, I can see if there is anything dead
00:02:46.960 on my roof.
00:02:48.040 Should I do it?
00:02:50.160 I would, but I've got two devices.
00:02:51.940 I can't carry them.
00:02:53.260 All right.
00:02:54.820 Here's my guess of what it is.
00:02:57.440 You want to hear my guess?
00:02:59.540 Now, the first thing you should know is that the reason we had been looking at that wall
00:03:03.460 in the first place is because I got egged.
00:03:08.160 Somebody drove by and threw eggs at my house.
00:03:11.180 Yes, that happened.
00:03:12.600 That's right.
00:03:13.420 And I don't know if you know this, but the eggs actually destroy the paint.
00:03:17.020 You have to repaint your house.
00:03:19.120 Yeah.
00:03:19.360 I have to repaint my house because somebody ached it.
00:03:23.040 There's no other way to fix it.
00:03:24.640 You can't clean it off.
00:03:27.140 So I have better security cameras now.
00:03:33.280 So here's what I think happened.
00:03:34.340 I don't think it was a prank or a human.
00:03:37.200 I don't think there was a human involvement.
00:03:39.280 Here's my best guess.
00:03:40.460 See if this sounds right to you.
00:03:42.120 Remember, the splatter is from the top to the bottom.
00:03:46.080 And it's not very dense.
00:03:47.860 You know, it's maybe, maybe 10 splotches.
00:03:50.960 You know, just dime-sized splotches up the wall.
00:03:53.840 Here's what I think it is.
00:03:54.840 I think there was a hawk, because where I live, there's a bunch of hawks.
00:03:59.380 It's actually named after the hawks, where I live.
00:04:02.540 So the hawks are always in action.
00:04:05.460 I think they had some prey, and it was bleeding out as they carried it over the house.
00:04:11.600 And that it was, you know, sort of bleeding, and the splotches just hit the house as the hawk flew over.
00:04:17.700 What do you think?
00:04:18.300 Because nothing else makes sense.
00:04:20.900 If it had been a human-done prank, it would have been bigger.
00:04:26.800 But small splotches, 20 feet up the roof.
00:04:30.660 I'm thinking a hawk with prey.
00:04:32.900 So that's my analysis.
00:04:36.120 All right, would you like to hear the best story ever?
00:04:39.200 I know, I know.
00:04:40.700 I always tell you it's going to be the best story ever.
00:04:43.760 But do I deliver?
00:04:45.540 Every time.
00:04:46.900 Every time, it's a new high.
00:04:48.680 I'm going to read you this from the New York Post, and I like the way it's written.
00:04:53.900 So I'm just going to read it to you, just the way it's written.
00:04:58.000 New York Post.
00:04:59.260 At least four women were involved in a wild, caught-on-camera brawl near a set of poker tables at luxury Las Vegas hotel over the weekend. 1.00
00:05:09.420 One woman was even pulled from a motorized scooter inside Encore at Wynn, Las Vegas,
00:05:15.180 as a security guard and a bystander tried to break up the massive fights in the evening.
00:05:20.320 The video starts rolling mid-fight with two women, one in jean shorts and the other in a two-piece dress with their thong exposed, 0.99
00:05:30.480 struggling on the floor as they duke it out.
00:05:32.540 A man with a Nike t-shirt rushes in to prevent a woman dressed in cream sweatpants from joining the fracas as he attempts to break up the scrum on the floor of the fancy hotel. 0.99
00:05:43.560 But as he turns his attention to the two brawling women, the woman in sweats lunges for another woman standing nearby and appears to throw a haymaker. 1.00
00:05:53.980 Well, it goes on.
00:05:58.620 It goes on.
00:06:00.060 I'm just saying, oh, no, I sold my stock in Wynn just before it went way up.
00:06:05.220 The worst investment decision I ever made.
00:06:07.880 I held Wynn hotels through the pandemic because I thought, well, surely this is going to come raging back after the pandemic.
00:06:15.420 And then I sold it because I just got tired of waiting and I thought I had too much China risk.
00:06:20.240 And I sold it and it just went to the moon right after that.
00:06:22.440 I think it doubled right after I sold it.
00:06:24.720 So, no, I'm not making any money on the Wynn hotel.
00:06:28.620 But I just like this reporting.
00:06:31.800 It was the least important thing that happened today.
00:06:35.600 The least important thing.
00:06:37.580 But it was written very funny, so I liked it.
00:06:42.620 So here's some news that could easily be the biggest news in the world.
00:06:47.980 It might not be.
00:06:48.780 But the next story could be, it's within the realm of possibility, it's the biggest story in civilization.
00:06:58.140 All right?
00:06:58.940 That there's a startup, I guess you'd call it a startup.
00:07:02.780 Yeah, there's a startup.
00:07:03.780 Called Oklo, or Oklo, O-K-L-O. 0.99
00:07:07.540 And it's a nuclear energy startup making small modular nuclear power plants.
00:07:15.660 Now, they haven't made one.
00:07:17.740 I think they're getting closer.
00:07:19.640 But they're going, I don't know, they're going public through a SPAC or something like that.
00:07:23.460 That was the news.
00:07:24.600 But the thing you need to know is that Sam Altman is one of the big, or maybe the biggest investor in this.
00:07:31.760 So Sam Altman of AI, of Fusion Investments, he does some big stuff.
00:07:38.440 If Sam Altman is not already a household name, it's going to be.
00:07:47.000 I mean, if you don't know who he is, you better start paying attention.
00:07:50.120 Because he started, maybe, I'm just guessing, he probably started 10 years ago to invest in companies that you wouldn't hear of for 10 years.
00:08:01.860 But when you did, holy hell.
00:08:06.020 And one of them is OpenAI ChatGPT.
00:08:09.880 Same guy.
00:08:11.240 Well, when he's not making AI to change the world, he's also investing in a nuclear power startup.
00:08:18.340 Now, here's the big thing.
00:08:20.620 Here's what he says about it.
00:08:23.040 He says the nuclear energy industry can make electricity that is, quote, a way better deal than anything else out there.
00:08:30.120 Now, if somebody else said that, nuclear power is more economical than everything out there, you might say to yourself, oh, there's just a, you know, an advocate or, you know, somebody who's in the tank for it or something like that.
00:08:46.300 But when Sam Altman says it's a way better deal than anything else out there, here's the thing you can trust.
00:08:54.240 He looked into it.
00:08:56.840 Okay?
00:08:58.320 That's the thing you have to know.
00:09:00.720 It's Sam Altman.
00:09:02.600 If Sam Altman, so this would be similar to an Elon Musk telling you something is true economically or technologically.
00:09:12.120 Right?
00:09:12.580 If Elon Musk says the following statement is a true statement about technology, don't we believe it?
00:09:21.160 Right?
00:09:21.540 Or you just say, okay, that's probably true.
00:09:23.700 You should do the same with Sam Altman.
00:09:25.600 Right?
00:09:26.140 Right?
00:09:26.740 Right?
00:09:26.980 If he says he looked into it, and it's by far the best economics, it is.
00:09:33.100 It is.
00:09:34.680 He looked into it.
00:09:36.140 And he's smart.
00:09:37.500 Right?
00:09:37.660 So, I would love to see, of course, I'd love to see a conversation between Sam Altman and RFK Jr.
00:09:47.260 Not a debate.
00:09:48.800 Not a debate.
00:09:49.640 I would like to see them have a conversation.
00:09:52.560 Because I would like Sam Altman to explain why he thinks his startup will be the most economical energy that could be produced, short of fusion.
00:10:02.860 You know, fusion is also one of his investments.
00:10:05.040 That's down the line.
00:10:06.040 But at the moment, it looks like they could build these things, and they would be the best economics in the energy world.
00:10:13.240 Don't you want to see RFK Jr. sit with him and say, all right, my current opinion is that nuclear energy cannot be made economically.
00:10:22.460 But you've got this startup that looks like maybe it could.
00:10:27.240 Tell me what you're doing different.
00:10:29.500 Don't you want to see that?
00:10:30.480 I'd rather see that than a campaign event.
00:10:36.280 Wouldn't you?
00:10:37.860 Like, actually, to find out, can I convince RFK Jr., or can Sam Altman, convince RFK Jr. that this startup, should it work?
00:10:46.820 You know, all startups are a bet.
00:10:49.560 But I'm pretty sure he's going to pull this off.
00:10:52.540 Right?
00:10:52.780 It's all the right people, I'm sure.
00:10:56.720 All right.
00:10:57.360 Today, the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can only see if you're on Locals or subscribing to it on Twitter,
00:11:07.120 decided to take a run at ESG and Larry Fink, who is the CEO of BlackRock,
00:11:15.380 and the biggest promoter of ESG, equity, equity, what's the second thing?
00:11:24.540 And governance.
00:11:25.340 It's sustainability and governance, right?
00:11:29.580 So here's Dogbert running into Larry Fink, who's walking down the street.
