A coffee robot makes your coffee, and it's pretty good at it. But is it more than just a coffee robot? Or is it something else entirely? Today, Scott Adams talks about the dangers of war, and why you should never trust a robot to make your coffee.
00:10:43.500they were. You want to, anybody want to make a bet? I say a hundred percent that someday, the trouble
00:10:50.680is I can't put a deadline on it. It might be 10 years from now, 20 years from now, but I guarantee
00:10:56.200there's going to be, you know, an investigative journalism situation where they go, well, we got
00:11:02.720a whistleblower and guess what? They always knew that the models did not predict. That's what I predict.
00:11:10.360Well, according to Newsweek, Secretary of Commerce Howard Ludnick's talking about how the US government
00:11:18.920under Trump administration wants to own some of the patents for inventions that the universities
00:11:27.140come up with if those universities were taking government money as grants to do the science that
00:11:34.580created the patents. To which I say, it's another sign of fascism. No, it's not. It would be fascism if
00:11:45.500perhaps you believed that Trump was going to keep the money for himself. It's not fascism if he's
00:11:52.620making you money. Literally, this would be the taxpayer's money. So if he could get some value out of the
00:12:02.820patents, and there probably would be over time, that wouldn't go to Trump, he would be long retired.
00:12:09.660It goes to us. So no, don't worry about it being fascism. They're literally just trying to give you
00:12:15.920a bonus. That's it. And I'm in favor of it. It does make sense that if we taxpayers are funding the
00:12:26.060patents, does it make sense that if Harvard gets one, that Harvard gets to keep it? It was our money.
00:12:32.480Why wouldn't we ask for a piece of the action? Totally makes sense to me.
00:12:39.040Well, you will be very sad to learn that Representative Jerry Nadler is retiring.
00:12:43.940He says he wants to make room for the younger generation.
00:12:48.000So here's what I think. You all know that the Democrat Party has collapsed, and it's not very
00:12:57.580popular at the moment. And one of the things that we don't talk about enough, we talk about it in its
00:13:02.980pieces, but we don't put it all together. So I'm going to put it all together. Here are the pieces.
00:13:09.740Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Swalwell, Jamie Raskin. Now, I could add a few people to that
00:13:17.900list, but what do they all have in common? Besides being noxious Democrats, what do they have in
00:13:24.220common? Well, let me tell you. They all have a super unpleasant personas. Now, I'm curious if I'm
00:13:38.180operating entirely unbiased when I say that. Am I? Because I know that there are Republicans who
00:13:44.660cause a turnoff ick factor. So maybe it just works both ways, and the only one I can see is
00:13:54.640the direction that my bias is already tuned to. If you were to turn on CNN or MSNBC, and they add on
00:14:07.740a prominent Democrat leader, what are the odds that that prominent Democrat leader would be
00:14:14.320really hard to look at on video? Let's say Schumer, Chuck Schumer. When Chuck Schumer is on the screen,
00:14:26.420I want to turn off the picture and go to audio, and even then, I'm a penguin. Even then, I don't want
00:14:34.580to watch him. He just doesn't have any charisma. Now, I don't say that about, let's say, AOC. I don't
00:14:42.180say that about Omar, just to pick two people. They have actual charisma. Would you agree? You might not
00:14:53.040like it. I'm not saying I'm in favor of their policies. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that
00:14:58.420they legitimately have really, you know, first-rate charisma. You had Jasmine Crockett, more to my
00:15:06.360point. It seems to me that the Democrats, for reasons that I cannot understand, have promoted
00:15:13.180the opposite kind of people that Trump does. You know, people make fun of Trump for saying,
00:15:19.280oh, that's a good political appointment because this person looks like a movie star.
00:15:24.240And we all laugh. It's like, oh, he's so shallow. No, he's not. It's called being right.
00:15:32.540That's not shallow. It's not shallow to understand that people are totally persuaded,
00:15:39.020very persuaded, by things like personality and looks. So Trump, you know, I don't even have to
00:15:47.700name names. You know, you can start with the Secretary of Defense, and you could go down right down the
00:15:53.380line. Trump has some good-looking people in office. Am I right? Male and female. So he doesn't
00:16:01.120discriminate by looks, by gender, which is interesting. He likes handsome guys and attractive
00:16:08.200women. And now compare that to Jerry Nadler, Schiff, Swalwell, Raskin, Schumer. I'm not wrong,
00:16:19.100right? The Democrats have picked the most unpleasant video personas. You know, the people just don't come
00:16:27.200across on video at all. And Trump went the other way. He personally is the most video-friendly
00:16:34.220personality of all time. You know, certainly for his side. And they were the opposite way.
