Episode 2267 Scott Adams： CWSA 10⧸20⧸23
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
145.11876
Summary
In this episode of CWSA Coffee, Scott Adams talks about why people who don't like each other while married are more likely to divorce than those who do like their spouses. He also talks about the one thing you look for in a marriage that predicts divorce: contempt.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
00:00:11.520
It's called CWSA Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing that ever happened here.
00:00:15.640
If you would like your experience now streaming on multiple platforms, I think Rumble's working
00:00:21.200
today. We've got the X platform and YouTube and locals for my beloved subscribers.
00:00:30.000
And here's what you need to take this experience up to levels which you couldn't even imagine
00:00:36.380
were possible. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a cyan, a canteen,
00:00:40.860
jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
00:00:47.380
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the
00:00:50.760
thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.
00:01:00.000
Pretty good. Yeah, sometimes those sips aren't perfect, but it's pretty good.
00:01:06.380
Well, here's the good news. I found a movie that I can watch. Wow. Have you noticed that
00:01:13.400
all movies suck? Well, it turns out that there is still one person making good movies, and
00:01:20.720
I've said it before, Tom Cruise. Why is it that Tom Cruise is the only person who knows how to
00:01:25.780
make a movie? So I was just watching the latest Mission Impossible. It just came out on live
00:01:31.340
stream. And it is screamingly un-woke without being bad in any way. In other words, you don't
00:01:42.060
really pick up on the wokeness or anti-wokeness of anything. You just watch the movie. It is
00:01:47.440
so not heavy-handed in the wokeness that it just feels like a movie from yesterday or something.
00:01:54.820
And the other thing that Tom Cruise does right, and I have to think it's him. I feel it's like
00:02:00.680
more him than even his directors. They are so well edited. He doesn't have any moment in
00:02:07.020
the movie where you're like, all right, fast forward, fast forward. It's like every moment
00:02:11.720
totally belongs in the movie. It's very rare. So check it out. It might not be the best movie
00:02:19.440
you've ever seen, but it's all very watchful so far. Well, today I'd like to give you another
00:02:27.380
statement from science. Now here's something that you've heard, probably you've heard this before,
00:02:33.060
from marriage experts, mostly divorce experts. I think you've heard it from Jordan Peterson,
00:02:39.620
and I just heard it from some other relationship expert on Instagram. I don't remember his name.
00:02:47.520
But he was saying that the most predictive variable for divorce, you know what it is? What is the one
00:02:55.640
thing you look for that's most predictive of divorce? That's right. Contempt. Yeah. Money is one of the
00:03:02.900
biggest problems. But if you're going to predict divorce, it's contempt. So the first time I heard
00:03:10.560
that, it was years ago. And I said to myself, holy cow. Wow. That's like opening up like this whole
00:03:19.600
understanding. My awareness has been maximized. Now I know exactly what to look for, not only if I'm in a
00:03:27.740
relationship but other people, but I can totally predict what's going to happen. And I thought, why, why didn't I
00:03:35.000
know that before? That contempt predicts divorce? Because it's backwards science. Backwards science. Let me, let me
00:03:51.440
just reword this. All right. So the experts are telling us, and it's sounding very smart when they
00:03:57.200
do it, that if you see contempt, that predicts divorce. Huh. So when one or both of the people who
00:04:07.980
are married to each other started thinking the other was a fucking asshole and I can't stand the
00:04:14.020
moment in the same moment in the same room, that, well, I didn't see this coming, but that actually
00:04:19.780
predicts divorce. Wow. Can you believe it? That people who don't like each other while married
00:04:29.380
are more likely to divorce than people who like each other? Where did that come from? It's like it came
00:04:36.420
out of nowhere. Why, why did I think that was profound for years? For years, I thought that was
00:04:46.980
telling me something useful. So people who don't like each other are less likely to stay together.
00:04:56.120
Why did that sound profound until today? Today, for the first time I heard it and I thought,
00:05:02.600
well, it's obviously backwards. You know what's a better way to say that? People who have already
00:05:09.620
decided to divorce treat each other like dicks. It's backward science. It's not predicting. It's
00:05:19.900
already happened. There's no predicting going on. All right. A very important story. We still don't
00:05:27.780
have in America here. We have not elected a speaker of the house and the problems are mounting, for
00:05:35.520
example. Okay. Next story. Elon Musk is trying to kill newspapers. He did a couple of things in that
00:05:48.800
direction this week. So he posted this on X. He said, the articles printed in newspapers are quite
00:06:00.080
literally yesterday's news. The newspapers are literally yesterday's news. And I thought to
00:06:07.980
myself, well, if it's printed, yes. I mean, they can do a little bit better online because they're
00:06:14.820
usually online as well. But it is a good cut. But I had to correct him. I don't like to correct
00:06:20.800
Elon Musk because he's usually pretty spot on. I usually agree with him. But here I think his
00:06:27.880
statement is incomplete. You know, he said articles printed in newspapers are quite literally
00:06:33.420
yesterday's news. And I have to correct him because I said, the Washington Post is not yesterday's
00:06:39.840
news. The Washington Post is yesterday's news. And that's different. So speaking of billionaires
00:06:50.660
and newspapers, I saw a tweet today that it was so exactly what I've been thinking that
00:06:59.040
it blew my mind. So on the X platform, Rod Lorenz posted, I wonder if Jeff Bezos is embarrassed
00:07:07.040
by Washington Post's incessant lying. Or does he endorse it or not realize it? And I thought
00:07:15.460
to myself, I spent a full hour yesterday wondering about that. You know, I don't spend all of my
00:07:23.880
time thinking about the Roman Empire. Sometimes I think about Jeff Bezos. And I swear to God,
00:07:30.140
I was working out and I was just obsessed by that question. Does Jeff Bezos know what the
00:07:38.280
Washington Post does? I mean, how can he not? On the other hand, does he approve of it? Or is it,
00:07:45.440
you know, does he say there's a problem also? What's going on? And my best hypothesis is that he's
00:07:55.520
under duress, that he's being forced to own it for the benefit of some government entity that has
00:08:03.780
some power over him. Either because they can buy billions of dollars worth of server time
00:08:11.000
on Amazon servers, which the CIA has. Or maybe they control whether he can operate,
00:08:18.160
you know, as freely as he wants in different markets. Maybe it gives him some protection there.