00:11:34.500 And Dogbert calls out to him, and he says,
00:11:38.120 Hey, are you the biggest racist in the world?
00:11:41.540 And the gentleman turns around, and he says,
00:11:43.140 I'm Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock,
00:11:45.720 and I'm best known as the champion of ESG and corporate America.
00:11:50.660 And Dogbert says, I'll take that as a yes.
00:11:52.800 And then Larry Fink says, you're totally ignoring my good intentions.
00:11:59.120 Well, I thought it was time to put the shiv into ESG. 1.00
00:12:04.160 So if you're not embarrassed to be promoting ESG, it's time you should be.
00:12:12.560 You should be embarrassed that you were ever part of this.
00:12:17.200 Maybe someday an apology to the country for the damage done.
00:12:20.780 But at the moment, we'll do a little test to see if Dogbert still has the mocking ability to take something out of the public interest.
00:12:32.540 We'll see.
00:12:32.960 So that's for you.
00:12:36.140 Have you heard of something in the technology world called a chiplet?
00:12:41.220 Chiplet.
00:12:42.440 I like to make sure that my audience is like the cool people when you go to the party,
00:12:48.040 and somebody says, hey, have you heard of chiplets?
00:12:51.440 And everybody else will be like, whoa, what's a chiplet?
00:12:56.020 And then you're like there with your drink.
00:12:58.040 You're just looking cool.
00:12:59.760 You're just there.
00:13:00.680 Ah, chiplets? 1.00
00:13:02.440 Yeah, you mean like the Lego chips they're putting together?
00:13:06.440 Yeah.
00:13:09.240 Ah.
00:13:10.280 And know all about the chiplets. 1.00
00:13:12.700 See, that's what you got to do.
00:13:13.900 And I'm getting you ready for that by telling you what a chiplet is. 0.76
00:13:19.640 So it's in the news today.
00:13:20.720 It's a big deal.
00:13:21.700 Some say it'll be like one of the biggest advances in technology and chips.
00:13:26.100 Could actually change a lot.
00:13:27.920 Here's what it is.
00:13:29.100 At the moment, if you wanted to make something like a phone or any device, digital device,
00:13:36.860 it probably is going to require more than one chip.
00:13:38.980 So you might have a video chip and a processing chip and some other kind of chip.
00:13:45.320 And they've got to talk to each other.
00:13:47.000 So you kind of wire them together with these little wires.
00:13:49.720 It's kind of very inefficient.
00:13:52.100 However, the idea is that the chip-making people are getting together to make their chips just interconnect.
00:13:59.700 So somebody makes a video chip, but you make another kind of chip,
00:14:03.180 and you just take your chips and you go click, and you just click them together.
00:14:06.760 Now, apparently, this is going to be an enormous breakthrough as much because it makes it easy to design things as it does to put them together.
00:14:19.980 So assembly would be easier, cheaper.
00:14:22.900 You could build new things that you didn't even think about just by taking chips off the shelf,
00:14:27.780 add some software, slap them together.
00:14:29.900 You've got a new device.
00:14:31.720 And presumably, you could then easily expand your device.
00:14:35.720 So you might have a device that can do X, Y, Z, but you think to yourself,
00:14:40.880 what if I added another chip?
00:14:43.660 You just snap it in there.
00:14:45.100 So it could change everything.
00:14:47.300 It might.
00:14:48.660 And next time you're at a party and somebody says,
00:14:51.420 what about those chiplets? 1.00
00:14:54.280 C-H-I-P, like a chip, L-E-T. 0.94
00:14:57.700 You'll be the smartest person at the party.
00:15:00.340 You're welcome.
00:15:01.000 Well, this is tragic news.
00:15:03.760 Tragic.
00:15:04.680 Actor Ron Perlman has announced he's leaving Twitter for threads.
00:15:12.160 That's like learning that a cancerous spot has been removed from your ass.
00:15:17.760 Oh, I'll certainly miss that cancerous spot on my ass who's going to threads. 0.99
00:15:27.560 And I thought to myself, I just wondered what Zuckerberg thought when he saw that.
00:15:34.160 Now, if you don't follow Ron Perlman, you would have to know he's the most dislikable person who's ever been on Twitter.
00:15:40.580 Like, he really takes it to the extreme of being unlikable.
00:15:46.500 So he's not just having a point of view.
00:15:48.940 He tries really hard to make you dislike him, and he does a good job at it.
00:15:53.460 He does a really good job of making you not like him personally.
00:15:57.120 But that's part of the act.
00:15:58.740 So part of the act is he's trying to be the most unpleasant person he can online.
00:16:05.180 And it works for him.
00:16:06.560 It works for him.
00:16:07.240 But I wonder what's going to happen.
00:16:10.920 Suppose the most crazy people from the left actually did leave.
00:16:18.840 What would Twitter look like if the craziest people left?
00:16:22.960 Would it be better or worse?
00:16:25.620 Would it be boring?
00:16:27.100 Because I've certainly had fun looking at Ron Perlman tweets
00:16:30.900 and watching people get all worked up and interacting with them.
00:16:34.660 I kind of enjoyed it.
00:16:36.100 You know, it wasn't really a healthy dopamine hit.
00:16:40.240 It was more like, you know, the weird pleasure you get
00:16:43.380 when you see something horrible happen to somebody else.
00:16:46.700 You know, you feel bad.
00:16:48.540 You might feel empathy.
00:16:49.740 But at the same time, you're, like, interested in it.
00:16:52.420 You're thinking, ugh, why am I interested?
00:16:56.040 Ugh.
00:16:56.800 Like, you hate yourself for a little while.
00:16:59.280 Anyway.
00:16:59.720 When I think of Roadkill, I think of Ron Perlman.
00:17:05.800 So he's gone.
00:17:08.120 Has anybody seen any difference in Twitter since threads came out?
00:17:14.900 Has anybody logged onto Twitter and said, hey, this is completely different now?
00:17:18.460 And I saw the new head of Twitter, whose name I don't remember, but you'll tell me,
00:17:24.840 said that Twitter had its biggest traffic day just the other day.
00:17:30.120 Oh, the biggest traffic day since February.
00:17:32.900 They had just the other day.
00:17:33.980 So apparently Twitter, yes, thank you, Yakarino, the CEO.
00:17:41.100 So isn't that weird that her, it's an app, it's an app where people yak at each other?
00:17:49.160 Isn't that weird?
00:17:50.720 We're actually on an app, using a, it's an app where people literally yak at each other.
00:17:55.500 And the head of the company is Yakarino.
00:17:59.100 Circle jerks for threads.
00:18:02.420 That's funny.
00:18:03.980 All right.
00:18:04.840 So I've used threads a number of times now.
00:18:08.420 I feel like I just didn't know what was going on over there.
00:18:14.700 But I don't know how many people have the same experience I do.
00:18:17.780 I mentioned this before.
00:18:19.280 One of the things threads can do is it can move your, the people you follow,
00:18:25.200 but not the people you follow, but not the people who follow you, I think.
00:18:29.360 You can take the people that you follow and then follow them on threads.
00:18:33.980 So I'm not sure how other people use Twitter versus Instagram, but I don't do the same things on Twitter that I do on Instagram.
00:18:42.800 On Instagram, I'm more likely to do a picture of my dog, right?
00:18:49.460 Or like a funny sign I saw somewhere.
00:18:52.000 But on Twitter, you know, I'm talking about politics and world events and nuclear power and stuff.
00:18:59.740 So when I brought all of the people over that I follow on threads, it just became Instagram.
00:19:06.200 It was basically just Instagram.
00:19:07.720 But you know what happened.
00:19:10.120 I probably shouldn't admit this, but I think you would have guessed it without my help.
00:19:16.280 On Instagram, I do sometimes follow people because of the way they look.
00:19:21.120 I know.
00:19:21.940 I know.
00:19:22.900 I know.
00:19:24.140 I'm terrible.
00:19:25.900 But I admit it.
00:19:27.360 This is my confession.
00:19:28.520 Sometimes I'll follow people on Instagram solely because of their looks.
00:19:36.060 There it is.
00:19:36.880 I've admitted it.
00:19:38.500 God, I feel dirty.
00:19:40.660 But I do.
00:19:42.240 Sometimes I follow them just because of how they look.
00:19:45.180 Now, this will surprise you.
00:19:47.680 This is something you didn't see coming.
00:19:49.320 But if you port over all the people you follow because of the way they look, your experience on threads is very different from the people on Twitter that I follow because they say brilliant things.
00:20:06.540 So on Instagram, I don't know if I follow Mike Cernovich or Jack Posobiec.
00:20:13.880 I don't think I do.
00:20:15.640 But they're out there saying brilliant stuff.
00:20:19.320 But when you port over all the people who look good into threads, do you know what they do?
00:20:25.460 When you move them to threads, they start making text-only posts.
00:20:33.500 Oh, my God.
