Episode 1512 Scott Adams: No Cursing and No COVID on Today's Live Stream, Arizona Audit

Offline. The moment I started, YouTube just gave me an error message, but not the comments. How about now? Let's see if we can stay online for a minute. Was it my topic? What was it that's causing YouTube to spaz out? Yeah, I used to think, oh, it's my Internet connection. But I have two platforms going and the locals platform has been fine. So whatever it is, it's common to only YouTube. All right, so. Let's regather our thoughts. Now that we've had this technical problem, I would like to tell you that this is not the first technical problem I've had this morning. No, the first technical problem I had was my cat. So I got my cat back from the veterinarian hospital. Five different medications on five different schedules, plus feeding her through a tube. And all the schedules are different. And all the names of the drugs are things I can't remember and can't pronounce. Now, if there could be a task I am less suited for than keeping all of that straight, I don't know what it is, but the cat's home and she's happy. And so we've been reunited and it was very, very good. But before we get into the news, the special news, let me just tell you that the thing you need to make this a special day. And I think you will. I think you will. Do you feel it yet? Do you feel a little bit of a tingle that your day is starting to get better? Yeah, it is. You can feel it already. And it's going to go to a new level as soon as you take your hand and put it on a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or Chelsea on a a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better, the thing that's making you feel better right now. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it's going to happen right now. Join me. Go. Oh, yeah, that's good. So just before I signed on and I did not include it in my notes, I saw that Matt Gaetz is trending. He just tweeted that Tucker Carlson is right when he talks about the replacement theory. Now, the replacement theory, if you've never heard of it, is a racist sounding idea in which the belief is that the white dominant culture of this country, or at least historically dominant culture, is intentionally being replaced by people from other countries and other cultures. And Matt Gay says yes, that's completely accurate and that's happening. And that the adl, who is pushing back against this idea from Tucker, the ADL itself is racist. Now, I think this is one of those situations. One of the. Glenn, I've got a conspiracy theorist here I want you to see. All right, you can still see. There's not much, but you can see it. There's real coffee. Oops. Now there's real coffee on my desk. It was in the cup. A little of it is on my desk. But Glenn, you have to believe somebody, somebody you have to trust. In this big old world of ours where we have nothing but conspiracy theories and fake news, is there one thing you can trust? Just one thing? Yes, Glenn, you can trust that my coffee cup has real coffee in it. Well, a little watered down, but. But basically coffee. So anyway, talking about Matt Gaetz, here's the interesting part of that. Matt Gaetz has learned his technique, I would say, at least observationally. It seems this way from Trump. And man, does he know how to make news. You know, the same way that Trump will say something where you'll say to yourself, wait a minute, I'm not so sure you can say that out loud or you think to yourself, well, I see what his point is, but it feels like people are going to interpret this as a little racist. And that, of course, is what gives it all the energy. If there's one thing, if there's one thing I can teach you about going viral or about writing a best selling book or having any kind of entertainment property that people care about, here's a rule to keep in mind. To get people's interest and hold it. Whether it's a meme or a TV show or anything else, you have to show that somebody's in trouble, in danger. Somebody needs to be in danger in order for you to get attention. Now, the person who's in danger could be the person who's talking. In this case, Matt Gaetz is putting himself in danger because he said something that you know is going to get all kinds of people accusing him of being a racist right? Now, of course, he knew that before he said it. So in order to get attention, he said something that makes you say, whoa, is he going to get canceled? Is this his last day as a politician? Is he done? I don't know. Probably not. I mean, probably not, but because you think that it just holds your attention. So this is what Trump does consistently. He'll say things that you say, ah, that's the world's gonna blow up, isn't it, but then it doesn't, the world doesn't blow up. So that's my only point about Matt Gaetz is he's good at getting attention there. So Boo the Cat is back and healthy, if I didn't mention that already. So in case you were rooting for Boo the Cat, she's doing well, but it will be