00:08:23.880
I don't know. You can imagine a number of government entities having some power over Amazon and
00:08:30.720
therefore over Bezos. But there's such a disconnect between what we know about Bezos and his ownership
00:08:39.360
of the Washington Post. Would you agree? What we know about Bezos from everything except the
00:08:45.060
Washington Post, I would describe him as non-political and a pragmatist.
00:08:53.880
Meaning that I don't even know if he leans left or right. I couldn't tell you.
00:09:00.320
Which is remarkable, really. And what I mean by that is he probably decides on each issue individually,
00:09:07.720
which is what super smart people do. So it wouldn't surprise me. Now, I'm sure he identifies
00:09:14.980
with one side or another, probably more Democrat than Republican, just a guess. But probably not
00:09:22.120
obsessed with it. You know, probably more looking at each individual thing. Because there will be
00:09:29.480
some things that Democrats like, that he likes, some things they like that would be bad for business.
00:09:34.940
So he's probably, he probably picks and chooses. But why, why would he put such a reputational stain
00:09:42.660
on his business by owning the Washington Post? Because Amazon has an amazing reputation. In my opinion,
00:09:50.100
they do software better than anybody's ever done it. I mean, I could not be more impressed
00:09:56.220
with how Amazon as a technology works. The fact that you don't think about it every day,
00:10:02.400
like some problem because of it, it tells you how amazing it is. I mean, my God, the complexity
00:10:08.960
of that thing. And that it actually delivers me stuff the next day. I'm just blown away by it every
00:10:14.960
day. So I think he's under duress, but that's just speculation. All right. Speaking of speculation
00:10:22.520
and billionaires, did you see the news yesterday that Peter Thiel has been an FBI informant for years?
00:10:31.080
Did you see that? It wasn't the biggest news, but it was, you know, all over the internet.
00:10:38.700
So apparently it's confirmed. It's confirmed from the FBI handler himself,
00:10:43.700
which is pretty good confirmation. I think the handler is retired or something, but he said,
00:10:49.500
oh yeah, he was one of mine. Now, just so you don't get too excited about it, the confirmation
00:10:57.500
is that he was an informant strictly for international foreign stuff, which I don't
00:11:04.600
mind too much. Do you? If he's an FBI informant specifically excluding domestic stuff, so he was
00:11:13.860
excluded for talking about Trump or domestic politics, he was just an informant if he learned
00:11:20.180
something about other countries that was relevant to the US. I've got a prediction or maybe an
00:11:27.500
observation. How could anybody who's a billionaire not be talking to the FBI or maybe other intelligence
00:11:37.340
groups? I would think it's universal. You don't think that government entities have approached
00:11:44.120
Elon Musk. It's impossible to imagine it hasn't happened. Impossible to imagine. Now, that doesn't
00:11:54.460
mean he's agreed to do anything or, you know, that he's working with them. It doesn't mean he's not.
00:11:59.980
If I were a billionaire, the way I would handle it is I would work with the government when it made
00:12:04.960
sense and I would resist it when it didn't make sense or it violated some moral ethical boundary.
00:12:11.760
My guess is that's what's happening with every billionaire who has any influence over anything,
00:12:17.800
right? You know, somebody like Bezos, somebody like Elon Musk. I feel like the government has to
00:12:24.500
be in one pocket, which doesn't mean they're controlling him. I mean, it could be an interplay
00:12:30.320
where everybody's looking for their own benefits. But don't be naive and imagine that we have,
00:12:37.720
you know, important, influential billionaires who are dealing with other countries, China in
00:12:43.400
particular, and that they're not being talked to by the government. Of course they are. How much
00:12:49.540
impact that has probably depends on each issue individually. Well, Vivek Ramaswamy said something
00:12:57.140
that I agree with completely. He said in a post, it's not 1980 anymore, which a great framing,
00:13:05.680
by the way. He says, it's not 1980 anymore. The real threat to free speech today, the government
00:13:11.820
is using a combination of carrots and sticks to get private companies to censor speech that the
00:13:17.580
government cannot censor directly. He says, if it's state action in disguise, the constitution still
00:13:24.900
applies. Oh, that rhymes. If it's state action in surprise, the constitution still applies, period.
00:13:31.880
I didn't realize he had a rhyme there. I think that was accidental, but it was pretty good.
00:13:37.720
This is precisely my point of view, precisely. That, in fact, you've probably seen me say
00:13:45.540
that was a good argument in the 80s. Have you seen me say that online? I actually say the same
00:13:51.960
thing. It's a good argument in the 80s. And the reason is that if you don't, if you don't
00:13:58.560
pace somebody, you're never going to change their mind. So if somebody says, blah, blah,
00:14:06.080
blah, free speech, the government's not doing it, it's private companies, so it's okay,
00:14:10.160
the correct answer is you're absolutely right in the 80s. And that's what Vivek did. Because
00:14:19.720
if you don't grant them that they have a proper view, a well-constructed opinion, it just doesn't
00:14:26.520
apply anymore, that something's changed. That's a much gentler way to say you're wrong. Say,
00:14:33.080
you are totally right until recently. And then things change. Now you should reassess it.
