Episode 1777 Scott Adams: Did Elon Musk Prove We Live In A Simulation? Starting To Look That Way

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to possibly the best experience you've ever had. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And I'm so excited for you today. You're going to experience something so, so wonderful today that I wish I were you. I mean, if I could trade places and be listening to what I'm going to be telling you today. Wow. I do it in a heartbeat. You are so lucky compared to me. But all you need to join me and others in a plane of happiness that's hard to describe is a cuppera mag. Yeah, or a mag. Get your mag. You probably have a few magazines, if you know what I mean. And I'm not talking about things you read. I know my audience. All you need is a cup or a mugger, a glass, a tanker cellis or a stein, a canteen, jug of flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite beverage. You know I love coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. Oh, this is going to be a good one. The dopamine here of the day. The thing that makes everything good with a little bit of oxytocin on the side. Go. Long Covid. Thank you very much. Thanks for noticing. No, an update on my long Covid. Zero. So I could say with high degree of certainty that I have no detectable long Covid. In case you wonder. Case you're keeping track of your anecdotes. All right, now, here's. Here's a thought for you. You know, I'm always jabbering on about we live in a simulation. And, you know, this. This reality is a bunch of bits created by some other civilization or intelligence. And how do. How could you tell if it's true? Sort of annoying, isn't it? Because if we're in a. If we're in a simulation, presumably the simulation could be programmed to make it impossible for you to know you're in a simulation. I mean, all it would take is one line of code, right? If you discover you're in a simulation, immediately reinterpret it as not a simulation. That's it. One line of code. And every time we discovered our true reality, we would instantly forget it and reinterpret it in some other way. So it would be very easy for the creators, if we were a simulation, just hypothetically, to keep us from knowing it. Literally one line of code. That's it. I just wrote it. And so that's how easy it would be. But could they take away all the hints? And I would say, no, I don't think they could remove all of the hints. They could just remove the solid proofs, you know, the math and the physics part. But one of the things you would expect to see. See if this makes sense to you. One of the things you'd expect to see is that the people who believe they live in a simulation would have better outcomes than people who didn't. Do you think that's fair, that if you believed you lived in a simulation, you could perhaps navigate it more effectively because you'd have a better understanding of what you're dealing with. So you might use affirmations, for example, without knowing any scientific reason why that should make any difference whatsoever. But maybe it's a way that you can program the simulation. Maybe you can author your own future. Because we live in a fairly subjective reality, no matter what you think. So wouldn't you say that if somebody had publicly stated that they believed in the simulation, you'd expect them to have an unusual effect on the world and to be unusually successful in whatever ways we wanted to find that. Fair enough. Just keep that frame in mind as I go through the stories today. That's going to be the meta arc over the smaller stories. People who believe we live in a simulation, do they have more impact on the world? Yesterday I was watching what turned out to be the finals of the NBA Basketball warriors versus the Celtics, and the warriors came out on top. But you don't have to be a sports fan to appreciate this element of the story. Would you agree that there are sort of two things that determine the winner when you get to the NBA Finals? Because by the time two teams get to the Finals, they're really good. And those are two teams that on any given day, one could beat the other. So generally speaking, that's a true statement. Now, often it's said that the difference is size. So when you get to the Finals, there's just so much physicality and bumping into each other that the biggest team that's willing to bump the hardest has a big advantage. So size is a big thing. And the Celtics had a bit of size and youth, I believe, over the warriors, who were seasoned and a little bit injured this year and a little bit older. So the physicality argument said the Celtics were going to win, and at least in one of the early games or two, it looked like that was going to be the story. Just bigger was better. There's just nothing you can do about it. Bigger is better, especially if you put your full energy into it. Bigger is often not better. If you're on the practice Court. This is something that Don Nelson discovered. The smaller players would beat the bigger players in practice games, but when you got to the Finals, the big players would play harder, and that was it. They would just shut down everything. So the Celtics should have won if size were the only factor. But you also have talent and superstars and people who can change the game. You know, you've got Steph Curry on the warriors, and he can basically just change the nature of any game like Michael Jordan could have. So that's another factor. But the other biggest factor is the psychology of the two teams. And here I think that Steve Kerr, because I've been watching him for a long time, is kind of a genius on the psychology. And here are just some of the things that I see him do. One of them is that he supports the team, especially the superstars. So you would see if like. So Green, who's one of the more vocal and best players in the NBA, he got real mad and demanded that the coach show a replay, which they have only a few rights to do. So you don't want to use up your replay rights, but he demanded that the coach do it. And watching the way Kerr responded to Greene was really interesting because the moment that Green demanded it, Kerr said yes. And I don't think he necessarily would have, like, it doesn't look like that would have been his independent decision. But the way Kerr manages Green's psychology is sort of amazing because you can imagine Green is a tough character because he's always arguing with the refs. He's like a really big personality on the field. But Greene is the one who manages the team's psychology. So there's this trickle down. When you're on the court. You can see Green really being the one whose energy changes everybody else's energy. If he's having a good game, he just makes them have a good game. Right? He gets the ball to the hot person. I mean, he's really just. You watch him in real time just completely controlling the psychology of his own players. And then they control the psychology of the game, and then they win. And it's. You can see the trickle down. It's Kerr to Green to the team. It's not. It's not Steph Curry. Steph Curry is just the best player, but Green is the one who manages the psychology on the field, you know, and then having the best player is a big part of it, of course. So there was a. Okay, you're. You're way ahead of me on this story. This story has a wrinkle that's coming up last night on the warriors bench. Now they're playing an away game, right? So they're in. They're in their enemy opponent's building in Boston. And on their bench, they have a visitor, Steve Kerr, the guy who I think is just one of the best managers of psychology I've ever seen, has as his one visitor on the bench, Tony Robbins. Tony Robbins. Now, if you don't know how funny that is, let me give you some background. Tony Robbins has been famous for doing his personal growth personal improvement seminars and books and stuff for decades. And the reason that he's so famous and he could do this for decades is why. Why is Tony Robbins so rich and famous and successful for decades? It's because it works. That's it. Now you expect somebody like that to have some kind of scandal take you down. I think he's had some, like, minor ones he's managed to brush aside, but he is really good. And the things that he says are based on the same things I've studied. So he's an expert on persuasion. And he also has a direct line back to the top hypnotists, literally hypnotists of history. So he was actually mentored by one of the most famous hypnotists. And I don't think he necessarily uses that word, but it's one of the things he's added to his talent stack, you know, beyond the energy he brings and the, you know, his own. All of his own ideas and stuff. But he's got a talent stack that includes hypnosis. Now, one of the things that hypnotists learn is just part of being a hypnotist is that reality is completely subjective. Almost like you live in a simulation. Almost like you live in a simulation. And I think that's one of the reasons that I think this is a simulation. Because if you study hypnosis, one of the things you learn is that people make