00:16:42.800So getting rid of Nadler, I wonder if they'll wise up and try to get more pleasant-looking
00:16:51.200people to lead them. Well, here's something I haven't developed a full opinion on. It's the
00:16:59.460fact that, remember, the Maha Commission was going to deliver a report in 100 days, and they
00:17:07.560came in at 98 days. They delivered the report on the root causes, which wouldn't be confirmed,
00:17:15.600but rather, you know, their best take at what the root causes for autism would be. And so now
00:17:21.560they've reported it. And there are four bullet points of the things that they've identified,
00:17:28.660the Maha Commission, as causes of autism. Are you ready? Do you have your own guesses as to the
00:17:37.340causes of autism, now that the experts have weighed in? They are, and the four of them
00:17:43.360are, number one, ultra-processed foods. Number two, environmental toxins. Number three, chronic
00:17:55.700stress and inactivity. And number four, over-medicalization of children. Now, are you
00:18:06.940you, like I am, completely underwhelmed by that conclusion? Here's my problem. So I have questions
00:18:15.760which you should not confuse. This is a good time to make sure that people understand the
00:18:22.900right frame for this. When I do this podcast, I never try to talk as an expert unless it's
00:18:30.660maybe something about persuasion, you know, something that's in my line of expertise, which
00:18:36.200is narrow. I try to present myself as you, which is I read the news and I go, ah, there's
00:18:45.220something missing here. Wait, what? So I'm basically confirming your suspicions that something's
00:18:52.900missing. And then I take my own guesses and speculations and predictions, but I'm doing
00:18:59.280it from a consumer of news perspective. If it looks like or it feels like I'm coming from
00:19:06.460some kind of expert perspective about things like science or health or something, I'm not.
00:19:12.600I'm coming at it from the consumer of you, trying to match you, not the experts. And when I look
00:19:19.040at these four things, ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and
00:19:23.600inactivity, and over-medicalization of children, I say to myself, ah, those are a little too general.
00:19:33.200And I also say to myself, at what age is autism normally detected? Do you know? So I think the
00:19:42.780answer is, ah, uh, under two years old. You can, you can get it from, you know, age two to four
00:19:50.880or something. Do you believe that the children who are two years old, ah, have been unusually,
00:20:00.380let's say, unusually exposed to ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and
00:20:07.520inactivity and over-medicalization? I could, I could imagine that over-medicalization would
00:20:16.700apply to somebody under two years old. Now, you could be, you could be diagnosed up into adulthood,
00:20:22.960right? So that, but the earliest would be like two. Um, so my question is, why would some people
00:20:34.660be, uh, be, uh, so exposed to ultra-processed foods that they would get autism and other people
00:20:42.420would not? Uh, is there something like 10% of people have some sensitivity that others don't
00:20:49.320have? So there's something about the timing of this, because it feels like if these were the
00:20:55.220triggers and you could get it, if you were born without any propensity for autism, it feels
00:21:03.840like there would be a lot more adults getting it, right? Or, or, or there would be like obvious
00:21:12.400examples where maybe the, um, I don't know, the Amish don't get it or something. I just feel
00:21:19.340like maybe what happened here was, uh, they wanted to make sure they came in under a hundred
00:21:24.740days and all they did is put their suspicions into bullet points. I don't feel like, I don't
00:21:34.300feel like we learned anything. Do you? But they said nothing about, um, genetics and certainly
00:21:42.940there's some people who think genetics is, um, behind it. I don't know exactly how, you know,
00:21:50.080why would it be suddenly spiking? That doesn't make sense. Anyway. And then I saw a video. I
00:21:58.840don't know what, I don't know if it's really recent, but probably not too long ago that RFK
00:22:04.380Jr. was talking to, uh, uh, uh, Bill Maher and, uh, RFK Jr. said, um, if you look at the studies,
00:22:15.300he's talking about the COVID vaccinations. He said, if you look at the studies that were done
00:22:20.440with the Pfizer vaccine, the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes.