00:14:38.440
Very, very good persuasion. All right. How many of you have heard, oh, and let me say,
00:14:46.180
let me make this statement. Free speech is gone. There's not free speech in the United States.
00:14:53.700
I don't know if any country has it, but we definitely don't have it. And I'm getting
00:15:00.280
more and more pissed off when I hear people say we do. Because it's gone beyond just a thing we
00:15:07.360
disagree about, you know, whether the definition has been met of free speech or something. It's not
00:15:12.320
really just words. It's like, you're part of the problem if you don't know that free speech is gone.
00:15:19.840
Don't be part of the problem. I don't know if there is a solution. But if you're acting like
00:15:24.960
you still have free speech, you only have the freedom to be uninteresting to the government.
00:15:30.880
That's it. The moment you're interesting, or you can make a difference, people listen to you,
00:15:36.720
your speech is gone. Yeah, it's a practical matter. Now, I'd like the NPCs to take a moment
00:15:44.240
to say, but Scott, the Constitution only applies to the government, not to private entities.
00:15:53.360
Yeah, you missed the whole point there, NPCs. Missed the whole point.
00:15:56.240
Have you heard of an entity called NewsGuard? How many have heard of this? NewsGuard?
00:16:05.840
So apparently it's some EU organization of, you know, volunteers, mostly who are in the business of
00:16:15.120
censoring people. And it turns out that one of the people on that organization of looking to censor
00:16:25.120
people is Jimmy Wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia. Are you comfortable with that?
00:16:34.640
Are you comfortable with Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia guy being on a censorship board?
00:16:46.000
I would like to give you my insider, the view here. Now, normally, I would not tell you about a
00:16:53.760
private conversation. So I'm not going to give you any details. But I have had extensive private
00:16:59.920
conversations with Jimmy Wales about the information on Wikipedia and some other drunk related stuff.
00:17:08.320
And I was just reviewing them because they were like 2019, 2020. We had some extensive back and
00:17:15.040
reports. So one of them was about the fine people hoax. And I brought it to his attention. Hey,
00:17:24.160
Wikipedia is saying that the fine, fine people hoax is a real thing that needs to be fixed. It's like
00:17:30.400
one of the biggest problems in the country that you need to fix that. Now, to his credit,
00:17:36.640
he looked at all my information, I showed him the transcript, and then I showed what was being
00:17:41.520
reported. And that was different. And he looked into it, and actually dug into the conversation
00:17:48.480
that was ongoing, and got back to me and said that it looked like the people who were sort of
00:17:56.800
fighting it out for supremacy had all the right arguments. Meaning he didn't know how it was going
00:18:03.200
to end up, but the process was working. There were the people who were questioning the narrative
00:18:08.640
were loud enough so that the other people were hearing them. They were showing their work,
00:18:13.680
right? There was transparency involved. And so his summary was that that would work out.
00:18:23.200
Now, has anybody looked at Wikipedia lately to see if the fine people hoax is covered correctly?
00:18:29.520
Because, you know, sometimes it'll get there, and then it'll drift off and
00:18:33.200
drift back and drift off. So I don't know if it is. But, so here's what I'll say just to support
00:18:42.320
Jimmy Wales. In my private conversations, he was very interested in getting it right.
00:18:50.160
That was my take, that he actually just wanted to get it right. So I didn't see, you know, I could see
00:18:57.200
bias for sure. So there was no question in which way he leaned politically. But he was fully engaged
00:19:04.960
in listening to the counter argument and making sure that the system included the counter argument,
00:19:10.640
and then let the system do whatever the system was going to do.
00:19:15.120
So I wouldn't, I wouldn't hate on him too hard. I do think that a lot of good people get dragged
00:19:20.480
into the, into the world of censorship. And don't realize, maybe don't realize the full implications
00:19:28.400
of what could go wrong. I think they actually, a number of them are just trying to make the
00:19:32.720
information better. But I'll just put that out there. And would you, let me ask you this question.
00:19:44.240
Do you think the suburbs are less safe since Trump was president? This seems like an unrelated
00:19:52.640
question. Let me ask you this. Is that your sense? Are the suburbs less safe?
00:20:00.960
Because one of the conversations I had with Jimmy was he wasn't, he, he, and I don't, I don't think
00:20:07.200
he'd mind this because his question was completely reasonable. So this is nothing bad about him.
00:20:14.240
It was around 2020. Trump said in a tweet that if Biden got elected, the suburbs, you know,
00:20:23.840
would start getting dangerous. And I retweeted it. And I had already had a number of conversations with,
00:20:31.520
you know, Jimmy Wales. So he was curious. And I was just reminding myself, because I looked at our
00:20:39.280
past conversation this morning. And he was curious if I really believe that, because I'd retweeted it.
00:20:46.320
Did I really believe that if Biden got elected, the suburbs would become less safe?
00:20:52.720
And I answered that it was a reasonable, it was a reasonable prediction, even if the purpose of the
00:21:01.360
prediction was to prevent it. Because you know, predictions have two purposes. And you should
00:21:07.120
probably know this when I make predictions. Some of my predictions are just trying to get it right.
