Episode 1816 Scott Adams: The January 6 HOAX Has Now Been Totally Debunked. What Now?

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to what I think will be a highlight of civilization and certainly your life. No matter how exciting it is, it's about to take it up a level. And if you'd like to join me in this experience, raising your awareness, raising your metabolism, really making everything better, all you need is a cupper mug or a glass of Tanker Jellis dye in a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine. Today I think, makes everything better. Watch this go. That was somewhere between a sip and a gulp. It was more of a sulp. And that's how words are created by writers. Yeah, I just created a word. It's a sulp. Well, what's happening in the news that will entertain us and delight us? Let's see. Autonomous killer drone robots. Uh oh. So the United nations is trying to get together and to decide if autonomous murderous drones should be legal in war. Because, you know, there's one thing you don't want to happen in war, it's killing people. So if you could make it safer to go to war. Seems like a good idea to me. I'd love a good war with no casualties. That would be ideal. But do you think it's a good idea or a bad idea to have autonomous murder robots that might go out and autonomously murder people? Because what if they murder the wrong people? Yes. That's never happened in war, has it? Am I missing something? Isn't the alternative to swarms of murderous autonomous drone robots? The alternative is just artillery, right? How in the world could you be angry about a tool that's designed to, you know, to be smart about what it hits? Should we use the dumb kind where you just shoot big bombs into clusters of civilization? I feel like we have to compare this to the alternative, don't we? That's always. That's always the problem that we have in politics. We look at something as though the alternative is some kind of a perfect situation. Huh. Should we have autonomous killer drones or everybody live in peace drones murdering innocent people or everybody live in peace? I think everybody will live in peace would be a better one. Would you like to debate it? I think everybody living in peace would be way better than autonomous murder drones. But suppose you compare that to the alternative. Correct me if I'm wrong, but autonomous murder drones are going to kill leadership, right? Why would you waste your autonomous murder drones that can identify people? Why would you use them to murder civilians? Or even artillery, I guess you'd go after the artillery. But it's kind of a tool to go after leadership, isn't it? I would like more of that, not less. In fact, I would like all of our military hardware to be designed to kill the leaders of the other countries and not kill anybody else. And if they make stuff that only kill our leaders, but don't kill me, well, I'm not going to hate that. Rasmussen has a poll that says 1 in 5 voters think it would be good if, good for the Democrats if Biden does not run for re election. So here's, so here's the question which must be asked. So only 1 in 5 think Biden of Democrats think no voters, actually. So it's voters, not Democrats. So one in five voters that could be both Republicans and independents and Democrats think it don't think it would be good for Biden to run for re election. I think that's fair. Now, here's my question to the people who voted for Biden. If you voted for Biden because you didn't want the guy who lies to be in office, how did that work out? Oh, I know, I know. I know what you're gonna say. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. Maybe Biden lies, too, and, you know, get granted. That was his main reason for wanting to replace Trump. That was his proposition. And sure enough, we just replaced Trump with another gigantic liar. But, but at least Biden's effective. Moving on, Tom Cotton is getting some heat from Representative Liz Cheney. I guess Tom Cotton went on a show and said some bad things about the January 6 thing, but it turns out he has not watched much of the live coverage. So, Tom Cotton, a sitting senator, can you believe that he hasn't spent really much time at all watching an obvious hoax on television? What's wrong with that guy? Well, what the hell is he doing instead of watching a hoax playing out on television, is he wasting his time trying to stop Fentanyl shipments from the cartels? Oh, yeah, he fucking is, right? That's what he's fucking doing. He's trying to stop fentanyl shipping into the United States, trying to stop China from owning the United States. I'm sorry, did he not spend enough time watching your fucking bullshit brainwashing propaganda hoax? Well, that's what Liz Cheney says. She says, hey, Senator Tom Cotton, heard you on Hugh hewitt criticizing the January 6th hearings. Then you said the strangest thing. You admitted you hadn't watched any of them. Zing, zing. I gotcha. I gotcha. You admitted you haven't watched any of my completely useless bullshit propaganda. So what do you say to that? When you're out there wasting your time trying to stop fentanyl shipments to the United States? Is there any news story I can do without making that a face? I just realized you can't talk about the news without making that face because everybody's just such a fucking idiot right now that you can't even treat it like it's serious. I mean, not really. You can't treat it like it's serious. Seriously. Liz Cheney thinks that Tom Cotton should spend more time watching her hoax. She's already debunked herself. The entire January 6 thing proved there was nothing there. Oh, there was something there. Yeah. Let's get to that. Let's see. It started out, number one, that Trump attempted a planned insurrection of the United States. Wow, that's pretty bad. Wow, wow, wow. Trump planned. He planned an insurrection, okay, Loosely planned. Loosely planned, but still he loosely planned a fucking insurrection of the United. Okay, well, he didn't loosely plan anything. Turns out nothing was planned. But he encouraged it. He fucking encouraged an insurrection, okay? He didn't actually encourage it, but he didn't try to stop it. He didn't try to stop it. All right, he did try to stop the violence, but he should have done more. He should have done more. Let me accept this standard for a moment because I think it's a useful one. I believe the standard of should have done more and should have done it sooner should be the new standard by which we judge all of Congress. Everybody raise your hand if you agree. Unanimous. Unanimous. And by the way, oh, here's a. Here's a coincidence. I wrote a book called Loser Think a few years ago and there's a chapter in it talking about how loser thinkish it is to say that something good should have been done sooner and better. Because you know what else should be done sooner and better? Everything that's good. No exceptions. If