00:20:36.140 Do you know how to make beautiful women seem unattractive? 1.00
00:20:40.940 Listen to their text tweets and read them.
00:20:45.240 You'll be like, oh, God, I thought you were so pretty.
00:20:48.000 But, oh, stop tweeting or threading or whatever the hell they're doing over there.
00:20:52.980 Stop it.
00:20:53.860 You're just ruining it.
00:20:54.800 You're ruining it.
00:20:56.100 Stop talking.
00:20:57.320 Stop.
00:20:58.660 So that was my experience.
00:21:00.160 My experience is I brought over all the dumbest people and they're all talking.
00:21:06.440 I don't mind looking at dumb people if they look good.
00:21:08.960 But listening to them talk is almost unbearable.
00:21:14.220 So that was my experience.
00:21:16.320 Now, so your experience on threads should be unique to each person, right?
00:21:19.800 Because if you were following politics on both and you brought them over, like Don Jr., for example,
00:21:25.940 I would guess he's mostly following political stuff and the same people he follows on Twitter.
00:21:33.000 So his Instagram, if he moved it to threads, would probably look like Twitter.
00:21:38.540 But I don't know about the rest of you.
00:21:41.260 The rest of you might have my situation.
00:21:43.080 Do I follow my ex?
00:21:45.800 Of course.
00:21:47.060 Yeah, we follow each other on Instagram.
00:21:50.480 Of course we do.
00:21:52.520 Yeah, no, I have a good situation.
00:21:56.720 All right, let's talk about the JFK assassination.
00:22:00.260 Old news that never goes out of fashion.
00:22:03.540 Rasmussen had a poll asking people what they thought about the government's role in this assassination.
00:22:10.120 Or was it a lone gunman?
00:22:12.620 I guess that's the question.
00:22:13.880 Or was it a conspiracy?
00:22:15.500 So 38% think it was a conspiracy.
00:22:21.160 38% think it was a lone gunman.
00:22:24.140 So it's exactly the same number who think it's a conspiracy or a lone gunman.
00:22:27.920 But I wonder how many are undecided.
00:22:31.480 About a quarter of the people don't have an opinion on this.
00:22:34.680 About a quarter of the people.
00:22:36.240 It's a weird one, though, because I don't know if they're right or wrong in this case.
00:22:40.120 But here's the updated news.
00:22:43.060 On midnight Friday, Rasmussen's tweeting this.
00:22:47.980 Midnight on Friday, which is where you go to release the news you don't want the public to know.
00:22:53.980 Because that doesn't get picked up by the news people because it's late night Friday.
00:22:59.200 So on late night Friday, the Biden administration, the White House, announced that it would be not releasing some of the documents about the JFK assassination.
00:23:09.360 Because of security concerns.
00:23:12.700 Well, can you imagine in your mind what would be a security concern that would still be relevant, lo, these many decades later?
00:23:27.560 What would that be?
00:23:30.200 I can only think of one thing.
00:23:32.040 I'm going to tell you what I think it is, and then I want you to tell me if you can think of any other hypothesis.
00:23:40.140 Even a hypothesis.
00:23:42.540 Right?
00:23:42.720 I believe that the documents would show the government, or maybe just the CIA, but the government in some way was involved in it.
00:23:52.300 And the security problem is that we would lose faith in our government or the CIA.
00:23:58.360 And that that's considered a security problem because if the public doesn't have a little bit of trust in the government, things fall apart.
00:24:06.840 Well, I think it's because they're guilty and they can't tell you.
00:24:12.400 Now, I'm not, I would not, I don't think I would necessarily place a life and death bet on being right.
00:24:19.420 There could be some other reason.
00:24:21.700 But if there's another reason, can anybody speculate what that might be?
00:24:27.660 Because there's no technology that would be relevant.
00:24:30.640 There shouldn't be any, like, surveillance issues that would still be relevant in modern times.
00:24:37.680 There shouldn't be anybody alive, I don't think, anybody still alive, who was in power at the time.
00:24:47.120 Because they would be, they would all age down, right?
00:24:49.520 The people in charge are like, were like 50, 50 years ago.
00:24:53.300 Or how many years ago it was.
00:24:55.720 So they should all be dead.
00:24:57.720 So we're not protecting people.
00:24:59.680 And he didn't even say that.
00:25:00.860 They didn't say they were protecting people.
00:25:02.620 They said it was, you know, something important.
00:25:06.380 So what could it be other than it's proof positive that something in the government was wrong?
00:25:12.900 And maybe still is.
00:25:15.040 Maybe still is.
00:25:17.840 Yeah.
00:25:18.320 What if an allied country was involved?
00:25:22.420 Oh.
00:25:23.640 Now you've got a reason to keep it secret, don't you?
00:25:26.940 Suppose some other country was involved.
00:25:30.280 And it's an ally.
00:25:33.200 Just imagine that.
00:25:35.040 Just imagine it's an ally.
00:25:36.560 I don't think we would release it.
00:25:39.760 Because it would damage us when we're trying to stay allied to fight Ukraine or not fight Russia or whoever we're fighting.
00:25:46.820 So I would say that, and I say this, I'll say this again, even today, that when the government doesn't tell you all the details, you should assume the worst case about the government.
00:26:01.020 It doesn't mean you're right.
00:26:02.720 But just as you should assume innocence for a citizen until proven guilty, when the government says I'm not going to tell you, you should assume guilt.
00:26:13.060 Does everybody believe that that's a reasonable assumption?
00:26:17.080 Assume the government is guilty of something horrible if they won't tell you what's going on 60 years after the fact.
00:26:24.520 If it was something that happened yesterday, then I would say, oh, this could be legitimate national security.
00:26:31.020 I'd better wait and see.
00:26:32.540 But I've waited long enough.
00:26:35.260 I feel like I've waited long enough of the Kennedy assassination.
00:26:39.860 At this point, if there's something they're not telling us, I have no assumption other than massive illegal or bad behavior from the government.
00:26:50.140 I can't imagine any other possibility.
00:26:52.980 Can you?
00:26:53.360 Can you propose even a speculative, wild-eyed, brainstorming idea of what else it could be?
00:27:04.080 Aliens.
00:27:05.120 Oh, that's pretty good.
00:27:06.240 It was an alien assassination.
00:27:09.340 The kids would sue?
00:27:11.340 I don't know.
00:27:12.160 Maybe.
00:27:14.620 It could reveal who really runs the government.
00:27:17.660 But would it reveal that 60 years after the fact?
00:27:20.840 Because whoever runs the government is probably not the same today, unless you're saying it's an organization that still exists, which, I don't know, maybe.
00:27:31.240 Anything's possible.
00:27:32.100 But the working assumption is the government was behind it.
00:27:37.240 I think that they've essentially signaled that.
00:27:40.460 All right.
00:27:41.720 Here's the news that's no surprise to anybody.
00:27:44.800 The Biden Department of Justice is announcing multiple indictments against the whistleblower who claims he has direct evidence that the Bidens were paid by Chinese entities and other entities for stuff that's sketchy.
00:28:02.120 So, big surprise.
00:28:03.120 So, big surprise.
00:28:05.000 Isn't that a big surprise?
00:28:06.960 So, let me try to put this in context for you.
00:28:09.460 As you know, from the day of Joseph Goebbels, it has been a classic dictator move to accuse your critics of the thing they're accusing you of.
00:28:22.320 Actually, the thing you did.
00:28:24.280 I should say it differently.
00:28:25.840 You should accuse your critics of doing the crime that you actually did.
00:28:30.440 Apparently, that's a Goebbels Nazi idea.
00:28:34.000 Now, Tucker Carlson, I famously always talk about, because he always used to say this, and I thought it was crazy talk, that the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of whatever crime they're doing.
00:28:45.180 To me, that sounded just, I don't know, just too clever, too political, not really something based on actual things happening.
00:28:56.580 I have now completely revised my opinion of that.
00:28:59.700 It looks like it's, I mean, it looks intentional.
00:29:05.360 It's so consistent, it's hard to imagine it's accidental.
00:29:09.920 And here's another example.
00:29:11.680 So, the indictments, now remember that the claim from the whistleblower is that the Bidens were working with China in an illegal fashion that involved a transfer of money.
00:29:24.660 That's the whistleblower's claim.
00:29:26.440 So, what do you think he's indicted for?
00:29:27.980 That.
00:29:29.500 That.
00:29:31.040 That.
00:29:32.340 Are you fucking kidding me?
00:29:34.200 He's indicted for that?
00:29:36.640 Now, they're calling him a Chinese spy.
00:29:40.760 Do you think he's a Chinese spy?
00:29:44.400 Does anybody think that?
00:29:46.460 Now, you'd have to see him talking.
00:29:50.060 But when was the last time there was a Chinese spy who wasn't ethnically Chinese?
00:29:54.860 Do we have a big history of that?
00:29:59.480 Like a big history of Chinese spies, like actual spies, who are not ethnically Chinese?
00:30:07.580 Has that ever happened?