00:21:12.320
And just seeing if you can predict. So some of it is about is it possible, even know what's going to
00:21:19.520
happen. And we do it for fun. I predict this, then you get to compare it. But
00:21:24.640
I'm going to turn off the feed, if you stop, if you don't stop bitching about the sound.
00:21:35.520
Now, the people, the people are locals, I've already trained them. But I don't want to seem
00:21:40.800
like a dick. But I can't do the show. If every fucking minute, you're, you're complaining about
00:21:46.320
the sound. So stop watching the platform you're watching. If the sound is not sufficient, you can
00:21:52.800
watch it on YouTube, Rumble, or the X platform live. Or you can go to scottadams.locals.com.
00:22:01.200
And at the moment, it's unlocked for non-subscribers. But could you please
00:22:07.840
shut the fuck up about the sound? Can you do that for me? This is because this is live.
00:22:15.040
If you yell at me all day long from the comments while I'm live, I can't do this.
00:22:19.600
It's not possible. I just have to turn you off. You think you can settle down a little bit?
00:22:25.200
There's always a few people on the spectrum who just can't stop yelling. I have to,
00:22:29.680
have to give them a little bit of social programming. Socially, you shouldn't be doing it.
00:22:35.440
Right? It's not a technical problem. It's a social problem. So calm the fuck down.
00:22:39.840
All right. Anyway, I do think the suburbs got a little more dangerous.
00:22:53.120
Let's talk about Sidney Powell taking a deal. So as you know, Sidney Powell thought the Kraken
00:22:58.480
was coming and she was going to find out some issues about the election, which never panned out.
00:23:05.440
There were no Krakens found yet. But she had a whole bunch of felonies that were dropped.
00:23:14.480
She had to plead guilty to six misdemeanors. Had small fines and didn't seem to be anything that
00:23:20.640
would affect her too much. Had to make an apology or something. No big deals. But then she also had
00:23:26.960
agreed to testify honestly in the RICO case against Trump that charges him with allegedly a conspiracy
00:23:38.480
to take over the government. Now, how do you think this is being reported on the left and the right?
00:23:45.040
Completely different, right? Just completely different. The left and the right.
00:23:49.840
Right. So the left is masturbating to it. I mean, I swear to God, I think people were typing with one
00:23:58.560
hand and it was like, oh, oh, Sidney Powell, Sidney Powell, she's going to talk. She is going to get
00:24:06.080
Trump. Oh, and it was like, it was actually creepy. Maybe not as creepy as my, as my acting out,
00:24:14.960
but it was pretty creepy. Like it actually just made me feel dirty watching these people.
00:24:21.840
And it was like porn because there's no doubt about it. They're getting a dopamine hit
00:24:27.600
from the thought that Trump could be hurt and jailed. They're actually getting pleasure from it.
00:24:34.080
It's weird. But here's the weirdest part. Why are they getting any pleasure from that? What makes them
00:24:40.480
think that's going to go their way? Their assumption is that it's obvious that Trump was guilty.
00:24:46.880
Obviously he colluded to overthrow the government. And therefore, if it's obvious he's guilty,
00:24:53.040
say the left, all you need is one person who says they'll tell the truth, who's also an insider.
00:24:59.520
And boom, Trump goes to jail. Problem solved, right?
00:25:03.040
Right? I'm not so sure that's the way it's going to go.
00:25:10.880
I don't think that's true at all. If I had to bet, I'd put a pretty healthy bet
00:25:18.240
on the fact that she's going to destroy the prosecution's RICO case by saying she was there
00:25:24.480
and saw every part of it. And at no point did anything illegal happen. That's what I think.
00:25:31.760
Because remember, she did not say she would testify, quote, against Trump. That's not the news.
00:25:45.360
Is that actually a compromise? Let me see. You're a famous attorney and you might have to testify.
00:25:55.040
Do you think that they might try to tell the truth?
00:25:58.400
I've got a feeling that a famous attorney isn't going to do a lot of lying on the witness chair.
00:26:08.800
Are they? Does that happen a lot? I don't see how that could possibly be good for her.
00:26:14.800
Yeah. So this is one of those situations where both sides get a little dopamine.
00:26:24.640
When I heard it, I said to myself, oh, basically the charges against one of the main players have
00:26:32.400
been now seen as bullshit because the felonies were all dropped. In other words, they were probably
00:26:39.200
bullshitting anyway. And then she gets to talk. I'm very interested in what she has to say.
00:26:47.760
So I think I told you this. I had a conversation with my, who I call my smart Democrat friend.
00:26:52.560
He's smart because went to a very good school, pays attention to the news, serious person, right?
00:27:02.240
So if you're in any kind of conversation with him about anything serious, he's going to bring the goods.
00:27:08.080
Like he's paid attention. He's got an argument. He's going to, he's going to whip it down on you.
00:27:12.560
He believes still, I think that Trump's advisors or aides have testified that Trump knew he had lost
00:27:26.080
the election, but was doing his protests anyway and trying to take over the country. Now, when I heard
00:27:33.520
that, I said to myself, is that possible? Is it possible I missed that story? What was there a story in
00:27:41.040
the news in which there was somebody who was actually in the room who's claiming that Trump
00:27:47.360
said, oh, I know I lost fair and square, but I'm going to pretend I didn't because I'll overthrow the
00:27:53.200
country. And I said to myself, how would I miss that story? And so I Googled what I could think of
00:28:01.520
to Google. And there is no story like that. I mean, obviously, if such a story existed,
00:28:08.000
it would be at the top of the feed, right? That's how a search works. If it's anti-Trump,
00:28:14.000
it's going to be the first hit. There was nothing like it. There were things around it.