decisions first, and then they decide why they made the decision second. And you can't even be a hypnotist until you understand that that's like a basic understanding that everybody sees the world backwards or upside down or inside out, whichever it is, as soon as you see it the way it is, you can manage it more effectively. If I believe that people thought about things and then made decisions, I would treat people differently, I would write differently, I would have. I would express myself differently, I would do everything differently. But I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it. And once you learn it, it's hard to unlearn. People make decisions first for reasons they don't understand. And then they say it's because it was. I'll save money in the long run. Well, that's sort of after the fact now. That's not every single decision. There are some that the objective parts of the decision are just hard coded. And everybody would make the same decision. But for a lot of the important things, like what job do you have, who do you marry, do you have kids? All of those things are completely irrational decisions that we rationalize after the fact. Mostly we're just acting on our mating instincts and trying to act like we didn't. In fact, that's the best explanation of human beings. Everything we do is some expression of our mating instinct. And then we're trying to make it look like that's not what we're doing. And part of that is convincing ourselves that's not what we're doing. That's not what I'm doing. I did this. I dress really well today. You know why? Because I like how it makes me feel Whenever I hear somebody say that, that the way they're dressing. Women say this more than men. But I'm dressing for myself. I dress for the way I feel to make myself feel good. I always think that someone who doesn't understand the basic nature of reality, that we're all just expressing our mating instincts. And some people are aware of it and some are not. Now imagine if the only thing that was different about you Is that you knew that and nobody else did. Imagine being born into a world in which you alone understood that everybody was acting on their mating instinct. They just weren't aware of it. But you knew it. You would be like the one eyed king in the land of the blind. You would have almost a superpower of understanding what people are going to do and why they did it. And other people would be like, how did you know that was going to happen? Like, how did you know? You know this person was interested in this person. And I'd be like, well, look how they dressed today. I'm done. That was the mating instinct. They knew they were going to see this person one on one. And so it would look like you had magic powers. If you just understood that the world is backwards from the way you're taught it is. So Tony Robbins understanding that world and knowing that we live in a backwards world. And therefore understanding which tools to use to improve a backwards world, if you're following the chain here, is hugely successful. Tony Robbins is really, really, really successful. Personally but also has been credited by all kinds of leaders for helping them. So imagine how much Tony Robbins probably helped the warriors in their psychological game because the warriors came out and, and were psychologically impenetrable because they got behind early. I mean, they just started getting slaughtered in their away game for the first quarter and then they didn't do anything except come back hard and win. They came back so hard they just stomped the Celtics. So the older beaten up team with the players that had been like cobbled together over the years, in fact, the commentator said it was the worst team the warriors had ever won with. It was the worst performing team because people were injured, etc. And yet Steve Kerr got winning performances out of every combination of players he put together. Every time Steve Kerr put a combination together, with or without Curry, the best player in the game, he still won. Do you know why? Because he got the psychology right, I think. I mean, I think that was the main thing. He kept getting right and he had green on the team. That helps, right? So somebody says, yeah, plus luck. There's always luck. So here's, here's my point about Tony Robbins. Imagine you're the Celtics. Imagine and you get out in the court and you're thinking, all right, we got this, we're feeling good, we got this. All we have to do is like play harder and be smarter because we've got the size. So if we can match them in psychology, we already have the size in the youth, we're going to win it all. And then they look over and sitting next to Steve Kerr on the bench is the most powerful hypnotist in the history of civilization. This would be sort of like you got in a, you were in a math elite competition and you saw on the other side, on the other team was Paul Dirac. Now this is a very obscure reference that maybe 5% of you got somebody. Paul Dirac. D, I, R, A C, Anybody? Okay, Mathematical genius. So imagine if you go for a pickup game of basketball and Michael Jordan's on the other side. That is what Steve Kerr did to the Celtics. What Steve Kerr did to the Celtics was so effective it should be banned. What Steve Kerr did to the Celtics in that critical game was so devastatingly mentally effective that you should have been able to call the result of the game as soon as you saw him sitting on the bench. As soon as I saw him, I was like, oh no he didn't. Did Steve Kerr really put Tony frickin Robbins next to him on the bench? Because if you're the Celtics you're just gonna frickin give up. Remember, there's two variables, size and psychology. And Steve Kerr basically said, all right, we got you on the psychology, so you better work on the size thing a little bit more because we're gonna pulverize you on the psychology. And then what did he do? He pulverized them on the psychology. You could see the Celtics just look defeated about halfway through. They look like they just didn't have anything left. It was awesome. Well, Senator Tom Cotton is saying that the Attorney General should resign because there have been, I didn't know this, but reportedly 50 attacks on pro life pregnancy centers and churches in recent weeks, purportedly carried out by some shadowy domestic violence group called Jane's Revenge. So they're targeting conservatives. And once again, Tom Cotton shows us he's one of the effective people in Congress, in the Senate. So I always like the fact that he picks things, which I always think are the obvious things that should be done. But why isn't anybody else doing them? I don't know. There's a certain genius to be able to do the obvious things, the free money, the thing that just needs to be done. And why isn't somebody else doing this? So, yeah, I think this is a pretty valid thing to say if conservatives and Republicans are being hunted, hashtag hunted. Do you remember anybody who made a prediction that if Biden won the election that Republicans would be hunted? Anybody? Anybody who believes in the simulation? Somebody you can think of? Yes, me. I was widely mocked for that. But there might be at least one more story today on that topic. So to their credit, and I'm going to keep giving them credit for this, CNN had another, what I would consider very balanced segment in which John Berman was pushing Jennifer Granholm, the Energy secretary, on the consistency of the following things that the Biden administration wants. So at the same time that the Biden administration is demanding the energy companies make massive investments so that energy prices will go down, he's also telling them he wants them to be out of business, at least in their traditional energy business. So he's asking them to make massive investments for the future, at the same time telling them, but of course, in the future we want to put you out of business. So make a massive investment for the future. We want to disappear. And watching CNN's John Berman push her on that inconsistency was actually first of all refreshing. So that was a straight reporting, straight approach by cnn, which I think should be complimented. And she didn't really have what I would consider a sufficient answer. To that. Now, her answer was that the future of these companies should be divesting into greener energy, which I think is a fair thing to say. But it doesn't quite, doesn't quite explain the inconsistency, because they were all going to do that anyway. You know, companies invest in other things because they think it's a good investment or not. So that's all that's going to happen there. If they think it's a good investment, they'll do it. If they don't, they won't. So I don't think anything is going to change about how those companies invest in other stuff. But it's a. Why would you make massive investments in these traditional energy sources that the Biden administration wants to crush in the future? Well, here's the most damning stuff about Trump from January 6th. So I keep waiting for the January 6th hearings to come up with the goods against Trump