00:30:09.960 You know, the Bidens are just taking money.
00:30:11.640 That's different.
00:30:13.440 No, Swalwell's girlfriend was ethnically Chinese.
00:30:17.640 She was a spy.
00:30:18.340 Is there any evidence ever of a Chinese spy who was not ethnically Chinese?
00:30:29.300 So, we're being, and do you think, and what is his nationality?
00:30:34.100 The whistleblower is Israeli, right? 0.96
00:30:37.280 He's Israeli, maybe double citizenship or something.
00:30:40.620 So, he's American-Israeli?
00:30:45.320 Or is he just Israeli?
00:30:48.020 Give me a fact check on that.
00:30:49.340 I thought he was double citizenship, but I'm not sure.
00:30:52.220 But how many, like in your experience, do you see the Israeli being a Chinese spy?
00:31:01.240 Does that, is that like, that feels right?
00:31:04.720 I mean, it's possible, right?
00:31:06.640 It's possible.
00:31:07.340 But wouldn't that be the most unusual pattern you've ever seen?
00:31:13.000 If you're using pattern recognition here, what are the odds that this whistleblower and
00:31:19.500 the pattern you're seeing developing around the accusations about him, he's a Chinese spy.
00:31:25.580 Of all things, that seems like the least likely possibility based on pattern recognition.
00:31:32.460 Not based on facts, because we don't have access to whatever facts they're dealing with.
00:31:37.820 Just based on pattern.
00:31:39.520 Now, let's do the other pattern.
00:31:41.700 That this is, once again, the hundredth in a row time that the Democrats have blamed
00:31:46.940 somebody on the other team, or some other team, of doing the exact crime they're doing.
00:31:54.000 What are the odds that that's what's happening?
00:31:55.660 Really, really high.
00:32:00.600 Now, I can't prove it.
00:32:02.140 I'm not making a factual argument.
00:32:04.700 It's not a factual argument.
00:32:06.320 It's a pattern argument.
00:32:08.660 Are we really supposed to buy that the pattern that holds almost every time is not happening,
00:32:17.240 but the pattern you've never seen and would never expect to see ever in your life is the
00:32:22.200 real thing that's happening?
00:32:23.060 That's the real thing that's happening.
00:32:27.900 Un-frickin'-believable.
00:32:30.340 Am I stereotyping?
00:32:32.480 That's what a pattern is.
00:32:35.120 Somebody asked if I'm stereotyping.
00:32:37.260 What do you think a pattern is?
00:32:39.300 That's what a pattern is.
00:32:41.980 I mean, if the pattern is based on facts, that's what it is.
00:32:45.760 Otherwise, it would be just pure discrimination.
00:32:48.400 All right.
00:32:50.660 So, of course, Keith Olbermann is just crowing that all of the evidence against the Bidens
00:32:58.180 has been now debunked.
00:33:01.420 That's what Keith Olbermann says.
00:33:03.320 All the evidence has now been debunked against the Bidens taking money from many foreign entities.
00:33:08.280 All debunked, Keith Olbermann says.
00:33:10.580 Yep.
00:33:15.580 All right.
00:33:16.780 I saw a tweet by Balaji Srinivasan, who you should all be following on Twitter.
00:33:23.300 But he showed a clip.
00:33:24.420 He said,
00:33:24.620 The U.S. Secretary of the Navy recently admitted that one Chinese shipyard has more shipbuilding
00:33:30.320 capacity than the entire U.S. Navy.
00:33:32.540 What?
00:33:34.140 Just one shipyard of 13.
00:33:37.760 I think there are 13 of them in China.
00:33:40.040 Just one of their 13 can build more Navy ships than all of our facilities combined.
00:33:47.460 Well, that's OK, because we have a huge advantage in ships.
00:33:51.840 It'll take them a long time to catch up, right?
00:33:53.400 Is that what you're thinking?
00:33:55.700 It'll take them a long time to catch up.
00:33:58.680 Currently, the U.S. has 300 Navy ships, and China has, uh-oh, 340.
00:34:09.440 So at the current rate, this is just me guessing.
00:34:13.480 This is not part of the story.
00:34:15.360 China would have 1,000 when we had 350, because we have ambitious plans to make up to 350.
00:34:23.400 So that would be 50 extra.
00:34:26.100 We think we could get there in maybe a few decades.
00:34:29.460 China will have 1,000.
00:34:31.600 They're basically going to own the ocean.
00:34:34.020 It appears to me that China's plan is to own the ocean, which is largely just a volume question, isn't it?
00:34:41.660 If you have enough ships, don't you kind of own the ocean?
00:34:46.360 So that's not good.
00:34:48.440 Although one wonders how much Navy ships are worth in the era of drones and whatnot.
00:34:54.980 It seems like all of the Navy ships would sink the first two days of any war between China and the U.S.
00:35:03.760 I feel like the OSHA would just be emptied of ships.
00:35:08.740 Because I don't know how you can really protect a ship from a superpower.
00:35:11.400 You can protect a ship from a ram, but do you think you can protect a ship from a superpower with superpower weapons?
00:35:20.660 I feel like not.
00:35:22.920 It feels like it doesn't matter how many there are.
00:35:26.140 All right.
00:35:28.460 Reason, the publication called Reason, tweeted this.
00:35:33.180 Yes, RFK Jr. is not worthy of the rehabilitation tour he's getting from various pundits.
00:35:39.400 Huh.
00:35:40.120 I believe I would be one of those various pundits.
00:35:43.360 I'm not one of the important ones, but I'm one of the various pundits who is giving RFK Jr. a lot of positive attention.
00:35:50.700 And they say that, you know, various pundits, podcasters, and tech luminaries.
00:35:55.460 And they say, Reason says, he pushes tabloid quality, quote, reporting, and he wildly extrapolates from little grades of truth.
00:36:06.580 So then they wrote a hit piece about all of this conspiracy theorizing.
00:36:11.780 I didn't read it.
00:36:12.980 I assume it's full of fact checking.
00:36:15.160 All right.
00:36:15.660 So I tweeted back, and last I saw, I had like three quarters of a million views.
00:36:21.900 So I know it was hitting some kind of a note.
00:36:24.420 But I tweeted back at Reason, and I said, in 2023, a conspiracy theorist is more credible than the government.
00:36:31.200 He criticizes.
00:36:32.920 Do you think that's a fair statement?
00:36:34.860 In 2023, a conspiracy theorist, no matter who it is.
00:36:39.700 But let's just say it's somebody who, you know, is a notable person.
00:36:44.720 You know, not a crazy person, but a notable person.
00:36:47.200 Somebody, you know, did the work, did the homework.
00:36:49.960 I would say that it's just a fact that in 2023, the conspiracy theorist has more credibility than the government that they're criticizing.
00:37:02.280 Would you agree?
00:37:03.060 And I think that maybe that was not the case always.
00:37:10.120 But at the moment, it's very much the case.
00:37:12.860 And others said the same, that reason is part of the problem.
00:37:18.000 And part of the problem is that nobody will give RFK Jr. a reasonable airing sitting next to somebody who would disagree with him.
00:37:26.560 Who, who, whose problem is this situation?
00:37:32.460 Let's say reason is right.
00:37:34.560 Let's, you know, hypothetically, let's say that, that they're right, that RFK Jr. is a big old conspiracy theorist, and he's wrong about all these important things, and he just keeps going out there and saying wrong stuff.
00:37:48.600 Whose problem, whose job was it to fix that?
00:37:55.000 Who has the job to fix wrong information?
00:37:58.400 The media, right?
00:38:00.100 If he's out there, it's because you're not doing your job.
00:38:02.940 And you know what doesn't work?
00:38:04.440 Writing a hit piece about him.
00:38:06.240 That doesn't work in 2023.
00:38:08.280 In 2023, if there's a hit piece about you, it's just as much a badge of honor as it is a criticism.
00:38:15.260 There is no such thing as a hit piece against a conservative that makes any difference to conservatives, because they don't see it as a hit piece.
00:38:26.160 They see it as a sign that somebody is making a dent, somebody is breaking through.
00:38:31.980 So that's not going to work.
00:38:34.280 Now, how could Reason Magazine not be aware of what I just told you?
00:38:38.160 How could they not be aware that they're part of what makes RFK Jr. dangerous?
00:38:45.260 Do you know how to make him not dangerous?
00:38:47.980 Invite him on a show with somebody who disagrees with him but really knows their stuff.
00:38:52.940 Why not that?
00:38:54.360 Why not just invite him?
00:38:55.400 Do you think he'll say no?
00:38:57.120 Do you think RFK Jr. will say, oh, no, I'm not going to go on this Reason event,
00:39:03.540 because I'm afraid of talking to somebody who disagrees with me and has some facts?
00:39:09.000 Do you think he'd say no?