my full time job to be her nursemaid pretty much all day long. For the next week, I'm just going to be giving her food and meds by her little feeding tube. So there's a story by, let's see, Yahoo News is the story. They interviewed 30 former US officials and they came up with the story that CIA officials under the Trump administration allegedly made secret plans to kidnap or even assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Do you think that's true? Let's give a, let's give a fact check. Do you think it's true that the CIA officials under Trump made secret plans that they did not execute, but they made secret plans to kidnap or assassinate WikiLeaks? Sounder, what do you think? Now Trump says he never considered it. So now what do you think? Trump says he never considered it, but the story is that the CIA did drop plans. They both can be true, right? These are not opposites. I believe it is 100% true that Trump never considered it in the sense of never was serious about considering it. He may have heard it, somebody may have floated it. But that's different than considering it. Exactly. Considering it means there was some chance he might have done it. I would tell you from my own, my own sources that it is deeply, deeply unlikely Trump ever considered this. So that's for my own sources. Very unlikely that Trump ever considered assassinating Trump, Julian Assange. But did the CIA come up with a plan, at least, you know, draw it out on paper? Maybe? Is that a problem? Is it a problem if the CIA came up with a plan to do this? I don't think so. Unfortunately, it's not a problem because the military, and I would imagine the CIA is the same, should have a plan for everything, for everything that might happen, right? Don't you think that they come up with plans for all kinds of things they don't do just in case they need to do? I'm not sure that this story has any contradiction in it or even a problem. Do you have a problem if the CIA is making plans for things that it decides not to do? I don't have a problem for that. Why would that be a problem? They make plans for everything. Now, obviously, if the CIA was trying to make it happen, and you don't want that to happen, that's the problem. But the report is just that they made plans. I don't know if that alone should bother me, because they should make a plan for everything, right? They don't know what the President's going to order. They should have something at least on paper ready to talk about if he asks about it. But the reporting seems to indicate that Mike Pompeo was the one who was mostly behind it, the. At least the planning. Suppose that's true. Can you believe it? I wouldn't believe the reporting necessarily, just because I don't believe any reporting anymore. But suppose it's true that Mike Pompeo was wanting to kill Assange. Doesn't that rule amount for President? If it's a problem, he's. You can't support him for president, can you? Yeah, I think that would take Monk Pompeo right into the running. But we'll see. Because first of all, I don't. Don't necessarily believe that he even had any involvement in any way. We don't know what is a bad combination. Let me tell you, this could be like a news segment. Bad combinations, things you don't want to put together. Because if you put them together, bad things happen. For example, John Bolton is talking about the Taliban maybe someday taking over Pakistan and getting 150 nuclear weapons. Two things you don't want to put together. Taliban, 150 nuclear weapons. So things you don't want to put together. Here's another one you don't want to put together. TikTok, dumb people. Do not combine TikTok and dumb people. You're going to get a bad result. For example, There was a FedEx driver who posted a TikTok video vowing never to deliver to homes that support Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Black Lives Matter. His job did not last very long. He was immediately fired. So two things you don't want to put the Taliban and nuclear weapons and TikTok and dumb people. Dumb people plus TikTok, bad combination. Do not put them together. All right, here's some fake news. Fake news. Where was this in. Damn it. I forgot who was reporting this fake news, but. So there's a report that Trump could face multiple criminal charges. I think this was in the Daily Mail that he could. He could face multiple criminal charges. Do you know who else could. Who else could you say this story about you, you, me, everybody else. Do you know who could maybe face multiple criminal charges? A lot of people, they won't, but a lot of people could. Right? So that's a weird way to say something. How about Donald Trump is not facing any criminal charges. How about that? That's true, right? There are no criminal charges against President Trump. Why not say that? There could be? Maybe somebody will come up with something later, but haven't heard of it. Anyway, the thought is that he could have some criminal liability for his attempts, quote, his attempts to