specifically. And I love watching how dots are connected that are not actually connections. So making a connection, that's not really a connection. And so if you read some of the coverage fast and you don't really parse the words, you could think it means something it doesn't mean. I'll give you an example. So this, I think, was from cnn, according to testimony from people around the then president and elsewhere in Trump's political machines. All right, so they're saying that the people close to the, to Trump, they were told Eastman's plan to have Pence declare he had won, declare that Trump had won or accept other electors was illegal. See, this is getting complicated. Yet Trump tried to go ahead with anyway. All right, so here, let me simplify this. So Trump's attorney, Eastman, had a plan, and people told Trump that Eastman's plan, who was a lawyer, was illegal. So there were apparently lawyers who disagreed with lawyers. Now, if you're Trump, does that mean that you knew it was illegal? So the reporting, the factual reporting is that he had his most important lawyer, I guess his closest lawyer maybe, or one of the closest lawyers recommended it, but then other lawyers said it's illegal. So did Trump know it was illegal? Well, if the lawyers didn't know, if the lawyers didn't know it was illegal, how was he supposed to know? Now, if all of the lawyers had agreed, then I would say the story is, yeah, Trump knew that was illegal. But if there was even one lawyer that was close to him and, you know, was a credible lawyer saying, no, I think this is legal, then Trump did not know it was illegal. He knew it was Gray area, maybe. So if the reporting was Trump knew it was a gray area, I would say that's completely, probably supported by the facts, because if you can find one lawyer who says it's a good idea and at least one who says it's a bad idea, then you say, okay, it's a gray area. So what does a leader do when there's a gray area about what's legal? You tell me. If there's a gray area, like a legitimate gray area, you really don't know if it's legal or not. What do you do? Do you do the thing that you think is the right thing and then try to make the legal part work, or do you say it's a gray area? So even though I think one thing is the right thing to do, I'm not going to do it because I don't want to take a chance in this gray area situation. What would a leader do in that situation? Well, it depends on the leader. Probably. If you have a low appetite for risk, you'd probably say, all right, I'll just accept it and move on. Because you have a low appetite for risk. Suppose you have a high appetite for risk and you spent your entire career in ambiguous legal situations. Can you think of anybody who has spent more time in ambiguous legal jeopardy than Trump over his entire career? How much ambiguous legal jeopardy has that man endured in his entire life? More than anybody in the world, maybe. Maybe if there was some kind of competition of who has endured and survived the most ambiguous legal jeopardy situations, I think it would be Trump all the way. I think he has decades of doing this consistently and at least not being taken down by it. What would you do if you had spent your entire career not being defeated by ambiguous legal situations? You'd do what you know he's done. You'd use your gut and you just go for it. That seems to be his method. He uses his gut and then he just goes for it. And probably has worked more than it's not worked his whole career, which is why he's Trump and you're not. So it's hard to get in anybody's head, but it's not irrational if you have disagreeing lawyers and an entire background of your hunches, or let's say, your instinct, as he might call it. If you've had good luck with your instinct forever in these ambiguous situations and you felt strongly, you'd probably just go for it. And that doesn't, to me, sound like evil. You could spin it as he was doing anything to keep him in power. But let me ask you this. Do the Democrats believe that if it had been Trump's second term and he just ran two terms, or let me ask you a different way. Do Democrats believe that if Trump got reelected for another four years and it was constitutionally impossible for him to run for another term, does anybody believe he would try to stay? And I think the answer is yes. I think Democrats believe he would try to work some kind of dictator trick to stay in office after a second term. I don't think there's one Republican that would support that. I mean, okay, there's always one. I mean, you can get a crazy person to support anything. But it's not like there are many people in the Maga who would say, let's get rid of that two term thing. No matter how much you like Trump, you still say, you know, there are people with Trump's policy preferences who are not 1,000 years old. So, you know, I think people would just naturally gravitate to a younger, younger Republican anyway. We don't know what Trump was thinking, but the way they write it was indirect sentences. So something, somebody was told something, we don't know who did it. And we don't say somebody told him. We say somebody was told. When I see indirect writing like that, the was told that feels like somebody's in weasel mode while they're writing the sentence. Because direct sentences help you with clarity and indirect sentences, which is one of the most obvious things that a good editor would change. You know, it's kind of a tell that somebody's trying to not be clear. USA Today deleted a bunch of articles by one of their writers and I guess fired her because apparently some of the quotes were fabricated. The existence of some individuals quoted could not be independently verified. In addition, some stories had quotes in them that had been credited to others. So basically they fired their own reporter for having lots of stories that were partially made up. Now, Mike Cernovich, who is one of the highest value Twitter followers you can have. If you're not following Cernovich, why not? You need to. He points out that US Today is a fact check partner for Facebook and maybe even Twitter. So the fact check partner for Facebook and maybe even Twitter, I'm not sure why we don't know if it's Twitter, but we don't had to fire one of their own reporters for making up news. Like a lot of it. A lot of it, apparently. And Elon Musk, who apparently follows Cernovich's account, just replied with one word. Wow. Now why Is Elon Musk in the news four times a day? So here's, here's the first one. So, you know, as he's trying to buy Twitter and he's watching the quality of their fact checkers, you know, disintegrate, at least the reputation disintegrate in the public. He's just, wow. So, you know, he's watching that, which is interesting to me. Now, if you were, if you believed you lived in a simulation like Elon Musk did, wouldn't you be surprised if he were not the richest person in the world? Or let me say it another way. Shouldn't we expect that at some point, if we live in a simulation, that all of the richest people in the world are people who believe in the simulation because they would be the ones who played the game the best and knew how to win? Maybe. So there's Musk, richest guy, and also coincidentally believes we live in a simulation, huh? Jack Posabic is foreshadowing something interesting. He is tweeting today, what if Roe will not be overturned? And if it came from someone else, you'd say, okay, there's somebody just speculating some stuff on Twitter means nothing. But Jack Posabek has a long history of having good sources. And so when someone who has good sources says, maybe the Supreme Court won't overturn Roe, or maybe not in the way that has been reported. So somebody asked him what he knows that other people don't know, and I think he responded, nothing. Good. Now, it's a little bit cryptic, isn't it? So I don't know if there could be yet another leak from the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that indicate there are two leaks from the Supreme Court? Now, here's the interesting play here. Number one, may I ask, was I the first person who said, you know, I wouldn't trust that first draft? Now, other people have said it, of course, but I think you heard me first say, don't necessarily assume that the first draft is what anything that you're going to see. They could be just testing the argument out. What if that's true? Now, the other thing is this. If you're the Supreme Court, what is more important to you, the integrity of the Supreme Court or this decision? What is more important to you if you're the Supreme Court, the integrity of the Supreme Court or this decision? I think it's the integrity of the Supreme Court. And if they went in that direction, I wouldn't say it's crazy. And I could imagine them. I could imagine them pulling back the Ruling and not ruling at all because there was a leak, Would that fuck up everything? Imagine it. Imagine how baller that would be. Imagine if the Supreme Court said because. And maybe they would never say this out loud, which I would also agree would be a good idea. Never comment on it. Never