00:39:10.140 Now, I think if somebody is willing to talk in public, have a long public record of interacting
00:39:16.780 with this data, clearly are educated and smart and really good communicators, the only way
00:39:23.200 you're going to stop that message, if you think it's dangerous, is you're going to have to
00:39:27.320 put up somebody better.
00:39:29.580 You're going to have to beat his message.
00:39:31.500 And you can't beat it with a hit piece, because hit piece tells me he's right.
00:39:35.100 I don't think he's right, by the way.
00:39:38.900 I don't think RFK Jr. is right about all of his claims.
00:39:43.900 My best guess, without doing a deep dive in every claim, if I had to guess, he's right
00:39:49.620 about some, he's wrong about some, and he raises exactly the right question about a lot.
00:39:57.660 That would be my guess.
00:39:59.040 I don't know.
00:39:59.740 But if you can't clear that up for me, by putting him on the same venue, in the same
00:40:05.800 event with somebody who disagrees, so they can talk it out in front of me, so I can watch,
00:40:12.060 I'm not buying that he's the problem.
00:40:17.380 He's a lot closer to the solution than the problem.
00:40:21.280 Because he's a well-informed person who wants to do this in public.
00:40:26.200 That's the solution.
00:40:27.300 He's a free speech absolutist.
00:40:31.180 Yes, I want to talk about this right in front of everybody.
00:40:34.980 I want everybody to look at my data.
00:40:36.780 I want everybody to look at my stuff.
00:40:38.700 I want everybody to evaluate me.
00:40:42.300 And I imagine if he were shown to be wrong in a credible way, he might change his opinion.
00:40:47.520 Because he doesn't seem crazy.
00:40:49.940 He seems like somebody who did his research and came to an opinion that's different than
00:40:53.320 yours.
00:40:54.580 Or sometimes.
00:40:57.300 Yeah.
00:40:59.980 So, I think reason needs to look in the window, in the mirror here.
00:41:04.380 New York Times is reporting that Donald Trump's lawyers are asking for a delay in this documents
00:41:14.560 case, you know, the Mar-a-Lagio boxes.
00:41:17.400 They're trying to get a delay to get it to be delayed enough that it looks like it's going
00:41:23.160 to interfere with the election, so that a judge will have to decide, does the judge decide
00:41:30.040 who wins the election, or does the judge say, we'll delay this until after four years, I
00:41:36.160 guess?
00:41:36.360 Which, of course, he could pardon himself, so that that's no delay at all.
00:41:43.600 So, in other words, does the court say that Trump is, as his critics will say, above the law?
00:41:50.700 Will he be above the law, as in, they won't prosecute because he's running for president?
00:41:57.000 That would look very much like above the law.
00:41:59.980 On the other hand, as a citizen of the United States, I'm not really sure I want a major
00:42:05.540 candidate taken out by a legal claim from the other side.
00:42:10.840 That feels like a terrible precedent.
00:42:12.800 So, there are two bad choices, right?
00:42:15.840 Basically bad either way you go.
00:42:18.300 But, I would give a, certainly a kudos to Trump's lawyers, because it seems to me that's exactly
00:42:26.220 the right play, from, you know, my limited non-legal expertise.
00:42:34.020 It looks to me like delaying it until it becomes confused with politics, that looks like a really
00:42:40.800 good play. Would you agree?
00:42:43.740 Does that look like the right play to you?
00:42:47.120 To me, it does.
00:42:48.840 Because, you know, I think the entire thing is political.
00:42:52.720 So, if he uses a political maneuver to get out of a legal problem that was only a legal problem
00:42:59.480 because it was political, that seems entirely fair to me.
00:43:03.960 That's just judo. 0.60
00:43:05.080 Just using their energy against them.
00:43:06.720 It's like, okay, if you want to confuse politics, if you want to confuse politics and the law,
00:43:13.820 game on.
00:43:15.860 Let's confuse politics with the law.
00:43:17.820 Let's take it to the next level.
00:43:19.360 If you want to confuse this, if you want politics and the law to be mingled, you've got your wish.
00:43:27.080 You've got your wish.
00:43:28.020 Let's mingle them.
00:43:29.220 Let the judge decide.
00:43:31.580 Not bad.
00:43:32.320 I like how aggressive it is.
00:43:35.560 Well, Evanston, Illinois, is going to be paying reparations to African-Americans who live in the town. 0.99
00:43:43.980 I assume all the money comes from taxes of the local residents.
00:43:50.480 I don't know that it would come from anywhere else.
00:43:53.280 The story is a little vague on that.
00:43:54.980 But why do you think Evanston is successfully, if you can call it that, implementing reparations when other places have less luck?
00:44:06.980 Why do you think that is?
00:44:09.140 Like, what would cause them to be successful?
00:44:12.180 I have a theory.
00:44:13.360 It's because they have a low population of Asian-Americans.
00:44:16.860 That's my theory.
00:44:20.120 Because white Americans can't push back as much as they might like to, because they just look like racists.
00:44:26.700 But the reason that the Harvard affirmative action thing went the way it did is because the major proponents of ending affirmative action were Asian-Americans.
00:44:37.460 And because they were not white Americans, who were widely considered the masters of the universe and therefore deserving of nothing, they could get away. 0.98
00:44:49.560 I'll say get away with, or let's say succeed.
00:44:52.020 I'll say succeed.
00:44:52.920 That's a better word.
00:44:54.040 So the Asian-Americans could succeed in something very positive for the republic.
00:44:59.240 It just happened to be good for white citizens as well.
00:45:02.040 Now, I would bet you that Evanston has a low percentage of Asian-Americans, without checking. 1.00
00:45:10.420 I didn't check.
00:45:11.680 But I'm guessing that's the reason that the white residents are somewhat helpless and will just be paying money to black residents of Evanston, in effect, through taxes. 0.75
00:45:23.360 Do you think I'm wrong?
00:45:24.720 Would anybody bet against me that what's going on there is a low percentage of Asian-Americans in Evanston?
00:45:29.940 Because the white citizens are just helpless.
00:45:34.160 They're just going to go with whatever's woke.
00:45:36.500 But the Asian-Americans can just say, fuck you.
00:45:40.260 Right?
00:45:41.160 They can just say, fuck you.
00:45:43.180 And everybody goes, oh, it's coming from you?
00:45:45.560 OK, I'll listen to that.
00:45:48.900 So that's an interesting situation.
00:45:51.260 I guess Jake Tapper was talking to somebody and said that he's not going to shy away from the Hunter laptop or the Biden money scandals.
00:46:03.320 But in the same story, I saw how little he talked about it, basically ignored the entire story.
00:46:09.820 For most of the time, it was a hot story and it mattered.
00:46:12.160 But now that it, you know, now that that time has gone by and Biden got elected and it doesn't matter politically so much, oh, now he's going to talk about it.
00:46:22.600 Because I don't think the Democrats are really looking for a Biden second run.
00:46:28.320 I doubt that Jake Tapper is thinking to himself, oh, God, things would be so good if Biden got reelected.
00:46:35.420 I doubt it, because I just don't think anybody's thinking that.
00:46:40.060 They would prefer it over Trump.
00:46:41.720 I get that.
00:46:42.440 But nobody's thinking Biden's the good deal.
00:46:44.520 So I think the word is out that even the Democrats can give Biden the shiv at this point, because they're going to try to hasten his removal so they can get somebody in there who might win.
00:46:56.500 But I was wondering what it's like to be Jake Tapper.
00:46:58.680 So here's this clear, well-documented situation where he, for money, as his profession, he gave you fake news.
00:47:13.280 And by fake news, I mean he ignored the real news that would have changed how you thought about a lot of things.
00:47:19.100 So I call that fake news.
00:47:20.540 Ignoring real news if your job is to report the news.
00:47:23.920 So how can you be, how embarrassing is it to present yourself as a news professional when the news itself, the news itself, has clearly defined you as a purveyor of fake news, a misinformation purveyor, by omission as much as inclusion.
00:47:47.840 How embarrassing is that?
00:47:49.480 Do you think he actually has any embarrassment about that?
00:47:51.560 Or do people just get used to their situation and it doesn't even occur to them to be embarrassed?
00:48:00.780 I literally got canceled worldwide.
00:48:06.440 And I would be way more embarrassed to be him than me.
00:48:12.740 It wouldn't even be close.
00:48:14.500 I would be like, I wouldn't be able to go outside my house if I were him.
00:48:17.940 I mean, he actually may have helped change, you know, change the direction of the country and started a war.
00:48:27.020 Let me just put this out there.
00:48:29.540 If Jake Tapper had aggressively reported on the laptop from the first moment, as well as, you know, allegations from whistleblowers and everything,
00:48:38.000 do you think, do you think, do you think Biden would have been elected?
00:48:42.860 Just ask yourself, would Biden have been elected if just one thing had changed?
00:48:47.220 Just one person, Jake Tapper doing his actual job instead of doing something that looks political from the outside, ignoring the laptop story.
00:48:56.760 If the only thing he'd done is his job, is it possible that the war in Ukraine would not have happened?