00:22:26.780Um, and Bill said, uh, but could that be the disease itself? Uh, and then RFK Jr. said, well,
00:22:37.120the vaccine doesn't work, does it? Meaning that, you know, people were getting the disease,
00:22:42.540even if they had the vaccination. So there's 23% higher death rate from all causes. And, uh,
00:22:50.160do you think that there's a counter argument to that? If the only thing you knew was only
00:22:58.000what RFK Jr. said in that interview, would you feel that you were confident that you knew what
00:23:04.820was going on? Is that enough, enough variables for you? That, uh, the people who got the vaccine
00:23:12.600had a 23% higher death rate from all causes. Now you want to hear the counter argument to that?
00:23:20.160Here's a counter argument. There's no fucking study like that. That doesn't exist. It just doesn't
00:23:27.940exist. Uh, so Mary from a neuro rad oncology on X, uh, did a long, uh, explanation about the actual
00:23:37.560study he was referring to. And apparently there's no, there was no statistical difference. So the,
00:23:44.200the answer is not, Ooh, how do we explain the 23% and all that? The answer is that didn't happen.
00:23:50.160It's not in the study. Now is Mary right? I don't know. Mary seems very smart. So is RFK Jr.
00:24:01.040right? Did he leave out some variables? How would I know? I mean, I can't really check the work of
00:24:06.960either Mary or RFK Jr. But let me give you another reframe that will just break your brain. You ready?
00:24:15.840You've heard me say this before, but now I'm going to apply it to this situation. And now it's going
00:24:21.900to click for you. Get ready for this. This one's a mind blower. Okay. Now I've told you a million times
00:24:29.460that there's a problem with reproducibility of studies, meaning that over half of them,
00:24:36.340if you count the, the intentionally fraudulent ones and intentionally fraudulent publications and all
00:24:41.620that probably over half turn out not to be true or not to be reproducible. All right. Now take that fact
00:24:50.980that usually, you know, by a slight amount, usually any report about science is going to turn out to be
00:25:00.340wrong. So then you hear a fact like this from RFK Jr. but that there's a study, turns out, you know,
00:25:08.900maybe that doesn't exist or the study doesn't actually say that, but there's a factoid he gives
00:25:13.440you. What should be your default, if you haven't done any research, you've done no research, what
00:25:21.200should be your default opinion about that data? Here would be the wrong way to look at it. Well,
00:25:27.900that agrees with my preconceived notion. That looks pretty good to me. I think we've got a winner.
00:25:35.740Oh, yeah. Nope. That's just what I thought would happen. That, I mean, I told you I was smart. I had
00:25:42.200that prediction and yeah, here it is. So that would be the wrong way to do it. I hear it would be the
00:25:49.820right way to do it. It's probably not true. And it wouldn't matter who said it if they're quoting.
00:25:58.320So, so you've got two problems here. One is, is, was this study even valid? And the answer is
00:26:04.040probably not. And that's only based on probability of all studies. They're usually not true.
00:26:11.260Yeah. A little over 50%. But on top of that, Mary explains that he interpreted the study wrong.
00:26:20.720So you've got the risk that somebody interpreted wrong or the risk that they left out a key part
00:26:27.520or a risk that you misunderstood what they said. On top of that is a risk that the science was
00:26:34.880bullshit to begin with. So that's the world we live in. Your, your default assumption should be,
00:26:44.160I have learned nothing. There's no information here. I would like to know. And maybe if there
00:26:50.140were lots of studies and time went by and you know, the consensus moved in one direction or not,
00:26:55.220you might feel more confident. But no, if somebody just throws out some shocking number like that,
00:27:00.300that doesn't agree with other experts, probably not true. Could be. Can't rule it out. But probably
00:27:07.980not. Probably not. All right. So thank you, Mary, for that very useful analysis. But if you want to
00:27:16.140see her full analysis, look in my feed on X.
00:27:25.020President Trump has announced that Rudy Giuliani is going to get the Medal of Freedom. Now, I don't know
00:27:32.140if that was triggered by the fact that Rudy had that serious accident, vehicle accident that he's
00:27:37.900recovering from. Or it was going to happen anyway. And, you know, just, they're going to do it now to
00:27:45.440cheer him up. I don't know how that worked. But he's recovering. And so he was in New Hampshire and
00:27:52.100pulled over because some woman who had been the victim of domestic abuse flagged him down.
00:27:58.480And he must have parked. This is me speculating based on what little we know of the situation.