comment on it. Never go to their graves, take it to their graves with no comment. Imagine the Supreme Court getting together and saying, here's the deal. This abortion thing, very important, very important issue, but not even close to the importance of what happened with that leak. And so here's what I would ask of you on both sides of the issue. Let us once and for all make it impossible for anybody to benefit from a leak from the Supreme Court. Let's make it impossible to benefit from a leak. And don't, don't release the ruling. Just say if there's a leak, there's no ruling. Now, would that give people the ability to stop any ruling by leaking? Maybe, maybe. But it would certainly be a baller thing to do. Because if the court wanted, let's say the court knew they had a majority for this ruling. If they pulled back because of the league, that would say a lot about the power of the league and how much of a problem that is. Why would it be baller? Because they would be ignoring the opinion in favor of the integrity of the Supreme Court. And so they would. They would basically be taking control back. That's a better way to say it. The court would be taking its power and credibility back by just saying, we don't have to do anything that the public requires us to do. We're just going to not rule. Now, the other interpretation is much less favorable. Yeah, they're cowards. You beat me to it in the comments. The other interpretation is that they're afraid that the riots that would ensue would be terrible. Now, here's another interpretation. Do you believe that the people on the Supreme Court are not at all independent? And it would be more fair to say that they are simply conservatives and liberals and really that's all there is to it with, you know, every now and then you get a surprise Justice Roberts decision or something. But basically, would you say that even though they act as they're independent, blah, blah, blah, there really is just some liberals and some conservatives and that's why we have all the debating. Because if they were really independent, you wouldn't have to argue about all the nominations. It's that, you know, when you nominate them, what they're going to rule before you even get the question. So if they're that partisan and it's that obvious to everyone. What would stop the conservatives on the court from saying, we only want to make a ruling that helps us politically. Suppose the conservatives said, you know, the only thing that would stop Republicans from sweeping is a Supreme Court ruling killing Roe and then making everybody go to the elections. Think about that. If the conservatives on the court are really, and I'll say corrupt, I think corrupt would be a fair enough word in this case. If they're really just conservatives and they're not even real justices, all they're doing is saying, conservatives, this is what you get. And we're going to rationalize it somehow. But we're on your team. We're just going to vote your way every time. So there are some real interesting questions about this. I could easily imagine that the court would pursue their own credibility or even. Or even a Republican victory and then hold off the decision until after 2024. What about that? What if the court said, we're going to delay this until after the political season? Oh, oh, here's my prediction. Oh, yeah, here's my prediction. The court has the. Correct me if I'm wrong, they have the flexibility to take any case or not take any case, and they have the flexibility to wait as long as they want. Is that true that they do have the flexibility to wait on any decision as long as they want? Nobody's going to tell them they have to make a decision. Is that true? There's no pressure to do it or lose it. Right. Suppose the Supreme Court says there has to be a response to the leak. There has to be. And because the leak was obviously released for political purposes to influence the midterms and maybe even the presidential election, we at the Supreme Court are going to take away that win and we're going to delay the decision. Actually, they don't even have to announce it. They could just not do it. And maybe it would leak that that's the reason, because that would give them. That would give them their. Are you agreeing with this? Because that would give the Supreme Court everything they want. If you imagine that that is the decision they want, the majority of them, they would still get their decision, but they would wait until there was a Republican scenario because that would also guarantee that the conservatives get the next nomination in the courts, etc. Assuming everybody can survive until 2024. What do you think of that prediction? Okay, that's what I would do if I were Justice Roberts. So if I were the Supreme Court, and even if I wanted that ruling, even if I were a conservative. I would say since the reason for the leak was political, we're going to take that win away from them, but we'll still reserve the right to do it immediately after the election when it has the least political impact. I feel like I would do that. But that would also be the Supreme Court meddling in the election, wouldn't it? So I'm not sure if that would be fixing a meddling or that would be its own meddling. So I guess that would be a problem either way. Well, speaking of Republicans being hunted, there's a list of on the Internet now of the people who were the most responsible for sowing doubt about the 2020 election. So researchers combed through 45 million tweets to find the people who are most responsible for doubt about the election. And I'm number 28 on the list. So I'm on a list of people who sowed the most doubt in the whole world about the election. Now, as someone else asked, how did they determine that? Because I accepted the election on the day the results were announced. I congratulated Biden for the win on the day the election was official. And I never changed. And I've said every time since then, he's the president, so that didn't change. But I've also said that since our election can't be audited, not fully, then you can't know if anything was rigged. But you could know for certain that if it doesn't get plugged those holes, that it will be. We don't know when might be this election might be next 20 years from now. But if you don't plug the holes, it's a guarantee somebody's going to walk through that open gate. So, yeah, of course, until we have a fully auditable system, one assumes that you can't fully trust any result. But I value, just like the Supreme Court conversation, I do value the system over the imperfections and even over the choice because when an election is close, you know, it's like 48, 50 sort of situation. I don't really think the public loses when if the 48 wins over the 50, because it's not that much of a difference. It's not like the public is so smart that, you know, we can, you know, we can fine tune those decisions. If it's sort of half and half, then at least half the country got what they wanted. And that's not too bad compared to the other half getting what they wanted. It's not the worst thing in the world. So I still support the System, because I don't want the system to fall apart, even though you can never know for sure if it gave you 100% accurate results. But I would say that every day that goes by that we don't have further evidence of the 2000 mules accusations, the less likely you're ever going to see them. So to me, that feels like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and 2000 mules. I put them all in the same category in just one thin way. Not in general, but just one specific way, which is every day that goes by that they're not proven to work well, it's probably less likely that they will ever be proven to work. So the challenge against the 2000 mules thing is that the cell phone data location stuff wasn't specific enough. You need some photographic evidence of the same person going to the same box, has not been produced, or you need a whistleblower. The allegations of all of these mules is kind of interesting when if a mule existed, you don't think that mule would find a way to monetize their whistleblowers. Because you could go to a major news platform and say, look, disguise my voice, pay me $50,000, and I'll tell you that I was at Mule and I dropped off multiple things. But that hasn't happened, has it? There's not one mule who would take $50,000 and a disguised identity to tell that story. Now, maybe they'd be afraid of being killed or something, but I don't know how much you get paid to be a mule, but it can't be that much. I would think that I'd take the $50,000 if I were a mule, and I thought I could get away with it, because remember, these are people who think they can get away with stuff. If you're a mule, you've already bought into the idea of breaking the law, right? So if you could have another way to maybe not break the law and make $50,000, that doesn't seem like a big risk. So every day that you don't see somebody take the $50,000, because easily somebody would give them 50,000. Right? You're telling me that there's no conservative who would pay $50,000 