00:49:05.320 Seriously.
00:49:06.460 The war in Ukraine is because Biden's president, right?
00:49:11.740 Would Biden be president if Jake Tapper, just that one person, had aggressively reported on the laptop and all it implied about the Biden crime family?
00:49:21.900 Jake Tapper may have killed hundreds of thousands of people by not doing his job right.
00:49:30.140 Am I wrong?
00:49:32.120 Now, I'm not saying that, you know, that's a direct line, you know, from Jake Tapper to dead people, but it's pretty direct.
00:49:39.140 It's fairly direct.
00:49:40.860 You know, I'll say it again.
00:49:42.460 Jake Tapper doesn't do his job and he ignores the laptop story, which would have said a lot about the possibility of the Biden crime family corruption thing.
00:49:52.420 If that had been enough, let's say if he had been aggressive about it, if that had been enough to change the narrative, and I think it would have, because CNN reports that everybody on the left gets to see it.
00:50:06.480 So if he had done that, you'd probably have a President Trump, or at least there's a better chance.
00:50:13.300 Don't know that for sure.
00:50:14.440 That would be a leap.
00:50:15.500 But polls do seem to suggest a number of people would have changed their votes, had they known.
00:50:21.920 So that's the only reason that there's a major war in Europe.
00:50:26.700 How many people are dying because of the Ukraine war and wounded?
00:50:30.100 To me, that's on Jake Tapper.
00:50:33.400 Am I wrong?
00:50:35.040 Jake Tapper is responsible for every injury and every death in Ukraine, because if he had simply done his job, it wouldn't have happened. 0.69
00:50:45.680 I'm not wrong.
00:50:47.720 You know, you can't prove that chain of connection because there are too many other variables, but it is fairly direct.
00:50:53.580 It's hard to imagine that Biden would have been elected if Tapper was reporting on the laptop the same way that Fox News was.
00:51:03.320 And I think that Fox News has been proven to be completely accurate on the laptop.
00:51:09.060 Every bit of it seems to have been proven out.
00:51:14.500 So I would be living in shame if I had created a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
00:51:19.400 But just to remind you, I'm the cancelled one.
00:51:25.860 I'm the cancelled one.
00:51:27.780 Just keep that in mind.
00:51:29.780 I'm cancelled.
00:51:31.980 Jake Tapper probably started a world war by not doing his job and knowing.
00:51:37.500 And probably knowing he wasn't doing his job.
00:51:41.440 Wow.
00:51:44.720 Correct me if I'm wrong.
00:51:46.260 Do you all know what the superdelegates are?
00:51:48.280 The Democrats have superdelegates.
00:51:50.700 Republicans do not.
00:51:52.360 Now, give me some fact checks because this is not some area that I know a lot about.
00:51:57.560 But the superdelegates are people who will go to the Democratic Convention.
00:52:02.860 And when they cast their vote, it counts for way more than a regular delegate's vote because that's the system they set up.
00:52:11.260 And these so-called superdelegates are so super that they decide who won.
00:52:17.560 So it's a little bit of smoke and mirrors to look like the convention is real.
00:52:24.180 It's not a real convention.
00:52:26.020 It's a handful of superdelegates who decide who's going to be the nominee.
00:52:31.180 And then everybody else pretends they're part of the system.
00:52:33.720 But they're really not.
00:52:35.800 They're really not.
00:52:37.360 Now, to me, that's just like the Chinese Communist Party.
00:52:41.100 It's the same system.
00:52:44.160 Now, it's possible that Chairman Xi, he may have taken over dictatorial powers at this point.
00:52:53.480 But prior to that, it was a whole bunch of superdelegates who were the head of the Chinese Communist Party.
00:53:04.520 They would decide who the candidates were.
00:53:07.680 And they would largely decide who won.
00:53:11.140 How is that really different than the Democrats?
00:53:14.240 They've got superdelegates. 0.93
00:53:16.420 The Communist Party has the Communist Party leaders.
00:53:19.520 They're unelected individuals who decide who can run for office.
00:53:26.640 And then the system supports their ascension.
00:53:30.460 It's basically just Communist China's system.
00:53:33.380 It's not actually very different than Iran's. 0.60
00:53:36.520 So Iran's system of picking the top leader, it's the mullahs.
00:53:42.380 So there's a bunch of unelected mullahs, and here I really don't know what I'm talking about,
00:53:49.640 so I'm probably even pronouncing all the words wrong.
00:53:52.460 But they get together, and then they decide who's their boss.
00:53:56.060 That's just what the superdelegates are. 0.98
00:53:58.720 It's basically an Iran-Communist China government system.
00:54:03.360 Now, as long as the Republicans were competitive, you didn't mind so much, did you?
00:54:09.680 Like, you didn't care too much how the Democrats picked their leader,
00:54:13.580 as long as you had a fair fight in the end and you could put forward your own champion.
00:54:19.320 Right?
00:54:19.780 It's a private organization.
00:54:22.460 You know, you're not forced to be a Democrat.
00:54:24.460 If you don't like that superdelegate thing, you just register as a Republican or an Independent.
00:54:28.600 So you can just opt out, which makes it perfectly legal, because it's not mandatory.
00:54:35.960 But what happens if the Democrats get enough, let's say, control of the entire system,
00:54:43.620 which might include the voting systems, so that the challenger can never win?
00:54:51.000 Are we close to that?
00:54:53.360 Are we close to a point where the challenger can't win no matter who the challenger is?
00:54:58.600 Feels like it.
00:54:59.520 If we're not there, we're close to it.
00:55:01.580 So we might be, you know, like a hair's breadth away from essentially a communist system,
00:55:07.820 which is the leader is going to be a Democrat because they're going to win no matter what,
00:55:12.220 and the Democrat is not selected by a popular vote.
00:55:16.420 They are elected by superdelegates who are connected to the power base of the party.
00:55:22.740 And if they can't lose, which we're getting to that point where they can't lose,
00:55:29.760 then you just have China.
00:55:34.160 And does China have elections?
00:55:40.180 China has elections, right?
00:55:41.820 But the elections, at least for Xi, the election isn't real, right?
00:55:47.900 Because you don't really have, you know, actual real choices.
00:55:52.100 Now, this is why somebody like Trump is so important.
00:55:56.040 I would imagine a Ron DeSantis would just get rolled by the Democrat machine.
00:56:02.400 Somebody like a Trump, potentially, could slice through any amount of noise because he has that superpower.
00:56:11.220 It doesn't matter how much, you know, noise or machine is running against him.
00:56:16.260 He does have the power to slice through it and dismantle it.
00:56:19.440 Very rare, right?
00:56:21.520 Now, it has to do with the fact that he will take any amount of pain to get what he wants.
00:56:26.500 I think Trump is deeply underestimated for how much pain he is willing to endure personally
00:56:33.940 to get done what he thinks needs to get done.
00:56:37.480 It's actually very impressive, the amount of pain he willingly takes on, you know, the criticism, etc.
00:56:47.660 So he's a singular character who might be the only thing keeping you from a communist-like government, in effect.
00:56:58.040 So we'll see.
00:56:59.080 We'll see what happens there.
00:56:59.960 So a bunch of Republicans, House Republicans, are introducing some kind of a voting bill that would apply to all the states.
00:57:09.860 Usually the states run their elections, but the federal government could have some input here if this got approved.
00:57:17.540 And here's what they're trying to get done.
00:57:19.640 I doubt it will get passed, but what they're trying to get done is, let's see, what would it do to improve our elections?
00:57:26.720 It means a photo ID would be required, so they would like to make it required in all states, for a federal election.
00:57:36.340 It wouldn't be required by this law for a state election.
00:57:40.340 But it would bar non-citizens from voting.
00:57:44.100 It would require annual maintenance of voter rolls.
00:57:46.840 And, this is kind of key, prevents the mailing of unsolicited ballots to rolls that have not been maintained.
00:57:56.520 So if you can't show that your voter rolls have been, you know, massaged to be accurate, you can't even send out ballots.
00:58:05.120 Because you'd be sending them to people who don't exist, and that creates opportunity for fraud.
00:58:09.980 All right, I'm going to allow this all capital letters.
00:58:19.880 I'm going to make an exception here.
00:58:21.780 Now, I told you I block everybody with capital letter comments.
00:58:25.360 But I'm going to let this one go from Mahak, all in capitals. 0.81
00:58:29.640 I want to marry a guy just like Scott.
00:58:33.560 If not, then I'm not getting married.
00:58:36.720 Allowed.
00:58:38.220 Allowed.
00:58:38.740 Allowed.
00:58:39.980 Approved.
00:58:42.420 So, I guess capital letters aren't so bad after all.
00:58:46.320 Not so bad after all.
00:58:48.660 All right.
00:58:50.960 So, given what the Republicans are asking for, I think you could assume they would get zero Democrat votes.
00:58:58.440 So, it doesn't look like it could pass.