00:28:06.480I think he pulled over to help. And then he was going to stay there with her until the police got
00:28:11.920there because he helped her contact the police. So the police showed up and then he pulled into
00:28:17.820traffic and just got rammed from behind by a 19 year old woman. And they didn't say that she was on her
00:28:26.360phone. But when I hear a 19 year old woman, you know, hits some other car so hard that it just
00:28:35.140obliterates it and puts somebody in the hospital, I kind of automatically think might have been on the
00:28:42.320phone. I mean, I don't want to start any rumors or anything, but it's the first thing I think,
00:28:47.560right? Isn't that the first thing you think? Because it's sort of hard, you know, even if you came
00:28:53.800around a blind turn, it's sort of hard to hit somebody that hard if you're even watching the
00:29:00.100road. So anyway, I don't know if alcohol was involved or anything else. We don't know. So we
00:29:06.940won't assume, but I will assume that probably the place that he pulled over to help was not the safest
00:29:14.320place to pull over. Meaning that when he pulled back into traffic, there probably was some lack of
00:29:20.840visibility from the oncoming traffic. That's probably what happened. Probably just a lack of
00:29:27.000visibility. A place you would never have pulled over, like unless you were helping some woman who
00:29:33.660was a victim or something. So he did the right thing and took, probably took a little extra physical
00:29:41.260risk to get it done. Well, no, definitely. Because he got in between an abuser and the abuse.
00:29:47.060So that's pretty baller actually. You know, he's a hundred years old and he still decided he was
00:29:54.080going to get involved in that. And then he was going to wait with her, which means that there was a
00:30:00.820risk that the abuser was going to show up any minute. So that's pretty brave. And he took some risks to
00:30:08.440help a person. And sadly, it didn't work out. So Medal of Freedom time.
00:30:16.860Well, according to the Daily Mail, the Trump administration is thinking of a visa integrity
00:30:23.400fee. So the people who travel to the U.S. and are required to have a visa would have to pay an
00:30:30.280extra $250 above what they already pay. So it'd be $442 just to be allowed to come in the United States
00:30:37.360to visit. To which I say, yeah, it's about time we had a cover fee. And I also would recommend a
00:30:45.460two-drink minimum. If you're coming in from a visa country, I want $442 of your dollars and you've got
00:30:53.800to commit to a two-drink minimum. That's how you become the hottest country. You know, a year ago,
00:31:01.720the U.S. was dead. It was a dead country. Dead, I say. But now it's the hottest country.
00:31:10.200Oh, it's so hot. Yeah, we can charge the cover fee. That's how hot we are. You just listen to
00:31:16.960Mr. Trump. He'll tell you that. Well, Tom Fenton of Judicial Watch has a success, another success.
00:31:26.320I guess he sued Oregon to force them to clean up their voter rolls. And Oregon had the worst
00:31:33.460voter rolls, meaning they had the most people eligible to vote according to the voter rolls
00:31:39.900who were not really eligible to vote. They were dead or they moved away or some other thing.
00:31:45.380And he won in court. So now Oregon is going to have to fix their voter rolls. He's also sued
00:31:51.700California and Illinois. Same thing. Now, do you think that'll make a difference? Do you buy into
00:31:58.580the fact that maybe the worse the voter rolls are, the worse it is for Republican candidates?
00:32:06.900Because it's the Democrats who are abusing that system? I don't know. I would say that
00:32:12.700it's the sort of thing where there's a 100% chance that it's abused a little. What I don't know is,
00:32:23.580is it abused a lot, you know, enough to change an election? That I don't know. But we'll find out.
00:32:30.780So maybe, you know, maybe it's a movement in the right direction. But we'll find out.
00:32:36.900And then there was CNN had a interview with Brad Todd, who's a political commentator. And he said
00:32:49.700that we know the 2020 census, the errors were almost always to the detriment of red states.
00:32:56.260Did you know that? Did you know that the 2020 census was considered, you know, flawed in some ways,
00:33:03.140but that the flaws were overwhelmingly in one direction? Now, there were both flaws on blue and
00:33:11.700red states, but the red states had the majority of the flaws. And CNN host said, do we know that?