to get somebody to hide their identity and say, yeah, I was a mule. Here's how I did it. I don't know that many mules. So the same argument that says, if you don't have a totally secure election system and there have been reports of vulnerabilities, eventually it Will be hacked. But for the same sort of math logic, if you have so many alleged mules, and you'd have to have a lot of them, Right. Not one of those people who are a group of people who engage in illegal activity by definition, because it's illegal. At least the muling we're talking about is illegal. Not one of those people would accept $50,000 to tell their story because of their own legal jeopardy. Maybe. I don't know. I feel like that's a group that would take the $50,000. I feel like you could get dozens of them to take it because that's good money for a little bit of criminal activity. Suppose you had a mule who went to the press and said, I'll make you a deal. If you, the press, hire me a lawyer and you go to the law enforcement and you ask them to give me a pardon or some kind of dispensation, I will tell my story to you. You'll give me $50,000, and I'll have no legal jeopardy because you helped me clear that with your lawyer. There's no mule smart enough to make that deal. Really? I don't know. I feel like that would be just such an obvious deal that they could make that deal. So every day that goes by that we don't have proof there was anything wrong with that election, I say the odds of it are much smaller. Much smaller. Right. All right, so what do you make of the fact that I'm on a list of election doubters? Doesn't that sound like I've been hunted? Literally? Somebody paid some rich people paid for an entity to pour through my tweets and other people's tweets. Haunting. Haunting for certain people who are associated with opinions that they say are associated with the right. Now, I'm not Republican and I'm not conservative, but I got on the list. Now, have I been hunted? Did they not literally hunt for me by the data? That looks like a hunt to me. What is hunting, other than going and looking for your target? Like, actually, what is the definition of hunting? Let me ask that, what is the definition of hunting and see if it fits. Define hunting. All right. The activity of hunting wild animals or game, especially for food. Okay, it's not that. Well, that's a rather limited definition. So they're not using the. Oh, it's similar to stalking. All right, well, we can do better than that. So remember I told you that it seems likely that especially before the 2024 election, that I will be the subject of a hit piece. I Feel like this list is sort of activating. The activists say, okay, here's your hit list. And it even included how many people retweeted us so you could know how big our influence was. It was literally a list of who was influential on a topic they don't like, a list of who is most influential on a topic they don't like. Think about that. Suppose conservatives created a list of who on the right was the most influential on a topic they didn't like. How would that feel? How would that feel? Because if you saw that list, what would you do? Well, if you're a nice person, you probably just read it and it would be interesting. But if you're a troll or a terrible person, what would you do? It looks like a hit list. Doesn't looks like the list of people that you should go after. You should troll harder. You should try to make their life uncomfortable, because these are the bad people. I believe I just got put on a bad people list because what would be the point of making a list of people who are most influential on a topic you don't like? What would be the other reason for the list? Tell me, what would be the other purpose of the list other than to target me personally for some kind of payback or destruction or minimization? Am I right? There is no other purpose. I don't believe there's even an alleged other purpose. I don't believe there's a cover story. I don't believe anybody's saying anything else. But here's a list we of people who should be, you know, disavowed or targeted or something. So I'm on the list now, But, you know, if there's one person you don't want to put on the list, like, who would it be? Who would be the person that you would least want to piss off in the whole world? Who would you least want to piss off in the whole world? No, not me. Tony Robbins. Tony Robbins, not me. Now, I don't know. Maybe Tony Robbins is above anything like revenge, because I've never seen anything like that that would suggest he's vengeful. But you wouldn't want to make somebody. You wouldn't want to make somebody angry if you thought they controlled the simulation. Now, the people who do control the simulation, if there's a simulation and if somebody can control it, they would look exactly like me, but that doesn't mean I do. They would just look exactly like my life. So just think about that. Apparently, Russia is handling all the sanctions well and doing fine. Okay? Now, is the Russia, Ukraine thing the best example of two movies on one screen that you've ever seen? I mean, I guess Trump, Trump was the most classic example. But we have a situation in which people like me will claim we were right by saying that Russia did not take over Ukraine. So, but on the other hand, Russia won the war. So it's like two opposites at the same time. Russia tried to attack and over and conquer Ukraine. And I believe they at least, I think they at least wanted it and maybe they thought they had a shot at it. So I think what they did is they probably tried to take the whole country and maybe still will try. Maybe they're still trying, but quite reasonably adjusted their tactics when it was time to do that, consolidated their control over the most valuable parts, and then presumably will just keep picking on Ukraine forever and try to get the whole thing. But people like me can say, hey, I was right because Ukraine defended itself better than the experts said they would. But then the experts are going to say, well, we told you Russia could do anything they wanted. Now what they wanted to do was get this valuable part and they got it. So Russia won. And if they want the rest of it, well, they can pick on that later and they'll probably get that too. So is everybody right? Everybody's right, Scott. The mind reader of Putin. You know, the thing with Putin is you don't have to read his mind because he said publicly pretty clearly that Ukraine should be in Russia's control and blah, blah, blah, NATO is a risk, blah, blah. So I don't think that's a mind reading example, but I always take seriously those criticisms because it's easy to fall into the mind reading thing. Here's a shocking statistic that 85% of children and teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. And over 70% of all adolescent patients in drug and alcohol treatment originate from homes without fathers. Therefore, the problem is not enough. Fathers. Yes or no? Connect these dots. This will be your data analysis test. If we know that 85% of children and teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes, therefore the fatherless part is the reason, right? What would be something else in common that fatherless homes have? What would be some other big variable? A lack of money. Can you name something where poor people are doing better? I mean, there's probably something, but in what category do poor people do better? Do they have better health? No. Do they have better happiness? I don't think so. The last thing you would expect is that the poorer you are, the healthier your mental health would be. So are we not talking about. We're talking about fathers, but it's really a poverty problem. Now you might say to yourself, if the father stayed, that would solve the poverty problem, Would it? Are these fathers, the fathers with good jobs who the only thing wrong with them is that they didn't stay? No, I don't think the only thing wrong with the fathers is they didn't stay. They probably would be an economic drag as much as an economic benefit. So I'm not sure they're saying fatherlessness is the problem. That feels like the outcome of the problem. Do you want to give me another. Do you want to hear the most provocative hypothesis of what the real problem is? Do you want to see me get banned from all social media and lose 15% of my followers in the next 60 seconds? I'm just going to throw out a hypothesis. What if the problem is mothers? I'm not saying it is. I think it's curiously missing from the conversation because, remember, it's a bunch of things we don't understand. So if it's a thing we don't understand with a bunch of variables in it, why can't it be the mother's? If the father doesn't stay, what's one possibility for that? What is one reason that the father wouldn't stay? Name a reason. Well, one is that the father's a piece of crap, right? That's what you go to immediately. The father's a deadbeat piece of crap, irresponsible, possibly a rapist. That's where you go to. Why? Because men are awful and women are awesome. Those are the rules. Those are the rules. I'm sorry, Amber