overturn the 2020 election loss in Georgia. And this report is still reporting that Trump told Brad Raffensberger, the Secretary of state, to find 11,780 votes enough. Enough votes to make him president instead of Biden and. Or at least in the state, to give him the win in the state. And that is a fake news reporting out of context. Because when you hear the whole context, it's pretty clear that Trump was not asking him to do anything illegal, but rather believed that the election was genuinely fraudulent. You know, true or not, he seems to have believed it and was asking him to help find fraudulent votes. So here it is, Trump asking somebody to identify fraudulent votes, which is exactly what you'd want everybody to do, right? Is there anybody who doesn't want to identify the fraudulent votes? Why wouldn't Trump ask for that? And why wouldn't Raffsenberger want to do it? I mean, if you could do it easily. I mean, there's a practical element to it, but everybody would want to know if there were any fraudulent votes and Trump just gave them numbers. Like, if we found this many, it would reverse things. So I'd like you to find that many that's really different from, you know, somehow pressuring him to lie. That's not in there. So this is just total fake news. Where does this come from? Oh, the D.C. think tank. The Brookings Institute. Right. The Brookings Institute is who. Who it is. Who says he might be facing multiple charges. Who the hell is a Brookings Institute? Unless it's like a bunch of lawyers or somehow independent, I doubt that they're. I doubt that they're an unbiased institute, obviously. Let's talk about the plot to control you. I saw a tweet by unhoodwinked one of my followers on Twitter, unhoodwinked. And he tweeted today. Can we finally admit that the policies, both now and in the past, like lockdowns and masks on children, are not to protect people, but instead are new precedents to train obedience and servitude to power hungry state actors? How many of you Watching agree with this. Take that the lockdowns and the masks are part of a larger, larger process by which power hungry state actors are training the public to obedience. All right, I'm seeing on locals lots of yeses, lots of no's, but lots of yeses. Then on YouTube, lots of yeses, some nos. Right. More yeses than no's. 100%. 100%. So would you like me to talk about that? Because this is my, this is my sweet spot. Right. Don't you think that of all the people you could listen to on the topic of whether you're being brainwashed, who would be a good source for sorting that out for you? I would. Right. It's sort of my specialty. Trained hypnotist. Talk about persuasion all the time. So let's talk about this. Do you believe that you are being manipulated and trained for obedience? So those of you who believe it, give me a little bit more. Going to ask you for a little bit more. Who is it? Who's doing it? Who specifically? Let's say in the United States. Now it's happening all over the world, right? So whatever is happening in the United States must be reproducing itself all over the place. So let's just talk about the United States. Who exactly in the United States? Just the United States. Now for a moment we'll talk about the other countries. But who in the United States is doing it and for what personal benefit? To what benefit? BlackRock, AI, intelligence community, the DNC, Satan, Big Pharma, bankers, corporations, globalists, Fauci, cartels, CCP, China, unions, the AMA. A lot of different answers. So here's the first point. When I first asked the question, are there deep state power people who just want to train you? A lot of people said yes. But when I ask you who they are, your answers were all over the place. Right. So far, I'm just objectively speaking, there's no opinion yet. Your answers were all over the place about who these people are. And since the who is different for all of you, wouldn't this also mean that they had different motivations Right now do you think that there are people who want to train you and get power just because they like the power? How many of you think that's a thing that they want power just for the power? It's not a specific thing that they're trying to train you for. It's just the power. Just sort of generally the power. Right, okay, so. And you know that there are, you know, millions and millions of people who independently agree with the People in power. Right. Would you agree that there are lots of doctors and researchers and just independent people who have nothing to do with these power people at the top who agree with them that we should wear masks or we should do lockdowns, etc. So whatever it is that the elites are trying to push, would you agree with the following statement that there are plenty of experts who also think it's a good idea just for medical reasons? Would you agree that there are plenty of real experts who also think it's a good whether they're right or wrong, but they also think it's a good idea to do all the things