00:59:00.560 But, I love that they're putting it out there.
00:59:03.660 So, I would say this is good work by the Republicans.
00:59:06.920 Because they're going to, they're forcing the, forcing the Democrats.
00:59:14.760 Stop it.
00:59:15.560 Somebody's chanting in all caps, USA, USA.
00:59:20.360 Like, damn it, what am I going to say about that?
00:59:23.480 No.
00:59:24.500 Get your patriotism away from me.
00:59:26.380 All right, well, it's good play by the Republicans to make the Democrats answer for why the elections don't have these controls.
00:59:35.880 All right, I saw Dr. Jordan Peterson disagree with Elon Musk.
00:59:42.080 Look, isn't that fun.
00:59:43.920 Has that ever happened before?
00:59:46.280 You know, I have this theory that when you reach a certain level of intelligence, everybody at that level of intelligence has the same opinion.
00:59:55.240 Now, I'm sure it's not literally true.
01:00:00.200 But, it feels like it.
01:00:02.380 It feels like it.
01:00:03.820 Like, at some level of intelligence, people have the same information and the same ability to process that information.
01:00:11.300 Usually, most disagreements are disagreements in information.
01:00:15.700 Or, disagreements, or let's say, different abilities to reason.
01:00:20.200 Now, some people are just taking a team perspective.
01:00:25.400 But, if you look at Dr. Jordan Peterson or Elon Musk, those are two people that I respect immensely for their intelligence, specifically.
01:00:35.500 But, I would also say that these are two people who would easily, easily be able to go against their team.
01:00:43.220 Would you agree with both those statements?
01:00:44.740 They're both immensely intelligent, and both of them have shown that they could, it would just depend on the topic, they could go against the people that, you know, you imagine are on their side, easily.
01:00:57.960 And, they could do it without any hiccup.
01:01:00.220 Like, no, there would be no friction there at all.
01:01:03.560 I believe that they could go against their biggest supporters in a heartbeat without even hesitation.
01:01:09.740 So, that makes them two of the most valuable people in the country, even though Jordan Peterson's Canadian.
01:01:16.740 But, in terms of the value of the United States, you give somebody who's that smart, who can also change their mind, that's just gold.
01:01:27.600 Like, that's what makes your country work.
01:01:31.200 You need a few of those.
01:01:32.960 Mike Cervich, same thing.
01:01:34.160 He recently tweeted that he made a mistake, in his words, a mistake, thinking that DeSantis was going to, you know, rise and win the primary.
01:01:45.540 Now, when you see somebody like Mike Cervich easily and effortlessly say, oh, this thing I said was very, very, I was very sure about was 100% wrong, and now let's go on.
01:02:00.100 Like, that's such a credibility builder, because nobody's right about predictions, right?
01:02:07.680 Like, you know, you could be the best predictor in the world, which happens to be me, and I still get plenty wrong, right?
01:02:15.040 So, being wrong is nothing, you know, no kind of shock.
01:02:19.800 That's just part of the process.
01:02:20.860 So, here's where Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk disagree, which I find fascinating, and it's, Elon Musk said something about he would protect anonymous users on Twitter, and that if you wanted to be anonymous on Twitter, as long as you're following the guidelines, Elon Musk says, absolutely, you can be anonymous on Twitter.
01:02:43.240 Dr. Jordan Peterson says, in a tweet to Elon Musk, he says, anonymity enables the dark tetrad types, I'll explain that, Elon Musk, and unopposed, they will take us all down.
01:03:02.600 It's a big mistake, sir, with all due respect.
01:03:05.300 Now, I do love to see the respect that, you know, he pays to Musk, because he knows Musk isn't doing stupid shit, right?
01:03:14.140 So, that is worthy of respect, even if you disagree a lot.
01:03:18.420 You know he thought it through, right?
01:03:21.120 But they disagree.
01:03:22.460 Now, the expertise that Jordan Peterson is bringing to it is this dark tetrad thing.
01:03:29.340 I'll give you the dumb guy's explanation.
01:03:32.360 There are some people who are terrible.
01:03:36.520 That's a simple explanation.
01:03:38.300 They're narcissists, they're trolls, they're looking for trouble.
01:03:41.920 But there's a personality type who's looking for destruction.
01:03:45.880 And if you give them a way to destroy things anonymously, you're going to get a lot of those people,
01:03:51.940 because it's the perfect, you know, sadist place to go.
01:03:55.120 So, if you're Dr. Jordan Peterson, and you've done a, I believe he had a clinical practice, right?
01:04:02.420 So, he would have had both research and experience, life experience, plus maybe clinical experience,
01:04:07.800 with this dark tetrad personality.
01:04:11.540 When he tells you they could destroy your world, he's not guessing.
01:04:19.300 You know what I mean?
01:04:20.980 He's not guessing.
01:04:22.080 Like, this is his sweet spot.
01:04:25.420 This is exactly where one of the smartest people in public life, Peterson,
01:04:30.780 this is exactly his merit of expertise.
01:04:34.180 He knows this stuff.
01:04:35.840 So, when he disagrees with Musk, you know, Musk is coming from a freedom of speech perspective,
01:04:41.340 which, of course, we all appreciate.
01:04:43.020 But, when you add the real-life effect of unleashing sadists with no controls,
01:04:53.280 you know, as long as they follow the guidelines, no controls,
01:04:56.500 that that could be deadly.
01:04:59.240 It could actually destroy the country.
01:05:00.720 Now, I have not formed an opinion on this yet.
01:05:07.380 I'm still mulling it.
01:05:09.080 Because when you see people this smart and this well-informed disagreeing on something,
01:05:16.540 if you immediately take sides with one of them, you should ask yourself if there's something wrong with you.
01:05:22.140 Right?
01:05:22.400 If you're too quick to pick a side, that's not a good look in this case.
01:05:28.740 Because, frankly, both of them are smarter than you.
01:05:33.020 They're both smarter than me.
01:05:35.280 So, you know, I don't say that lightly.
01:05:38.340 You've watched me long enough.
01:05:39.660 I don't say that lightly.
01:05:41.060 They're both smarter than I am.
01:05:43.480 It's just obvious.
01:05:44.200 So, when they disagree, my first thought is, oh, damn, what am I going to do now?
01:05:53.040 Because I hate to be on the other side of either one of them.
01:05:56.420 That's a terrible place to be.
01:05:58.400 But, if you want to find a way where they could agree,
01:06:03.060 or some way to, you know, make those two opposite views the same,
01:06:07.720 I would say the way to get there is through preferences.
01:06:10.520 It's not a difference in opinion of what might happen.
01:06:16.380 It's a difference in preference.
01:06:19.400 So, I think Elon Musk would say,
01:06:21.760 if the ship is going to go down,
01:06:24.780 let's go down with free speech.
01:06:27.920 And I think Jordan Peterson is saying,
01:06:30.200 I don't think you see how big this risk is.
01:06:33.900 No, I don't know.
01:06:34.880 Maybe Musk does see how big that risk is,
01:06:37.620 but he still prefers it.
01:06:38.660 So, it's a risk-reward thing
01:06:41.040 where nobody can be 100% sure of the size of the risk,
01:06:44.980 and nobody can quite be sure of the size of the reward.
01:06:48.700 So, it's so subjective that intelligence doesn't quite,
01:06:52.700 you know, get you to the final answer where you normally would.
01:06:56.420 But, in this case, you kind of have to use your gut.
01:07:00.280 And I think Elon's gut says free speech has never not worked.
01:07:05.240 Everywhere you've tried it, it works.
01:07:08.980 Everywhere you take it away, you're fucked. 0.65
01:07:12.820 Now, that's a pretty simple rule.
01:07:14.860 But could there be an exception?
01:07:16.840 You know, could Twitter be an exception
01:07:18.400 because of this anonymity thing?
01:07:20.420 And I'm a little undecided.
01:07:24.560 A little bit undecided.
01:07:26.380 I can certainly see Jordan Peterson's argument,
01:07:29.820 but, you know, an absolutist approach to free speech,
01:07:36.220 it's hard to argue against that either,
01:07:39.200 you know, for adults anyway.
01:07:42.300 Anyway, so I thought that was fascinating.
01:07:44.280 With much respect to both individuals,
01:07:47.280 I'd love to hear them discuss it.
01:07:50.000 Well, here's another one.
01:07:51.460 Don't you think you want to see the show
01:07:52.940 where Elon and Jordan Peterson just sit down
01:07:55.860 and talk about just this?
01:07:57.620 Nothing else.
01:07:59.040 Give us 15 minutes on this.
01:08:01.820 You know, bring us into the question.
01:08:04.180 We'd like to be part of that,
01:08:06.400 at least with our opinions.
01:08:09.140 So, I don't know.
01:08:10.680 Who do you think is going to break the seal on this?
01:08:12.740 So, I say that there's a thing that's inevitable
01:08:16.860 because everybody feels it now,
01:08:19.220 and that is you're going to have to create platforms
01:08:22.160 where the people who are smart and disagree
01:08:25.660 can get in front of the public.