heard an exception. But the rules are the men are trash and women are goddesses and queens. Queens and goddesses. Those two categories. You can only be two things if you're a woman. Either a queen or a goddess, a princess, three things. But men are criminals and dirt and rapists and murderers. They're awful. And so if you see a situation where there are two variables involved, one is the mother, who is the one who spends most of the time with the child that becomes ruined. So the mother is the one who spends all the time with the child who gets ruined and the fault of this process not working, the mother spending all of the time raising the child that gets ruined. The reason that the child is ruined by the mother who spends all the time with the child is the father who's not there. So the person who's not there is the one who Ruined the child. Not the person who's there. No, not the person who's there. Let me do a little mental experiment for you. Let's imagine a world in which the mothers were doing the leaving and the fathers were always left with children. It's an imaginary world. In the imaginary world where the women all left and the fathers were left to raise the kids, and then those kids turned out to be drug addicts and behavioral problem kids, would the analysis be that the problem was the mother left? Or would the analysis be, I think the one who's there raising the kid is the one ruining them, and no wonder the mother left because that father couldn't even raise a kid, so how much of a father could he be? So obviously it's the father who's a piece of trash garbage who is. You know, at least they're there at the home, but they're ruining that kid because they're the one raising it and the kid turned down bad. Now, is that a fair analysis, that the person who raises the kid is mostly to blame if the kid turns out wrong? Or is it the person who wasn't there? Is that how he normally thinks in a normal situation? Would you blame the person who wasn't there, or would you blame the person who was there? And how come you've never asked that question? How come you just automatically accept the interpretation that men are pieces of shit and they cause the problem even when they're not there? Even when they're not there. So I think that fatherlessness is something that needs to be focused on and understood and we need to find some way to help the kids. But I don't know if the situation is so simple as the conservative view that is fatherlessness. I think there's at least an equal possibility that the mothers are all broken and that one of the reason that the father didn't stay is that the mother is broken and he just couldn't put up with it, so why is it always the father's fault? Now, I'm not saying the father should be off the hook, nothing like that. I'm just saying that the way we analyze this is so obviously not rational that why would we expect that we could figure out how to solve it if, you know, I mean, and this is. I think I've made a pretty strong case here. If, you know, we're not looking at it in a rational way, why would you expect anybody could solve it? You'd have to start with understanding it, at the very least. And if you're not willing to say the truth that whatever makes these people poor and whatever makes this father leave or whatever makes the mother not have a partner, maybe it's them. Maybe it's them. Maybe the people are fucked up, both the mother and the father. Maybe. Maybe poverty is just always bad. How about poverty is always bad? You know, I think conservatives, honestly, I think you're destroying the topic. Because when you simplify it to fatherlessness, first of all, I just don't think there's enough support for that opinion. Even though the statistics are highly correlated. That's not a. It's just too simplified. There's just too many other things that are correlated. So somebody says, you're off on this. Yeah, I'll look for some. I'll look for some pushback. By the way, if it turns out that the statistics just say, yeah, it really is the guy's fault pretty much every time, I could be persuaded. I'm easily persuaded on this point, by the way. Easily persuaded. But there is no argument against what I just said. The automatic assumption that men are trash is what is driving the entire frame of the debate. And if you're in the wrong frame, you're not going to find a solution. So what's the solution? How about fix the mothers about that? Imagine if every single mother who had a kid started looking like a good prospect. Suppose instead of saying, oh, shoot, this one's got a kid. I don't want to marry that because I'm going to be responsible for somebody else's kid. Don't want to be a stepdad. You know what? If you fix the mothers so the men want to stay with them. Oh, yeah, look what I just did. What if you fixed the mothers so the men wanted to stay? But I will give you this. You would have to also train the mothers not to have sex with the wrong guys. Can I give you that? Because most guys are the wrong guys. Most of the men are defective, too. Like, I'm not. Don't. If you think I'm letting men off the hook, that's not what's happening here. I'm not letting anybody off the hook. I'm just saying that everybody's on the hook, right? Including me. I didn't have any biological kids. We're sort of all on the hook. Like, I don't feel that I don't have responsibility for this. I feel like I do. I feel like I do. Now, you know my philosophy, which is, in two occasions, I've preferred being a stepdad than a biological dad. Now, why did I willingly take on these Stepdad functions because in both cases, it was an attractive proposition. So you don't think other single women can learn how to become an attractive proposition so that men will say, you know, I would love to be part of that deal. Let me in. Yeah, Let me say. Let me tell you this. There is not much competition out there, is there? Anybody single? Anybody single watching? Have you noticed that, weirdly, there isn't much competition out there? Here's what I mean. If you go to the gym, have a job, you're in the top 10% of all eligible men. That's true. If you go to the gym and you have a job, you're in the top 10% of all eligible men. Was that hard? That wasn't hard. What would it take for a single woman to have, you know, multiple men who want to marry her? Not hard. I'm not going to say go to the gym because then I look like a sexist jerk. I'm just going to say that it's not hard to get into the top 10% of eligible people. It's not hard. It really isn't. You just have to be nice to people, build your talent, stack, work on your appeal, which is mostly fitness diet. Pretty much anybody can get in the top 10%. Pretty much anybody, let's say, for their age. You know, you'd have to adjust for age. And yeah, so I would say that maybe if we were a little less woke, we could be more beneficial to the base problem, which is you have single women that no man wants to marry. I'm sorry, if there are a lot of single women that no man wants to marry, you should at least ask yourself, can the women try harder? It has to be asked. I'm not letting the men off the hook whatsoever. The men have to be held to the maximum amount of reasonable responsibility for whatever they do. But they're not the only ones in the conversation. That's all I'm saying. Remember I told you that nobody really understands inflation and debt and the Fed and all that? Do you believe me when I say that literally nobody understands it? Like the experts don't really understand it? Well, here's a little more evidence to that case. There's an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Vigilante. I hope I'm pronouncing his name right, and I won't give you the whole thing, but his basic point is that nobody understands the topic and that the only person who did was some economist in the Reagan era and maybe Reagan himself. And I'm going to Read just a little portion of it. And I'm not trying to get you to understand it. So when you don't understand this, don't worry about that. That's not the point. I want you to understand that. Here's somebody who makes what I think is a fairly strong argument that nobody understands it. So here's his definition. This is Richard Vigilante for the Wall Street Journal, and I recommend the piece. It's eye opening. He said that Reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply. So remember, everybody thinks that inflation is caused by an increase in M2, the money supply, but Reagan beat inflation not by reducing it. Okay, so that's the first thing that's opposite of what everybody thinks. Like everybody thinks increasing the money supply is. That's inflation. That's all it is. Too much money for too few goods. But Reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply. M2 nearly doubled during his time. Okay, that's opposite everything that everybody believes. But he did it by boosting demand for money. How do you do that? How do you boost the demand for money? The great lesson of the Reagan era is that money supply is determined by investment opportunity. What? Absent such opportunities, no matter how much money the