that these power elites want us to do? So, yeah, I think you agree with that. So how do you make sense of something where there's a legitimate medical interest in doing it? Now, keep in mind, that might be right or it might be wrong. Right? The experts could be right, the experts could be wrong, could go either way. But it's true that they do have that opinion. Whether they're right or wrong, they are of the opinion that these are good things. Wouldn't you agree? There are plenty of independent people. So even if the elites are doing it for sneaky reasons to take power, it's also true that it's medically recommended by every major medical group in every country, basically, except Sweden, I guess. So the first thing you want to question yourself if you think it's part of a big power move by the elite, is who are they? And why is it that their power move is exactly what independent professionals would say they should do? Because wouldn't that be a weird coincidence that the actual best thing you could do for your health, according to the experts? Again, they could be right or they could be wrong. But the experts do say masks and social distancing are something you should do. What are the odds that coincidentally it's medically recommended, but also coincidentally it's really good for the Secret plot to train you to be more obedient? I don't know. I would say that should put a little question mark into your thinking, wouldn't you? Does anybody respond to that point? Shouldn't that at least make you question the hypothesis that it's only being done for power reasons? There's just so many individuals who also agree with it who are experts. I'm not an expert, so I'm not saying who is right or wrong. I'm just saying that they exist. Okay, so that's the first thing. Number two, why would anybody want to give power to other people? Do you know Anybody who wants to give power to other people over themselves. Do any of you wish to increase the amount of power other people have over you? Anybody in the, in the comments, Just talk about yourself. Let's not, let's not read other people's mind for yourself. Do you personally, would you like to give more power to other people over your life? Who would like to do more of that? Right? Nobody, pretty much nobody. But here's my problem with this idea that there's this secret elite, power hungry state actors. They're also giving power to other people because let's say Pelosi, she has to wear a mask too, right? She's also giving power to somebody. What about Biden himself? Biden's giving power to somebody too. He's got to wear a mask and he's got to do a bunch of stuff. He's probably not too happy about it. Don't you think Biden would like the pandemic to go away? Let me ask you this. Would Biden be politically better off or worse off if the pandemic stays or if, or if he solves it? What could be better for the Biden administration than solving the pandemic and getting your mask off? Let me ask you this. Somebody says you're full of bs. Let me ask you this. If Biden and Harris wanted to maintain power, let's say the Democrats want to maintain power and they have two possibilities. One possibility is to train the public to be more obedient with the masks and the mandates. And the other is to solve the pandemic and get things working again. Which of those two plans is more practical and would give you more power? I'm looking at your answers. Which would give you more power, solving the pandemic or extending it and making everybody unhappy about it. But at least you'd be training them, training them to be more obedient. I'm seeing a lot of people say extending it. Explain that. Why would extending it and losing the next election be good for them? You realize that they'll lose the election, right? You know, the worse the lockdowns and the masking are, the worse all that is when you go to vote, the more you're going to hold it against whoever's in power. I'm saying mail in voting. We'll talk about that in a minute. Why is mail in voting? Why are you saying mail in voting? Oh, I see. You're saying mail in voting because the pandemic would cause the mail in voting and then you could cheat on the mail in voting and Then you could win elections. Okay, okay. But it seems to me that the mail in voting looks like it's been solved in a few, few states. All right, I'm just reading your comments. Oh, shit. All right. Another emergency just popped up today. Are you having one of those days where everything is happening to me is some kind of an emergency and everything has to happen at once? Like there's nothing that could wait? You ever have one of those days? Nothing can wait. Everything has to happen right now and it's an emergency if it doesn't. That's what my day is like so far. All right, so here's my next question. If you think that it's all about the mail in ballots, do you think that the pandemic is going to change that? Because I feel as though whether we had a pandemic or not, the mail in ballot situation would stay the