00:33:18.500And Todd said, we do know that the Census Bureau's own audit of its work has proven that. Okay,
00:33:25.340if it's their own audit, I do believe that one. So if they redo the census, which Trump is asking,
00:33:33.140for, and especially now these, you know, deported a number of non-citizens, this should be another
00:33:40.180electoral advantage for Trump, right? So how many advantages are the Republicans stacking up at this
00:33:50.340point? Let's see. They have completely destroyed the entire architecture of the fake news traditional
00:33:58.340media. How big a deal is that for their election chances? Really big. And they've dominated the
00:34:07.140podcasting, you know, space so far. Really good. That's really good. And then Tom Fenton and maybe
00:34:16.580some others doing some things to clean up the voter rolls. How much difference will that make?
00:34:21.060Might make a lot. We don't know. Might make a little. Might make none. Don't know yet. But it's
00:34:27.540all, everything that might be making a difference is all leaning in one direction at this point.
00:34:34.580What about Trump wanting to get rid of being able to vote without voter ID? Well, if he gets away with
00:34:42.260that and also bans voting by mail, unless, except for the special cases, then those will be two things
00:34:51.140that at least Republicans believe would take away some Democrat advantage. Then I saw the comments,
00:34:59.300thank you, that the cuts in USAID and the other dismantling of the NGO dark money networks,
00:35:08.740the pressure that's being put on Act Blue, which is a big funder of Democrat stuff, but they're being
00:35:16.340accused of having some foreign influence and trying to repackage big money into little money, which would
00:35:22.100be illegal. So their funding sources are gone. Their fake news protection racket still exists,
00:35:30.580but is basically only looked at by people over 70. I think the median age is 70 for traditional news.
00:35:41.940And the median age for podcasting is something in the low 30s, I think. So correct me if I'm wrong,
00:35:50.660but isn't 100% of everything that's big enough to be in the news all heading in the same direction?
00:35:59.220Oh, and then I forgot to even mention the redistricting. So they've got redistricting,
00:36:04.420cleaning up voter rolls. Maybe they'll have movement on the mail-in ballots and the ID.
00:36:11.460They've got the, maybe the census will be redone. That's a lot, isn't it? And you know,
00:36:21.060you could argue that the reason Trump won, and I don't have any evidence of this, but it's just
00:36:27.380one of those things that you can imagine might be true. There was a really big movement to have
00:36:34.020observers, especially lawyers, at the election for 2024. I think Laura Trump and company were behind
00:36:42.100that. I wonder if that change made anybody back off from any shenanigans. Now, again, I don't know
00:36:51.860that they planned any. I don't know that there ever have been any shenanigans. It just looks like it.
00:36:58.500And then we see that Trump has got the military surrounding Venezuela.
00:37:05.060Now, I do not believe that I have any confident data that says Venezuela was involved in any kind of,
00:37:13.060you know, rigging our election. But that's an accusation you hear. I just don't think that that's a,
00:37:19.540has evidence. What would happen if the pressure that Trump is putting on militarily on Venezuela
00:37:29.140produced, maybe not a war, because I don't want that, but maybe a negotiation. And maybe Trump would
00:37:37.460say, I'll make you a deal. I'll go a little bit easy on you if you reveal everything you know about
00:37:43.940what may or may not have, you know, been interference in our elections. We might find out,
00:37:51.780because of the military pressure, we might find out if Venezuela had anything to do with any of our past
00:37:58.340elections. Again, I don't want to be sued. So I want to say clearly, I'm not aware of any evidence of that.
00:38:04.260I just know that that's a speculation that's floating around.
00:38:11.940Well, I guess tomorrow, Thomas Massey has organized an event, do you call it an event in Congress,
00:38:23.220press conference with 10 victims of Epstein's sex trafficking. So that's tomorrow at 1030,
00:38:30.900I assume Eastern Time. Now, what would you expect from 10 victims of Epstein's sex trafficking
00:38:40.740taking questions? How many of you believe that they're going to name names you have never heard
00:38:47.060before? I don't expect that. It would be an amazing thing, good or bad. It'd be amazing if it happened.
00:38:59.940Here's what I suspect. So, you know, dampening your enthusiasm for this. What I would expect is that
00:39:07.140they'll all say that Epstein victimized them. They might throw in, you know, Prince Andrew,
00:39:14.500because it feels like he's already sullied, like it wouldn't be adding anything. It's just,
00:39:19.140oh yeah, and we'll throw in the name that you've heard before.