00:28:21.200
For example, there were stories that said that Trump's advisors believed the election was fair
00:28:28.240
and they told him so. Somehow I think that got morphed into he knew it wasn't,
00:28:34.480
he knew it was fair. Why would Trump suddenly start believing his advisors
00:28:39.920
on something the advisors couldn't possibly know one way or the other? How could they know?
00:28:45.600
Doesn't even make sense. And then it goes further to that Trump knew he lost.
00:28:51.360
Now, I don't know what Trump said or didn't say to any people at the time, but I do know this.
00:29:00.720
Nobody could have known if they won or lost. It wasn't knowable, right? You only know what people
00:29:07.680
told you. I know that the experts said that the election was fair. I didn't do an audit. Did you?
00:29:14.480
Do you remember recounting the ballots yourself? The only thing we know is what people tell us.
00:29:20.480
And what people tell us is reliable or unreliable. It's a multiple choice question or both.
00:29:30.960
It's unreliable. Anything that comes from humans is sketchy as hell.
00:29:35.600
So think about the level of TDS you would have to have to imagine that you could read the president's mind
00:29:48.480
and that somehow he could read the minds of all the people involved with the election.
00:29:53.520
So it's like a double mind reading thing. You first must assume that Trump can read the minds of
00:29:59.280
all the people involved in the elections in every state to know that they had pure thoughts
00:30:03.920
and did nothing wrong. Because if you couldn't read their minds, you would have no way of knowing.
00:30:10.320
If somebody found a way to cheat that wasn't picked up, how would you know? The only person
00:30:16.080
who would know was the person who did it probably. So he would have to read their minds and know that
00:30:20.560
none of them existed. And then we would have to read Trump's mind to know that he'd read their minds.
00:30:26.640
How deeply broken does your brain have to be to believe in double mind reading? One that Trump read
00:30:35.920
all the minds of all the people who ran the election, everywhere. And also that we can read his mind
00:30:42.480
and see that he read those other minds. That's actually the claim. I mean, if you work it out,
00:30:48.000
that's what it ends up being. It's amazing that smart people are not immune from persuasion.
00:30:57.200
If there's one thing I can teach you that you really, really need to understand,
00:31:01.360
intelligence does not protect you from bullshit. And in fact, there are people who would say the
00:31:08.560
intelligent are more easily fooled because they're more confident in their opinions. That comes with
00:31:14.800
being smart. So the smart people are saying, yep, I looked at all the evidence and this is the way it
00:31:20.880
is. The less smart people say, you know what? I looked at the evidence I could find, but they could
00:31:26.160
probably fool me. So no way to know for sure. Right? So the people who don't know much
00:31:33.120
will quite often get the right answer. Quite often.
00:31:37.440
All right. Biden did his little address last night. Two mixed reviews.
00:31:46.240
Brit Hume thought it was a tour de force. I'll use his words. He said, quote, after the speech,
00:31:52.880
Brit Hume said on Fox, I think it may be remembered as one of the best, if not the best, speeches of his
00:31:59.840
presidency. He was firm. He was unequivocal, unequivocal. He was strong as he has been,
00:32:06.880
particularly in recent days before he went to Israel and while he was over there.
00:32:12.960
So really kind of a hero in a way. The leadership we've been waiting for is what I say.
00:32:20.720
Not everybody agreed. Dana Perino was on the show at the same time and thought he was bouncing around
00:32:29.360
from Ukraine to Israel to Taiwan and it was a little bit disjointed. Other people said he read
00:32:37.360
one of the instructions on the teleprompter that was not to be read. So there was one part where
00:32:48.800
the teleprompter said, make it clear. I think it was talking to him, not something he was supposed
00:32:55.520
to read. So he just said, make it clear in the middle of his sentence. Now, I don't know, you know,
00:33:03.520
that's something you could see Joe Biden doing when he was 50. I don't know that that's exactly
00:33:10.320
dementia, but maybe. Who knows? And the part that made me disgusted is that he said that funding for
00:33:27.040
to help Israel and also Ukraine, first of all, the fact that he tied the two together
00:33:31.920
so that nobody can say no to all of it. As long as he says that the funding is one package,
00:33:40.560
you would have to say either no to Ukraine funding or no to Israel funding. And there's
00:33:46.080
probably nobody in Congress who can say no to both, except maybe a few rogues. So they've got this trick
00:33:54.400
to figure out how to screw the American public using procedure. But they're doing it right in front of
00:34:01.920
us. He's screwing the American people by right in front of you to deny your popular opinion,
00:34:12.480
because you might have a different opinion of funding Ukraine than you might have of funding
00:34:17.200
Israel. And instead of letting the public decide on each of them individually, he's going to put them
00:34:22.000
together and use a procedure that is available to him to make it impossible to say no. So watching
00:34:28.800
my president screw me in public and then ask for applause is not comfortable to me. No, you
00:34:37.200
fucking asshole, make them two separate things so we can vote independently. Don't screw me and then tell
00:34:43.520
me you're doing it and then act like I should be fucking saluting you for it. No, you should lose your
00:34:49.440
job for that. You should be impeached immediately for tying these two funding requests together,
00:34:56.080
if that's what he's doing. So to me, it was a disaster. But the most chilling part was where he
00:35:02.960
called out very specifically the number of defense or let's say munitions makers in the United States
00:35:12.160
who would make a lot of money because of this deal. There's nothing I wanted to hear less than that.