same at this point, don't you think? Because it seems that people just like mail in ballots and you get more of them and blah, blah, blah. I don't think they need the pandemic for mail in ballots, do you? I mean, it did kickstart things and they certainly took advantage of it. So I would agree with you that they took advantage of it to beat Trump. I think that's fair to say. Do we all agree on that? That the way the rules of elections were gamed by the Democrats was quite masterful and they got away with it because it was, you know, they did it through legal means and they got a set of rules that worked for them. Yeah. So the pandemic definitely did change the power structure. But I think at this point, at this point, I think people either like mail in ballots or not independent of the pandemic. Give me a fact check on that. Would you agree that people's opinions of mail in ballots are now divorced from the pandemic? It's sort of a separate category, I think, by itself. Because there are plenty of reasons to have mail in ballots or plenty of reasons to dislike them. Right. You could go either way, but it has nothing to do with the pandemic. At this point. It did, but at this point, I think we're past that. I think just it's a question about ballots themselves. All right. Yeah. There's a lot to be needs to be fixed in the election. There's no doubt about that. Somebody says they lost the video, but I don't think that's true. Here's what I would say. I don't believe there's anybody who wants to give power at least in terms of the masks and the lockdowns. That part, if it's all about the mail in ballots, then I acknowledge that point. Could be, certainly there are people who would prefer a good reason for mail in ballots if they're Democrats. That makes sense. So I'll agree with you that, that far, that is opportunistic. All right, let's talk about the Arizona audit. I tried to find a good reliable news source to, to help me understand whether the Arizona ought to have found nothing or something because, you know, as I predicted, it broke into these two movies. And so I was trying to figure out what did the audit find in terms of what did they verify as true and what things could they not find because they couldn't check them. And so here's the best summary that I got. All right, now keep in mind my number one rule of knowing what is fake news and what is not is it's real news if it's reported the same on both networks, meaning FOX and cnn. So that's my standard. Now, I'm not gonna say it works every time, but it's a pretty good starting point for identifying fake news, which is that if the two networks are reporting it differently, there's something going on, right? One of them is giving you fake news, at least maybe both. If they both reported the same, it's probably true. Probably true. If they reported the same. Did FOX News and CNN report the Arizona results about the same? I think they did. I think they did. And neither of them seemed to say that any fraud was found with any certainty. But let's talk about what they did find and what they did not find. So when they counted the ballots, they. They didn't find a big problem with the actual ballots. So here's where you check your belief system. Was there any point at which you personally, you. I'm looking at. You believed that there were ballots that were made with strange Chinese paper, bamboo paper. How many of you believe that some of those ballots would be made of bamboo? Because there weren't. There weren't any bamboo ballots. If you ever believe that there were bamboo paper ballots, then just do a little check on yourself. Oh, I got that one wrong. Now let me be clear. I guess stuff wrong, you get stuff wrong. We all get stuff wrong. Doesn't mean you're bad people, right? In fact, I would argue that the attitude you should take when you find out you're wrong about something like that is elation. Why should you be happy to find out you were so wrong? Because you're Smarter now. It made you smarter. If you find out that you were wrong about something fundamental, that you believed the moment you found out you're wrong, you got smarter. Right. You went from wrong to right. Shouldn't that make you happy? Why would you not be happy to just become obviously smarter? Well, you know, your ego says, oh, I don't want to ever know that I was wrong in the past, but I think you should maybe look at this a little more optimistically. If somebody proves you wrong, you just got smarter permanently. You'll always be smarter about whatever that thing was and maybe even learn something. So if you ever thought that there were bamboo paper ballots, just. Just put a little check on that box for your personal record so you know that sometimes you can be wrong about stuff like that. Keep you honest. Apparently, there weren't any fake ballots. There weren't any Sharpies. There weren't any strange things about the counting. So all of the things that you thought about the physical ballots seems to have been ruled