00:39:21.940So I've got a feeling it's not going to make as much news as you thought. And one of the reasons
00:39:30.500might be that there were, there was a god awful amount of money set aside for settlements.
00:39:36.500And if you were one of the victims and you could prove it, and it seems like it'd be easy enough to
00:39:41.380prove, or at least easy enough to prove that you might be able to prove it if you went to court,
00:39:46.980there are probably a whole bunch of victims who've got big paychecks to shut up. So they might end up
00:39:55.540saying, you know, I can't talk about that because I've got some kind of agreement, you know, to settle.
00:40:01.460And I wouldn't blame them for that, by the way. I don't think that each of them individually
00:40:06.660has some larger responsibility to the public. I don't think so. He's dead. You know, Epstein's
00:40:15.300out of the picture. I think they should take the money. And if part of that was they had to agree to
00:40:20.180shut up about it, it's not a perfect solution. But I wouldn't fault them for taking the deal. I'm
00:40:27.940pretty sure I would have. So we'll watch that. Gavin Newsom lost in court. Again, Joel Pollack of
00:40:37.540Breitbart tells us. I'm always bad on the lawyer and court stories. So let's see if I can get close
00:40:45.780to this. The question was two bills, and one of them required the large online platforms to block
00:40:54.500the posting of material deceptive content. So another stuff, basically anything that would matter
00:41:02.500that was deceptive related to elections. And that did not, that was not affirmed by the court.
00:41:13.380It also borrows material deceptive content. So that would be deep fakes, I think.
00:41:17.860And well, no, not necessarily deep fakes, but anything that's materially deceptive. And Joel
00:41:26.100points out that that would have included something like Kamala Harris claiming that Trump once said
00:41:31.620that Nazis were very fine people. So there's no way you could use that as standard because you'd be
00:41:39.380jailing everybody who opened their mouth in politics. Because all the politicians are saying
00:41:45.460things that are not true. And they probably know they're not true on both sides. So you couldn't
00:41:51.460really, in a practical way, have a law that said you're going to jail if you say something that's not
00:41:57.940true. At least in this country. I mean, maybe other countries.
00:42:01.860And then there was one of the, what are they? One of the proposed laws would require the online
00:42:12.740platforms to regulate deep fakes, but that was rejected as well. So basically, Newsom wanted
00:42:22.660California to have some control over the content online. And the court said, get out of here. You're
00:42:28.980not going to have any more control than you already have, at least in regard to these specific things.
00:42:36.180I think the judge said something about it would also kill the joke.
00:42:41.780So that would be an awesome response if you're a judge. Yeah, that wouldn't be funny if you had
00:42:47.060to admit it's a deep fake before somebody watched the video. So I think the judge says something along
00:42:54.580those lines, which is awesome. All right. So satire and parody are now still protected.
00:43:02.980This is one of those times when I'm happy to be an American, because free speech is a mighty,
00:43:10.820mighty powerful thing in this country. We will fight for it. But in Britain, according to GB News,
00:43:18.980one of their comedians got arrested at gunpoint when he came into Heathrow, Graham Lineham.
00:43:26.180So I guess he created something called Father Ted, which they would know in England, but we wouldn't
00:43:30.980know here. And he did some posts in the past. I don't know how long ago, but this is what they
00:43:37.700arrested him for. And he called trans women violent. And he mocked a protest photo with trans people in
00:43:47.140and he said, I hate them. And that was enough for him to be arrested at gunpoint entering the country.
00:43:58.820Now, compare California and the United States where the judge said, get out of here. You'd ruin the joke.
00:44:06.420Yeah, he's knocked it. The trouble is, if you try to ban anything along these lines, you get this.
00:44:17.300So Great Britain is giving us the clearest lesson on why you shouldn't be that way.