00:35:19.760
Nothing I wanted to hear less than he was going to take my money and transfer it to munitions makers.
00:35:26.480
Now, I get that we have to do that now and then. It's not an unprecedented thing. But the fact that
00:35:32.080
you would call it out and then name the states that would benefit. It's like in Pennsylvania, you've got this
00:35:37.360
thing. I thought that was gross and disgusting. And I was embarrassed by it. You know, as a citizen,
00:35:46.160
I'm not really embarrassed by much, but you get the point. And I asked myself, as much as Trump is
00:35:52.640
famous for turning any political issue into a real estate or a business kind of frame, which I kind of
00:36:01.280
like actually, you know, I like if he's looking at North Korea, if he sees it as partly a real estate
00:36:08.880
question and stuff, because it helps. It gives them extra variables that other people don't have access
00:36:13.440
to. So I like it. But I don't think that Trump would have asked for money for two wars and told
00:36:20.400
you it would have been profitable for the weapons makers. I don't see it. I do not see it.
00:36:27.840
Now, it's possible, because he does, like I say, he talks about business terms about everything.
00:36:34.400
But I don't think he would have that bad a judgment. That feels like just terrible,
00:36:38.560
terrible judgment for selling the, because he's selling, he's not selling economics when he's
00:36:45.120
selling war. I mean, he literally told us the war would be profitable to people who are not me.
00:36:52.960
Scott, I will take your money. But don't worry, it'll be profitable for these other companies.
00:37:01.120
But they're Americans. So hey, that's not really good enough. Not good enough.
00:37:08.560
Anyway, and I saw I think it was Mark Warner said that one of the shows that maybe talking to Brett
00:37:16.480
Bear or somebody, he said that if you don't understand why, maybe I already said this,
00:37:22.960
why Ukraine is important to Taiwan, that you don't understand geopolitics. In other words, he said,
00:37:30.400
if we let Ukraine fall, China would see it as weakness, he didn't say it, but that's the implication,
00:37:36.480
and go after Taiwan. Let me test that hypothesis.
00:37:40.080
How many of you think that the only thing stopping China from taking Taiwan was what
00:37:50.560
happens in Ukraine? Because you know, it's been decades and decades where China had a question about
00:37:58.480
Taiwan, and never once was Ukraine part of the conversation. And yet, it was the same situation.
00:38:07.360
So now you had Ukraine, and you really think that if we pull our military support away from Ukraine,
00:38:15.200
which would give us greater military capabilities for other things, that that's the point that they
00:38:22.320
would attack. Once we'd stopped wasting our money somewhere else, we'd attack that they'd try to make
00:38:29.280
trouble then. That doesn't make any sense to me. And I thought Warner looked hypnotized.
00:38:35.360
Because he said it like, it's so obvious and right in front of you, that if you don't see it,
00:38:41.040
you're some kind of, like, political idiot. And I'm looking right at it, and I'm saying,
00:38:46.240
who in the world thinks like that? That decades of not having Ukraine part of the question,
00:38:51.920
but as soon as Ukraine gets in here, that's the key variable? It's the only thing that matters?
00:38:57.360
Suddenly? That doesn't even sound, it doesn't even sound a little bit credible.
00:39:06.640
Now, I get the point. But I just can't imagine China saying, that's the variable,
00:39:13.040
we'll just wait for that, and then we go. I don't see it. I also don't think that companies or
00:39:21.600
countries that are geographically disadvantaged as much as Taiwan, I think they always end up with
00:39:28.960
the mainland, don't they? You just have to wait 100 years or 200 years. But sooner or later,
00:39:35.600
they're going to be the same country. And I hate to say this, because I'm very pro-Israel,
00:39:42.960
but how could Israel survive in the long run? I mean, seriously. How is that even possible?
00:39:49.440
In the long run? Like in the 200 years long run? How is it even possible?
00:39:55.040
Yeah, it seems like geography is just too important. You know, the reason that the United States
00:40:03.520
has done well war-wise is that it's hard to get to us at that big old ocean. But if we were literally,
00:40:10.320
if Mexico and Canada were filled with people with a growing population that outnumbered us 10 to 1,
00:40:18.800
and wanted us dead, and surrounded us, would America last? I doubt it. Not in 200 years. So,
00:40:30.880
yeah, I worry about Israel. I feel like Israel needs Israel too. I feel like there should be a new
00:40:38.960
Israel that we sort of set aside somewhere in the country. You know, you take some place in New
00:40:44.560
Mexico and say, all right, this is just the backup. There's nothing there. We won't put anything there.
00:40:50.880
It'll just be empty. But someday, in 200 years,
00:40:56.720
the Israelis might need an escape plan. It'd be nice to have one set up. But on the other hand,
00:41:02.240
if you had an escape plan, you wouldn't fight so hard to keep what you got. So it would be demoralizing.
00:41:07.360
So it's a bad idea. But I do worry. 200 years? How in the world can geography not,
00:41:19.440
All right. Christopher Ruffo posted this. He said, Hamas leader of, he was talking about a Hamas leader,
00:41:27.920
said this, quote, I want to take this opportunity to remember the racist murder of George Floyd.
00:41:33.200
This is the leader of Hamas this week. The leader of Hamas this week decided that a key thing to say
00:41:44.960
to the rest of the world is that we should remember the racist murder of George Floyd.
00:41:49.680
And he says the same type of racism that killed George Floyd is being used by Israel against the
00:41:54.480
Palestinians. And as Christopher Ruffo points out, the Hamas, BLM, DSA, I don't know who they are,
00:42:02.480
and decolonization are all the same bloodlust. And I agree. Hamas and BLM, clearly not the same,
00:42:13.520
but they're of the same, let's say, philosophy. They're a similar kind of danger, except smaller numbers.