out by the people on your team, if you were on the same team as the cyber ninjas who did the audit. So I would say most of the ordinary ways that we imagine people could have been faking stuff was ruled out. How many of you agree with just that very minor claim that the physical ballots, the ninja auditors, they ruled that out as a source of the fraud. Do you agree? Just that narrow little area they did rule out as fraud and that they ruled that they were counted correctly, roughly, not enough to change the. Okay, so how many of you thought that within that ballot counting domain, there would definitely be a big problem? There wasn't. How many of you predicted there would be? I didn't. I mean, I didn't have a prediction one way or the other, but I didn't assume that it was wrong. All right, so then what things are not counted? And why is it that on the War Room with Steve Bannon, and why is it they're saying there are 57,000 illegal ballots or at least 57 ballot. 57,000 ballots, that could be a problem. Remember, Trump only lost by over 10,000 votes. So if there are 57 questionable votes and the margin was only, you know, less than 11,000, big problem. Right? So what about these 57,000 votes? What do we know about them? Well, let's look at them. So they seem to fall into a certain category. Do you know what the larger category is? I'll read the subcategories to tell you where these problems were and then see if you could find. Use your Pattern recognition to find where the large problem is. All right, mail in ballots voted from prior addresses, 23,000 votes from seemingly the wrong address. Votes in multiple counties, More ballots returned than issued. More ballots returned than issued. More duplicates than original ballots, More duplicates than original ballots in person voters who moved down to the county, 2.3 thousand of them. So the various numbers on these were 10,000 voted in multiple counties, 9,000 more ballots returned than issued, blah, blah, blah. Okay, what do all of these things have in common? They're based on comparing what you know to another database. So all of these have the same thing in common. You're comparing what you found in the audit to some other database and finding that they don't match true, true or false, that they're all in the same category of audit. Found one number, they compare it to a database and it doesn't match. Here's the problem. The databases that they're comparing it to are not believed to be necessarily accurate. So they're not comparing it to anything that's a standard for truth. They all have that same problem that we don't know if the data you're comparing it to is accurate. There's no way to know because there's no way to compare that data. That data isn't compared to anything. So if you're comparing it to something that you don't know is right in the first place, the databases that are probably questionable to begin with, then you've got a problem. Now, I guess the experts now are saying that fraud is suggested in numerous instances. Fraud is suggested in numerous instances, meaning that the opportunity for fraud exists. So did we have an audit? Did an audit happen? No, no, there was no audit. There was somebody who got paid to do something that has the word audit in it. And they did look at some subset of things that could could have gone wrong. And they did find that that subset of things they looked at didn't seem to be the problem. But it sure wasn't an audit. An audit would find problems. I mean, it would find all the places that there could be a problem. But a partial audit is worse than no audit. What could be worse than a partial audit if the things that you checked are the places that the fraud doesn't exist? The worst thing you could do is do an audit of the place where the fraud isn't, because then you'll convince yourself there's no fraud, but you haven't even really checked. So that's what we got. The worst case scenario, an audit that could only check the things that probably were not the problem in the first place. So here's what I would do. I was probably support for president. Any candidate who said they were going to fix this, make the election auditable. That's it. Do I care about this hypothetical candidate's fiscal policy? Nope. Nope. Do I care about this candidate's international policy? Nope. If you want to turn me into a single issue voter, this is how. Just fix the election systems so that we can audit them and at the very least you can check your vote to make sure it made it all the way through. There must be some way to do it. I realize there's an issue with anonymity, but there's got to be a way to do it. Right? It can't be impossible. So, yeah, this system isn't going to fix itself. Right. So I would vote, I could give a full throated support to Trump if he said, look, I've got questions about the election. I think it was fraudulent. We can't find out because we don't have a way to check elections. What I'll do is, is I'll make sure that the states are forced to create