government gives people, they will reject it and turn it into stuff, meaning they'll buy goods. So people have two choices of what to do with money. Simplifying things. They can put money into just buying things that they like, or they can invest. If you give them better opportunity to invest, then that money supply just gets sucked up into investments, which creates new taxes, which creates all kinds of goodness. But if you take that money supply and there's too much of it and there's just a lot of money, people will say, you know, I don't need this new thing, but my money's not worth much and I'd like a chair. I'll just turn my money into a chair because, you know the money's going to be worthless. I might as well have a chair or something like that. I'm simplifying too much. And so what do you think of that? What do you think of the idea that all we would need to do is a Reaganish trumpish change in. I think what Reagan did is he changed the capital gains taxes and some other things to make investment much more worthy. And he beat inflation because he came in after Carter, right? So he came in during the stagflation era, the worst of all possible worlds. So if all you do is make it better to invest, you solve everything. So now I'M going to give you two rules of economics that could explain everything, right? Number one is if employment is good, you're probably fine. I keep telling you that if you just look at the one variable, is our employment rate good? You're probably fine as long as. As long as you're not ruining the country with inflation or debt, right? So that's the, the big variable. So here's the one rule. Maybe, maybe the one rule that tells you if you're in trouble in inflation in the long run is whether you're making investment look like a good option. So if you're, if, if the government is continuing to make investment look good, you solve every problem. So two things to know your economy. If your employment is good, you're probably in good shape as long as your inflation is also good. And you can predict that by your investment situation. Now, what would happen if Republicans take control of Congress and the presidency? Four words. I got four words for you. If you think the Republicans are going to take both the Congress and the presidency, four words, you better own stock. Because from our current, you know, bottom, and I think we're close to some kind of a bottom here, if Republicans go ahead and do what people kind of sort of think is going to happen, take control of things, there's almost no way that, that they won't make investment more attractive. And that will fix the inflation or it will look like it is, which then the anticipation actually changes the reality and we could be entering the single best investment opportunity of all time. I wonder if that'll get quoted somewhere. So I'll say it again just in case somebody wants to quote it somewhere. These two situations, I think, are unprecedented. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not a historian, I say it's unprecedented. We have the economic badness that's pretty bad, the high inflation, the big debt. So we've got the economic badness and the shortages and everything else at the same time. We have what looks like a Republican sweep upcoming and almost unstoppable. Have we ever had a situation where the economics were at their lowest point? The Republicans look like a sure bet for taking control, and the Republican policies are the exact prescription for fixing the problem, which is Reaganish improvements in the investment outlook or the investment, you know, situation. Have we ever been in the situation with those two things lining up at the same time? I don't know for sure, but in terms of risk reward, it might be the best investment opportunity of all time. Maybe. Now, let me say before you go off and invest Anything. You really shouldn't take investment advice from me. I'm not good at it. So can I say that clearly I'm not really good at this, at the investment stuff, because nobody is. The only way to be good at investing is either by Apple computer stock or an index fund. And don't go buy Apple stock because I just said that I'm using Apple as an example of something that's such a big company. It's almost a diversified stock portfolio by itself. It does so many things. All right, did I sell ETH when it jumped? No. My philosophy is on ETH and Bitcoin. Just hold forever. And it's just a hedge, just in case. So, you know, small portion of portfolio. Father's Day is Juneteenth Day. How about that? The richest man in the world gets sued a lot. Elon Musk is getting sued over allegedly pumping up dogecoin and then it became worthless. So I don't. Who knows? Is there anybody who was buying crypto who thought it was an investment? I feel like this is a lawsuit of smart people against dumb people. Like, the only way you'd win would is if you got a jury of your peers who also believed that crypto was a good investment. In some cases, it's never going to be a good investment except in the narrow sense of a diversified portfolio. All right, so apparently there are 30 alleged officials from the Trump administration who believe that Trump is not fit to be president again. What do you think of that? Do you think that there are 30 people who are close to Trump who say he should not be, that he's not fit for president? You know what I wonder is if Republicans are going to throw away everything because Trump might be the only Republican who could lose. I hate to say it, he might be the only Republican who could lose the presidency, because imagine if it's just some strong candidate that's not Trump. DeSantis, Tom Cotton, let's say. I believe that without Trump's baggage and given Biden's low popularity, that anybody could be the Republican Biden. And by the Republican Biden, I mean the person who doesn't have so much baggage, that that's the whole story. They just have to be a Republican and they'll just get elected. Trump is the only one who brings risk, because I'm not sure how many people are going to vote for somebody who is. Former advisors say you shouldn't vote for him. That's pretty much a. Now if that stays. And by the way, these former advisors, you know, I need to See some more names. I saw two or three, but I'm not so sure there are 30 of them. But allegedly there's some conversation about how to keep him from running. And by the way, I'm not convinced that he's decided to run, or let's say I'm not convinced he will decide to run. I think he could take a better offer. He could. I think he could take a better offer. I don't know what that would look like, but if anybody ever made a better offer, he's a deal maker. I think he'd take it. Yeah, he's already a kingmaker. So imagine, imagine if they said, look, you're a little bit dangerous as the president, but you've been a kingmaker until now. How about you just keep it up? How about you continue to be a kingmaker? Imagine if the Republican Party said, look, you know, we're going to run a different candidate for president, but we'd love you to, you know, get Trump back on Twitter and make him the voice of the party because he's so interesting. You know, I would listen to Trump talk all day and be happy about it if, you know, somebody like Ron DeSantis was actually running the job. And because I love all the controversy that Trump brings, like, I love the entertainment, I love the show. And I do think that in a way that Fox News can influence Republicans. I think that Trump could influence topics almost as much by talking about them out of office. You know, if he had his Twitter platform back, for example. So I don't know. I think, I think there's at least a 50% chance that Trump will take a better offer. And the better offer would be to not do the job of president, but be the most influential voice in the country, because he could easily do that because he can decide who gets who gets his endorsement. You know what? Oh, my God. I just realized there's a hole in the conservative world that hasn't been plugged yet. Do you know what the hole is? Yeah. Okay, you got me. You're ahead of me. Rush Limbaugh. The Republicans lost their strongest provocative, non politician voice. Trump should have a primetime show, maybe a radio show, but I think he's better alive. Maybe a podcast. Yeah. Trump as the new Rush Limbaugh, having actually served in the office would be insanely interesting. Like, you couldn't look away from that. And as soon as you hear it, that he would be the Rush Limbaugh replacement. What does that tell you about the quality of that option? It changes. It doesn't. It if you said to ex President Trump, here's the deal. You can run for president and get all that attention and maybe even win, or you could be the Rush Limbaugh power center of the Republican Party. Which do you think sounds like a better offer at his age and given the risk reward of running for president? Because if he runs for president, he's going to be a target again and he is a certain age, he could take the win and go off and have, you know, sometimes a primetime show. Remember I told you that? I'd