00:42:22.720
You know, if there were more people in BLM, who knows? But yes, I think it's important to point out
00:42:32.400
that they all have bloodlust for the people who don't look like them.
00:42:37.440
Well, what's happening in Ukraine? I saw one data I didn't know is 70% of the casualties
00:42:44.080
are from the big guns. I guess that means artillery.
00:42:47.200
Did you know that? 70% of the, at least recently, 70% of the casualties are from the big artillery.
00:42:54.880
Because basically it just drops on you and you didn't know it was coming. It just happens all
00:42:58.720
day long. Does that make sense? But it turns out that the new, more modern artillery that Ukraine has
00:43:09.360
has been a match for the vast outnumbering number of big guns that the Russians have. So the,
00:43:18.160
the Ukrainians apparently have set up a very sophisticated spotting and destruction system.
00:43:25.680
So they'll, they'll spot sometimes with their drones. They'll put a drone over the target,
00:43:31.040
so the drone can just watch the target and they shoot at it. And then the drone tells them how to
00:43:36.000
adjust. All right, you're 20 feet short. Just a little bit, shoot again. So they can pretty much
00:43:42.480
take out a hundred percent of anything they can see. I mean, think about that. The Ukrainians now have
00:43:50.000
the ability to destroy a hundred percent of anything that can be seen from the air that's on the front
00:43:55.760
lines there. All of it. So they're just going one by one and just taking them out. And apparently it's
00:44:02.320
almost, it's almost just routine. See it, shoot at it, adjust, kill it. Go to the next one. Now, I don't
00:44:10.880
know if they're going to run out of artillery shells before Russia does, because one of the things they
00:44:16.240
take out is the local munitions depots. So it's harder for Russia to get the munitions to where they need
00:44:23.760
it. So it does look to me like a total, you know, a total, what would you call it? It's a tie.
00:44:33.360
Nobody's going anywhere. And I don't know how our leaders can't make peace in a war where it's
00:44:42.080
obvious it's not going anywhere. It seems to me that's the ultimate way you could make peace. It's
00:44:48.880
like, all right, have you been paying attention? Whatever you do, we're going to match it. We're
00:44:53.040
going to do it forever. Why don't we work this out? I see a comment that says, actually, Scott,
00:45:02.240
the Russians are advancing rapidly. Well, do you believe that? I believe it might be a report
00:45:09.680
somewhere. But do you believe the Russians are advancing rapidly? I don't. Nope, I don't think so.
00:45:18.160
Alexander Mercurius reports it. It doesn't matter who reports it. I just doubt it's true.
00:45:26.480
Now, I do think that there will be places where either side will punch through. But once you punch
00:45:33.200
through, you're just, it's just target practice. Right? So punching through is not, it's not getting
00:45:38.640
you a lot. You don't see the Russians giving up. I don't see anybody giving up until they get what
00:45:47.520
they want. But the Russians could get what they want without war. Probably. All right, I've got an
00:45:54.960
idea for, well, let me, let's talk about Gaza. So the hospitals are failing there. As you might imagine,
00:46:03.120
the emergency supplies are having trouble getting in at the Rafah crossing, as you would anticipate.
00:46:12.160
And apparently, the ground attack is not starting. So it's much later than people thought. Some of it
00:46:18.240
might be that it takes a while to organize the ground assault. But I've got a feeling that they
00:46:24.800
may have changed their tactics. And remember what I said? It didn't make sense to do a ground assault.
00:46:31.360
You remember I said that? I said it makes more sense to do a siege, which is what they called it.
00:46:37.120
They actually used the word siege. And the siege would be basically starving out both the civilian and
00:46:44.240
military people until you separate enough of the good people from the bad. And then you can do
00:46:50.880
whatever you want with that. So I think time is on their side. And maybe the worst thing that Israel
00:46:56.400
could do is create a bunch of casualties that are way beyond the pale. I think several thousand have
00:47:04.320
already died in Gaza. I saw 4,000 plus. I don't know how many people would have to die in Gaza.
00:47:11.920
I don't know how many people would have to die in Gaza before our hearts and minds reverse. And it just
00:47:16.880
looks like Israel's the bad guy, if you were backing them at this point. But there is some number.
00:47:23.920
I don't know what that number is, but there's a number. If we hit it, everything reverses.
00:47:29.280
So Israel would be smart to stay away from whatever that mental number is.
00:47:32.960
You know, keep those losses down to be somewhere in the range of Israel's own losses.
00:47:41.120
And at least, you know, not too much of an order of magnitude bigger.
00:47:46.960
And just take as long as they need. It'd be very expensive, but fewer people die.
00:47:53.200
You know, to me, having your enemy living underground is more of a plus than a minus.
00:48:00.160
If you're a guerrilla outfit and the other team doesn't want to bomb your city,
00:48:07.280
being underground is a very good idea. However, if it's a siege, being underground is just the place
00:48:14.640
you die. Am I right? And you can't shoot at people when you're underground.
00:48:19.760
Yeah. So I think the tunnel networks become the weakest part of the Hamas military effort.
00:48:29.360
To me, that's their weakness. And I think we'll just starve them out, basically. I don't think
00:48:36.400
anybody's going to go down into a tunnel if they don't have to. You can just send a robot down there.
00:48:45.840
I think there's going to be an Israeli decapitation strike on Iran,
00:48:53.840
because there may be no way to avoid it. So here would be the normal sequence of events.