systems that can be audited instantly. I think the federal government could do that, right? Set up a standard that says states. You can do whatever you want in terms of a lot of the details, but what you can't avoid is it has to be auditable. It has to be auditable all the way through or else you can't have that system. I feel like the federal government could make the states do that. Right. Might be a constitutional issue. Somebody can weigh in on that. We already have the fec. Well, apparently the FEC is not making elections auditable. I'm not saying make them fair. I'm saying make them auditable. That's very different. Because if you make them auditable, they'll end up being fair. All right, so now do the 49 other states. Right? So we don't know what any other state looks like, but we do know what it looks like and we certainly should audit as much as we can audit. All right. Okay. Canadians apparently are a little too trusting. You've heard that Canadians are nice. Are there any Canadians watching right now? I think you can confirm for me. Canadians, very nice, Very nice people. All right. But I'm wondering if what comes along with that is a little bit too much of trust. Because they kind of travel together, right? Being nice and being trusting, they kind of travel together. But 80% of Canadians consider online information reliable. What? What, what? 80% of Canadians consider Online information reliable. Do you know where I got this statistic? Online. So it's probably not even true. But if it is true it'd be funny. And 66% of Canadians are confident they can tell when it's not. So 2/3 of Canadians think they can look at the online news and know when it's true and when it's not. Oh Canada. Oh Canada. Oh, oh Canada. That's all I'm going to say about that. And apparently that the minister of something up there has proposed concrete action to police the news and information on the Internet. Good luck with that. Good luck with that. Well, Rasmussen has poll says is asking if the radical left is using the pandemic as a trojan horse for permanent socialism and Biden is either powerless to stop them or doesn't want to. How many people agree with that? That the radical left is using the pandemic as a trojan horse to permanently give us socialism and Biden can't stop it or he likes it? 59% agree strongly or somewhat. 59% of the frickin country or at least the people who answered this poll think that the left, the radical left is using it as a trojan horse for permanent socialism. Well, how's your infrastructure bill looking now? Remember I told you, when did I tell you that the infrastructure bill would never get passed? One of my best predictions so far. How many times have we seen the news? Ah, we're there now. Big, big progress, big progress in the infrastructure bill because you know, somebody agreed or somebody negotiated this and I just look at this thing and go no, no, maybe never. Maybe never. I mean, you know, maybe they could knock it down to a trillion and get it through or something. But I don't think the 3.5 has any chance, does it? All right, Anyway, that is what I wanted to talk about today. Have I missed anything? Was there a. There's an earthquake in Greece. Well I'm glad I'm not there because I was. Yeah, and you've got your Joe Mansions and your, your Kristen Cinemas and stuff. All right, so I attempted to not curse and to not talk about the, you know, the too much about coronavirus except whether you thought it was a conspiracy theory. Did I use the S word? I don't think I did. Did I? Oh, did I say did I swear? Did I use the S word? I'm seeing in the comments that I did. I guess I didn't even know that. Oh when my phone message came on. That doesn't count. Does that count? Okay, well apparently it's a Work in progress. Apparently, I can. Apparently, I'm not good at not swearing. What are my thoughts on sympathy between political parties? I don't know. I don't know what you mean exactly. Yeah. China's in big trouble. That is correct. What did I tell you a few months ago? Or maybe it was less. China's in big trouble. So, the real estate industry is collapsing. They're running out of energy, and I think they got big trouble coming. Musk is expanding business in China. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if he has an option. Probably not. Will the regime collapse? I don't know. Regime's pretty strong. I don't know if the regime will collapse. But they got big, big problems coming. Thank you for tanking the real estate market in China. You're welcome. Watch what else I do. Oh, I'm just getting started. China's in big trouble. Any updates on India? No, I'm not sure I believe anything out of India. All right. And that is all I got for now. And what happens to your consciousness when you die? Well, mine's going to go into computer digital form, but that's just me. Biden freed the Huawei lady. Really? Did that happen? I didn't see that story. All right, that's all for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.