love to see a show like the Apprentice, except he deals with topics. Imagine Trump filling the Rush Limbaugh role of the important voice, if you will, and except doing it. And allowing both the left and the right to debate with him as the moderator of the debate. Oh, my God. Imagine watching him interrupt people on the left and the right because, you know, there are stories of him challenging even the people on the right during meetings. Wouldn't you love to see him say, stop, stop, answer the question. No, you're lying, you're lying. Answer the question. How much would you love to see Trump with his thumb on two experts making them fight it out? But they have to make sense and they have to stay on topic and they have to answer the questions. Oh, my God. Now imagine a sidekick, because you always have to have a sidekick. So who would be the Bo Snood be? Okay, I guess that would be first choice for the, for one type of sidekick, but I'm talking about a sidekick who would be the data person. Imagine somebody who is like a real data expert who was just there. And Trump says, all right, is that even true? And then the data person says, well, actually that's not true. So they're going to have to try again. No, I'm not the data person. That wouldn't be me. This would be amazing. Trump could own political commentary just by having both sides. Think about it, because anybody would go on the show after a while. He could get anybody as long as he let the liberal side have as much time. I think he could get anybody on the show because they would want to show that their opinion is better than the other side if they couldn't do it. Well, why? Somebody said, I just described Fox News 15 to 20 years ago. You know, I think you're right about that. All right. Apparently SpaceX fired some employees who put together a little letter saying that Elon's. Elon Musk's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us, particularly in recent weeks. So SpaceX found out who was involved in fired him. Allegedly. What do you think of that? Do you think the free speech guy, Elon Musk, should fire his own employees for freedom of speech in which they said that the boss is embarrassing them? Yes, yes, he should. Yes, that's a firing offense. Do you know what's a good reason for firing somebody? They don't want to work there or they're unhappy. That's a perfectly good reason. Now it's also a good reason for changing something. There are two good things you can do when employees are disgruntled. You could find out what it is and if it's valid, maybe change it. And if it is something you don't want to change, well, then the, the thing you should do is fire them if it's a big enough problem. So yeah, I think this is, I think he's right to. I think any company in this situation is perfectly within the right to fire a disgruntled employee. And so CNN is even talking about Biden maybe running for reelection because they admit he might be the best they have because they don't have anybody else who could beat Trump. They think. Now I think that's wrong. I do think that they have other people who could beat Trump because Trump has the risk of beating himself. Right. And the media would, media would be on one side, etc. So, but I think it's interesting that CNN's opinion of the Democrat bench, if you will, is so low that even though they're also beating on Biden having the lowest approval. So while CNN is saying that Biden has the lowest approval, that's the news people and opinion people, an opinion piece on their site is saying that he might be the best. They have the lowest opinion ever of a president and they admit he might be the best candidate. Just think about that. How in the world could Democrats win? Oh, here's how. Do you think there's any way that Democrats can recover from this? Here's the bad news. They already did. Turns out that Rasmussen has a new poll and that they do the hypothetical match between a hypothetical Republican and a hypothetical Democrat in the congressional races. And they say if it's just a Republican or just a Democrat, and that's all you know, they're just generic. Who do you vote for? Well, there had been a nine point difference, which is huge in favor of the generic Republican until today. Now that those January 6th hearings are making a dent, apparently now there's a six point, no, a five point lead, so almost cut in Half. So the Republican advantage going into the midterms was a nine point lead that just got cut to five. Now what happened? What's happening in the world that would cause such a radical change in this opinion? January 6th coverage, I can't think of anything else. I don't think it's margin of error. I think it's the January 6th coverage that's not confirmed. But maybe the Supreme Court. Maybe. But I think it's the January 6th coverage. I think it's working. I think it's actually working because remember, the January 6th coverage is mostly showing violent looking Republicans. It basically is. Look at these Republicans. I mean, that's all people are getting from the coverage because they don't follow the details. It just looks like Republicans have become a violent extremist country. If you just dip into the coverage, you just see Republicans attacking the Capitol. That's kind of all, you know. So I think the January 6th propaganda is working really well. And you know, I like to separate what I like from what is good work, good being subjective. I think the propagandists are doing a great job on propaganda. Now I don't like propaganda, but if you're going to do it, you might as well do it well. And I think they're killing it. I think they're killing it. They have actually cut their strategy. I guess credit to Nancy Pelosi or whoever makes up their strategy, but they came up with a strategy to come up with this gigantic hoax that it was an insurrection while there were in fact some violent people who probably wanted exactly that. It wasn't an insurrection. I mean, not in general, it wasn't an insurrection, but the hoax looks like it's working. And speaking of hoaxes, Biden just repeated the fine people hoax, which still exists. Now here's the test. You've seen me compliment CNN quite a bit lately because I do think that their new leader is trying to make them report straight news on both sides and they do show signs that they're taking that seriously. So I'm going to give them like massive credit every time they make a step in that direction. And even I would even encourage you to watch them more because it's an interesting shift. You can see it in real time happening. But. But what? But do you think that cnn will report. What's happening with the fine people hooks? This is the ultimate test. If CNN's leader is going to take seriously that CNN is going to report straight news from now on. He has a fresh example of Biden repeating the fine people hoax. I would bet you that the guy who's in charge of CNN knows it's a hoax. I'm not positive because I can't know what he's thinking, but I'll bet he does. I'd say it's a 60, 40. I'll bet he does. Now, if he knows that's a hoax and he knows the president just repeated it in public, if he doesn't see his people call it down as a hoax, will he make them, Will he say, you're going to have to say that was a hoax? Because we do context now. We're not doing the leave stuff out of context thing. We're going to put the context in. It looks like he's serious. So that's something to watch for today. If you see that CNN is back, that would be big news. And if I were the head of cnn, I would just break the. I would just break the world in half and just say, look, let's really make a splash. Let's admit that all of our coverage was fake about this fine people hoax. We don't have to actually go back and do apologies, but you're going to have to put it in context going forward and you're going to have to start today because the president just repeated it. What would happen to CNN's viewership if they did that? Would they lose viewers because their own side would say, hey, what's this? Or would they gain viewers because it would be a national debate about what's going on over there? I think they could gain. And I would love to see this. I would love to have us battling it out about whether CNN has actually change the direction of the ship because again, credit where credit is due. I think they're trying. I think they're trying, legitimately trying, and that could be a great thing for the world. I mean, really a great thing. You know, it's funny because there's an opening for a major news network who reports the news straight down the middle. If they find themselves, you know, that they can do that, well, maybe they've got something there. All right. Since summer has come, I've stopped looking at the, oh, I've gone extra long, so I think I'll go do something else because you probably need to, too. And may I say, this was the finest livestream all times. I think you all enjoyed it a little bit extra. If you play it at 1.25 or 1.75 speed, my understanding is I'm even better. So make sure you do the recorded one. If you want to do that and YouTube. Talk to you tomorrow.