01:08:28.760 It might be that calling it a debate
01:08:30.820 is where everything goes wrong.
01:08:33.280 That might be our mistake
01:08:34.500 because we sort of reflexively call it a debate.
01:08:37.800 If we called it a conversation,
01:08:39.540 maybe we could get them to sit down.
01:08:40.820 What do you think?
01:08:44.060 How about a one-topic conversation?
01:08:47.200 I'd love to see somebody who has some clout,
01:08:51.420 you know, a Bill Maher type,
01:08:53.400 somebody like that,
01:08:54.280 David Sachs, somebody like that.
01:08:56.760 I'd like to say,
01:08:57.840 let's do some 15-minute conversations on one topic,
01:09:03.760 and we'll put good people on both,
01:09:06.340 and we'll give them just enough time
01:09:08.020 that they can definitely say what they need to say.
01:09:09.960 If it needs to go longer than 15 minutes, we'll do it,
01:09:12.920 but we're not going to let anybody not say what they need to say.
01:09:16.960 And I feel like if anybody ever pulled that off,
01:09:21.360 and the hard part is getting people to participate,
01:09:23.860 because as I've told you a number of times,
01:09:26.400 whichever side is already winning,
01:09:28.960 they don't want to debate.
01:09:30.720 That would be crazy.
01:09:31.800 But I do think that somebody of a high enough stature
01:09:35.840 could get them to do it.
01:09:37.620 For example, and this is not a real example,
01:09:41.200 if ex-President Obama said,
01:09:44.200 look, we've got some big issues,
01:09:45.820 here's the best thing I can do for the country.
01:09:48.220 I'm going to bring on this expert and this expert,
01:09:50.940 and I'm going to talk to them,
01:09:51.920 and I'm going to ask both of them some tough questions.
01:09:53.880 Now, if Joe Rogan asks, let's say, a doctor or whatever to come on,
01:10:02.180 you can still say no to Joe Rogan.
01:10:04.940 Am I right?
01:10:06.240 You can still say no to him.
01:10:07.780 He's hard to say no to,
01:10:09.060 because he's so important at this point.
01:10:11.720 But if Obama asked two people,
01:10:14.100 who's going to say no?
01:10:16.960 Right?
01:10:18.060 Who would say no?
01:10:18.940 Well, I think he'd say yes,
01:10:22.160 simply because of who's asking.
01:10:25.780 So you could probably find some public figure
01:10:28.780 who people can't say no to.
01:10:31.120 It might be Oprah.
01:10:32.540 Let's take Oprah.
01:10:34.960 Right?
01:10:35.660 If Oprah calls you and says,
01:10:37.440 I want the two of you to sit here,
01:10:38.940 and I'm going to ask you some questions on this one topic,
01:10:41.840 would you say no to Oprah?
01:10:45.140 I don't know.
01:10:45.780 But she's just too much part of our national fabric.
01:10:51.160 I think I would say yes.
01:10:53.160 Even if I had some questions about how it would go,
01:10:55.740 I'd lean toward it.
01:10:59.500 So my prediction is that somebody's going to break the seal on that.
01:11:04.520 Somebody's going to know, oh, I could pull this off.
01:11:06.980 And I think it's going to have to be somebody who is,
01:11:08.980 believe it or not,
01:11:11.380 higher than Joe Rogan in terms of national,
01:11:15.900 let's say, credibility.
01:11:18.860 Now, I also think
01:11:20.180 that you might have better luck with a Democrat as the host.
01:11:25.860 Here's why.
01:11:27.180 If a Democrat invites, let's say,
01:11:29.520 a pro-vaccination person to give their views,
01:11:33.020 then they're going to at least trust that the host
01:11:35.380 will let them do their thing.
01:11:36.600 And that's what they're worried about
01:11:38.600 because they don't want to lose the debate
01:11:40.240 because they already won, right?
01:11:41.800 They have everything they want.
01:11:43.140 They don't need to debate.
01:11:44.860 But if your team invites you,
01:11:48.420 if Obama, your god,
01:11:50.860 says, you know, we better defend this better,
01:11:53.440 you know, help me defend whatever the view is,
01:11:55.420 I think they'd say yes.
01:11:56.880 Now, how about the Republicans?
01:11:59.540 Can you name me a time a Republican ran from a debate?
01:12:03.640 Go.
01:12:03.940 Go.
01:12:06.600 Nothing, right?
01:12:08.940 Name a time a Republican said no to a debate on anything.
01:12:16.660 Trump 2023.
01:12:19.400 Yeah.
01:12:20.140 But Trump is not looking to debate topics.
01:12:23.500 If Trump and DeSantis had a conversation,
01:12:26.780 they would agree on all the policies.
01:12:28.600 So when Trump doesn't talk to somebody who agrees with him,
01:12:34.500 it's because it's not about the topic.
01:12:37.760 Trump versus DeSantis is personality.
01:12:41.320 Right?
01:12:42.320 You're getting the same, basically the same policies.
01:12:46.100 But you're voting for the character you think can execute
01:12:49.180 and not destroy the country for other reasons.
01:12:52.280 So if Trump decides not to debate,
01:12:57.300 I would say I would be disappointed
01:13:00.960 because I want the entertainment,
01:13:02.700 but he wouldn't be making a bad decision
01:13:04.980 and it wouldn't be bad for the country.
01:13:07.100 Because whoever, you know,
01:13:08.700 whatever the Republican primary produces,
01:13:11.540 it's going to look a lot the same,
01:13:13.420 except for the personality.
01:13:14.760 And we don't need a debate on personality.
01:13:19.040 So I think if you have a Democrat host,
01:13:22.840 they can get the Democrat to say yes
01:13:24.640 because they'd feel safe.
01:13:26.440 And the Republican always says yes.
01:13:29.500 Tell me which show Vivek would not go on.
01:13:34.380 Right?
01:13:36.280 Just take one example.
01:13:38.840 So Vivek Ramaswamy.
01:13:41.740 There's no show or no conversation.
01:13:43.980 He'll say no to, if it's legitimate.
01:13:47.400 You would be there in a heartbeat.
01:13:49.940 So you could definitely pull it off.
01:13:53.380 Who would RFK Jr. say no to
01:13:55.580 for a debate on his favorite topic,
01:13:59.600 if it's credible people?
01:14:00.860 He wouldn't say no to anybody.
01:14:02.400 So you've got all these candidates out there
01:14:04.340 who are saying, I'm not going to say no.
01:14:06.940 I'm going to say yes,
01:14:08.080 but you've got to get the Democrats on board.
01:14:10.760 So you're going to have to have a Democrat host.
01:14:12.760 I think that Joe Rogan,
01:14:15.380 as the host of people who disagree,
01:14:18.440 I think that's a non-starter.
01:14:20.360 I think he's exactly the wrong person.
01:14:23.020 And I have a huge positive opinion
01:14:24.980 of Joe Rogan, by the way.
01:14:26.480 It's just that the position he's in
01:14:28.860 in the country,
01:14:30.840 whoever it was in that position,
01:14:33.280 would not be the ideal moderator
01:14:34.720 for important issues.
01:14:36.720 Because he looks to others
01:14:38.900 like he's on one side.
01:14:41.560 And that just won't work.
01:14:43.680 Now, personally,
01:14:44.540 I would rather have a Democrat host 0.90
01:14:46.360 if I were debating.
01:14:48.540 Do you know why?
01:14:51.380 Do you know why
01:14:52.260 I would prefer a Democrat host
01:14:54.700 if I were part of a debate
01:14:56.260 with somebody else on the stage?
01:14:57.360 Because the Democrat is going to push me.
01:15:04.380 I wouldn't want to be in the debate
01:15:05.980 unless I could be pushed
01:15:07.520 as hard as they can push.
01:15:09.360 And then I still overcome.
01:15:12.400 I don't want to waste my time
01:15:13.980 with something where they said,
01:15:16.120 well, the debate was kind of friendly to you,
01:15:18.840 and so we didn't really see anything happen.
01:15:22.300 That's a waste of time.
01:15:23.220 I want the one who could crush me
01:15:25.680 with their arguments,
01:15:27.140 and if I don't get crushed,
01:15:29.200 it's going to be news.
01:15:30.860 Like, if you can get out of the hardest trap,
01:15:34.520 well, then you've done something useful.
01:15:37.460 Right?
01:15:37.780 If it's not the hardest trap,
01:15:39.920 it's probably not worth the effort.
01:15:44.240 All right.
01:15:47.760 They'll say that anyway.
01:15:49.100 I suppose they will.
01:15:49.900 All right.
01:15:51.580 That's all I got for today.
01:15:52.480 YouTube, I'm going to say bye.
01:15:55.140 Obviously, this was the best livestream
01:15:56.620 you've ever seen.
01:15:58.060 And I'll see you tomorrow.