00:48:59.680
If the ground assault starts, then Hezbollah has not just a free pass, but almost a requirement
00:49:08.640
for survival that they have to attack. The reason being, if they don't attack them,
00:49:15.120
their supporters will think, why are we giving you all this money? Like, this is the time you attack.
00:49:21.360
You have all the cover of Israel going into a civilian population. You're going to have high
00:49:27.680
numbers of deaths. You know, they're distracted. There could be no better time to attack in the
00:49:33.920
history of Hezbollah. This would be the time to attack. You know, given that they know they're
00:49:38.800
going to lose no matter when they attack. It doesn't matter to them, I guess.
00:49:42.240
So if the ground assault starts, Hezbollah will get aggressive. And if they didn't get aggressive,
00:49:50.560
they would be seen as weak. And why are we funding you? So they have to. If Hezbollah gets aggressive,
00:49:58.320
and Israel takes too many hits, because there's some amount of little annoying hits that Israel
00:50:07.040
will just put up with, because the full-out war is too much. But I think Hezbollah will exceed Israel's
00:50:15.200
patience. And then what would be Israel's next move? An all-out war with Hezbollah?
00:50:22.400
Do you think that would be the next move? That would be, I think, a mistake.
00:50:27.280
I think that would be a mistake. I would do a decapitation strike on Iran,
00:50:32.720
if they can figure out a way to make it work. The hostages will probably get killed,
00:50:37.920
no matter what. And I'm not saying that cavalierly or, you know, without respect to their
00:50:46.240
dignity of their lives, let's say. But realistically, realistically,
00:50:54.720
you know, they're in a place where there's not much you can do. Like, I don't see too many
00:50:59.840
rescues happening, but maybe a few. And worth trying. Certainly worth trying. I wouldn't expect
00:51:05.040
a lot from many rescues. But I think Israel's done talking. I think that they cannot, it would be a
00:51:16.240
waste of time for Israel to destroy Hamas and just fortify their border with Hezbollah,
00:51:22.960
because it would just recreate. As long as Iran gives money to the bad guys,
00:51:28.640
the whole situation will just be recreated. And I don't think they can put up with it a second time.
00:51:34.000
So if they want to end it, they would probably have to try something bold,
00:51:38.400
like taking out the leadership of Iran, as many times as it takes. Like, you know,
00:51:44.080
immediately they get a new hardliner. You just got to take out the new hardliner as soon as you can.
00:51:50.160
Now, you may say to me, Scott, this will create
00:51:54.400
massive terrorism around the world, and the lights might go out in the United States.
00:52:00.560
I think they might. I think the lights might go out in the United States,
00:52:05.040
because I'm sure Iran has terrorism teams in the United States by now.
00:52:11.200
They would presumably be activated automatically, and they would presumably go after things like
00:52:16.800
the grid. You have to really make sure everybody knew what was going on.
00:52:20.880
So I would expect the lights to go out, actually, in the next few weeks. Not permanently, but,
00:52:27.520
you know, I'd make sure you got batteries and candles, is what I'm saying. Because I think
00:52:33.680
Iran will hit back if they get hit. And I don't know what would stop them from being hit.
00:52:38.880
We're already seeing that our embassies are being cleared out in the whole area. We see that America
00:52:44.320
barely has a government, right? If you saw, if you were Iran, or even Hezbollah, or even Israel,
00:52:54.000
and you look at our leadership, and you look at no Speaker of the House, don't you tell yourself,
00:53:00.400
you're going to have to kind of do this on your own?
00:53:03.680
Now, the American military being in the Gulf, I guess we got a strike force that
00:53:10.720
that kind of pulled up in the area. Do you think that's because of Hezbollah?
00:53:15.920
Or do you think that's to keep Iran under control in case there's a decapitation strike?
00:53:26.720
I don't know. Could be all of those things. Could be what Joe Biden says, just a way to keep everybody,
00:53:31.600
you know, where they are and not to get them involved in the war. Maybe. But
00:53:39.600
so I'll make this prediction. If there's a bloody ground assault, which I think is in question,
00:53:46.880
I think the siege is more likely at this point. But if they go in and there are massive casualties,
00:53:52.640
Hezbollah will be active. Israel will say, we're done with this. And they'll just take out Iran.
00:54:02.560
At any cost. I think they'll take out the leadership.
00:54:07.760
Now, remember when Soleimani was taken out by Trump?
00:54:13.120
And people said, oh, no, that's going to create a wave of attacks. Did it?
00:54:18.880
I think it might have done the opposite. So I've got a feeling that the Iranian people
00:54:24.400
are not so happy about their leadership that they wouldn't mind seeing them vaporized, frankly.
00:54:29.200
Yeah, that's an unpredictable thing. Because if you attack any country, they tend to
00:54:35.200
back their leaders during the attack. So it's a dicey proposition.
00:54:55.760
knows where the head of Iran is? I feel like they might be just waiting to know for sure where he is.
00:55:03.280
And I don't think he'll be able to appear in public.
00:55:08.320
Has the leader of Iran appeared in public in recent years? Or is it always sort of in a room that you didn't know where he was?
00:55:17.840
I can't imagine him doing an outdoor event in the world of drones.
00:55:22.000
By the way, you know that in the age of drones, our leaders will no longer be able to do outdoor events.
00:55:37.600
All right. How many on these other platforms want me to turn it off?
00:55:42.560
Do you want to talk about the audio problems some more?
00:55:56.000
No? I'm just saying if they want to want me to turn it off.