00:44:24.340I mean, this is the clearest. It removes all doubt about which is the better system. There's no
00:44:32.100ambiguity about this. What Great Britain is saying. And by the way, let me make this personal. You might
00:44:40.260know that I've said some things that other people have interpreted as being over the line. Now, I didn't
00:44:48.980actually ever say anything that was over the line, but I was widely canceled for other people's opinion
00:44:56.900opinion of what my opinion was. Is that fair? Those of you who've been following my story, my
00:45:06.340characterizing that well, I didn't get canceled for my opinion. In fact, I've never found anybody who disagreed
00:45:12.660with me yet. Never. Nobody. Not even one person. But I've had lots of people who believe I was saying or
00:45:21.860thinking something I wasn't saying and thinking. And they were mad about that thing that they imagined
00:45:27.300I did. And they were so unified in their belief that this thing that didn't happen did happen,
00:45:34.500that I was canceled worldwide. Lost my entire reputation and business. Now, what would happen if I
00:45:44.340if I pull into Heathrow and they look at my, you know, my history and then they believe what other
00:45:51.460people believed about it? Would they say, aha, this horrible speech monster is coming into our
00:45:58.420country. We're going to have to arrest them. And would they have grounds? You know, this is not
00:46:05.140hypothetical. This is like a genuine real world problem. So what would I do? You know, what would be my
00:46:12.260smartest move if I don't know I would be arrested for someone else's opinion of what my opinion was
00:46:21.940that wasn't my opinion? I could go to fucking jail for that. It looks like. Now, I would love it if
00:46:29.620somebody said that's not true because of this reason or that reason it wouldn't apply to you.
00:46:34.180But I'll tell you, I wouldn't ever go there. As long as there's a comedian who got arrested for
00:46:40.020something he said on social media, I don't care what that was. You know what I mean?
00:46:46.740It doesn't really matter what that was. That's enough for me to say, I'm never going near that
00:46:52.020place. There must be something that somebody can misinterpret as being over the line. I would never
00:46:59.060go into a system that was designed that way. It's just not safe.
00:47:02.820So that's the end of Great Britain or the UK or whatever they want to call themselves.
00:47:12.340That whole England, UK, Great Britain thing. It's like way too complicated. Could you make that easier?
00:47:19.300Well, meanwhile, in Chicago, or you could call it Chicago, this weekend, 54 people were shot
00:47:28.580and seven killed. Now, I will grant you it was a three-day weekend. And I assume they're counting
00:47:36.660all three days. 54 people? 54 people were shot. How many people were shot in Gaza?
00:47:48.340How many? I mean, literally, are there days when more people get shot in Chicago than in a hot war?
00:47:55.700I'll bet there are, you know, individual days. So, oh my God, Chicago. Stay away from Chicago.
00:48:04.980Does anybody disagree? No. Nobody disagrees with that opinion, that you should stay away from Chicago.
00:48:14.420I'd probably get arrested in the UK for saying stay away from Chicago.
00:48:19.620Well, Trump has posted on Truth a complimentary, I guess, monologue on D.C. Mayor Bowser.
00:48:34.180So, you might know that D.C. Mayor Bowser started out by being positive about Trump helping with crime in her city.
00:48:42.020And then for a while, she sort of tried to backtrack a little bit and be a little critical.
00:48:49.060But then in the end, she fully embraced him and said some good words in public and seems to be completely on board.
00:48:57.060And what that caused was Trump to do a very complimentary piece on it.
00:49:02.020He called her the very popular D.C. Mayor.
00:49:06.180And so, New York Post is writing about this, by the way.
00:49:10.500And he praised her, Mayor Muriel Bowser, for cooperating.
00:49:16.880And he said, wow, Mayor Muriel Bowser of D.C. has become very popular because she worked with me and my great people and bringing crime down to virtually nothing.
00:49:28.980He said her statements and actions were positive instead of others, like he mentions Pritzker and Westmore and Newscom, he calls them, etc.
00:49:41.240Now, here's your persuasion lesson for the day.
00:49:45.280This is a lesson which I've given you before.
00:49:48.140But every time you see an example of it, it helps you internalize it.
00:50:17.480And that's what everybody's observing.
00:50:20.060So the observers are saying to themselves, let me see, if I go against him, like Pritzker, he's going to insult me physically, you know, my look, my intelligence, my honesty.
00:50:34.120He might actually just destroy me the way he has so many other people, such as Jeb Bush.
00:50:40.220So it looks like it's a really, really, really bad idea to go against Trump because he can primary you, he can insult you, and he can give you a nickname that will never go away.
00:50:54.140He can really hurt you, and that's even before he was president.
00:51:00.580But if you take a chance of working with him to get something useful done, he's going to tell the whole world that you worked with him and you're a genius and you're the best mayor that's ever been there.
00:51:17.320So that's the largest difference between make you happy and make you unhappy, and he broadcasts it.
00:51:24.220So by his actions, everybody sees that this is, you know, very certainly the case, right?
00:51:29.860You can see that he does this intentionally.