it's good, it should have fucking been done sooner and better. Do you know what else should have been done sooner and better? The January 6th hearings. It was a four hour event that was completely reversed by the second day, the actual January 6th thing. So the attempt and the delay didn't work. Next day, everything was back to normal. It took them a year and a half to put on the hearings. Really? This is the big critical question in the country and you take a fucking year and a half to put it on television. How about doing your job? How about you should have done a lot more and a Lot sooner if you thought this was the most critical issue. If it's not the most critical issue, what the fuck are you spending your time on it for? Maybe you should be helping Tom Cotton stop the fentanyl flow into this country instead of wasting your fucking time with a show trial. That's obviously political bullshit, except to Democrats that you've gaslighted so thoroughly that they will believe that monkeys can fly out of your fucking ass just because it was on cnn. So let's. Let's use that. Let's use that standard, by the way. So remember I told you that reality and parody have merged. The January 6 thing literally devolved into a punchline in my fucking book that actually happened. It actually devolved to the actual. The remaining claim is that he didn't do enough fast enough. It's literally a chapter in my fucking book about how not to be an asshole. They walk right into the asshole thing. Oh, let's be an asshole and say it should have been sooner and better. Everything should have been sooner. Every fucking thing. How's the fentanyl trade going, Liz? How much time did you spend trying to stop deadly fentanyl coming into the country? None. Was it because you were watching your own fucking useless propaganda bullshit? Is that why you didn't do a fucking thing that the American public elected you to do? Well, don't worry, you won't get elected again. You're not going to have to have to make that decision again. And thank you for guaranteeing Trump's return, which is nothing I wanted at all. Let me say it as clearly as I possibly can. I don't want a president who's too old for the job. Trump is too old for the job now. I think he's probably in great shape. Blah, blah, blah, individual differences, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all of that. It's just too old. There's a reason that we have age limits on everything, right? Sure, there is an 18 year old who's smart enough, somebody under 18 who's smart enough to vote, but not many of them. Not many of them. All right, but now that the January hearings basically have cleared Trump of all wrongdoing and reduced it down to the most ridiculous charge, didn't do enough, soon enough during the fog of war. Imagine you're President Trump and it's January 6th, imagine the information that was coming in, most of it wrong. Right? Now, I don't know what he heard and what he didn't. But in that situation, is most of the early information you get correct? Or is it mostly Wrong and unreliable. It's mostly wrong and unreliable. That's what the fog of war refers to. A new multi variable situation that's popping up and you don't have direct visibility on it. All he knew is what people told him and what he saw on tv. How reliable are those two sources? What you saw in the news and what people told you? Those are the two most unreliable sources of information you could ever have in the fog of war. So did. Did he not act soon enough? Not. Not from my point of view. I don't think he acted soon enough. Now, here's the real question. If he put Liz Cheney in that same fog of war, would she have known what to do? I doubted not right away, because she also would have been in the fog of war and people would be telling her conflicting things for four hours. Right. Do you think that people were telling Trump one thing? Hey, hey, you better stop this. No, no. You can guarantee that he heard every opinion and that they're all different. I'll bet some people said, you know, there's a little bit of violence, but it looks like it'll be controlled. It's more important that the people get to speak. We know it's a messy system, but let the people speak. Let's see how this plays out. You don't think somebody was telling him to see how it played out? Of course there were. Of course there were. Were they right to say, wait to see how it plays out? I don't know. Did they know if they were right? They couldn't. It was fog of war. Could Trump know who was right? He couldn't. He couldn't. It's not knowable. In the fog of war, you don't have information, so you wait until things clear up. Did he wait too long? In retrospect, yes. But if you'd been in that situation, would you have known to do something faster? Maybe, Maybe. But do you know that? No, you don't know that. You don't know that. Stop acting like you know that. If you'd been in his situation, you would. You would have seen the danger. Which we didn't learn about for a year and a half. Right? I mean, not in its completion. How much do you think he actually knew during that tumultuous period? Not enough. He definitely didn't know enough to know how it would turn out under each scenario. So did he act slowly and not do enough to stop violence? In my opinion, he did not act. In my opinion, he should have done more and he should have done it sooner. But if you take that to the next level and say that if you were in that situation, you would have known better. That's crazy. There's nothing that suggests that's true. Everything suggests that somebody in that situation would be in a really tough spot for decision making. Not only would you be in deep cognitive dissonance, theoretically, no matter who you are, take Trump out of the equation, take any normal brain, put it in the job of president, be sure that you really won, and then be told that you didn't. It's not a small thing. It's a second term for President of the United States. It's for all the marbles. Everything in your life depends on that. If you put any normal brain in that situation, what would be the predictable outcome of that human brain? Cognitive dissonance. Not only would it be predictable, it's damn near guaranteed. Damn near guaranteed. Now, do you notice we never treat mental situations as medical until you need to. Right. We're all willing to act like mental stuff doesn't count as, like, a medical problem unless you're really forced into it. But what is cognitive dissonance? Is that a mental disease? It's not, you know, necessarily because it doesn't last. Might not affect your life, but in this situation, there's no reasonable way to assume that he was capable of making good decisions. And you could replace him with anyone, and they would be in the same situation. Anyone who would. Anyone who had experienced what Trump experienced would not be able to make good decisions. So did he make a good decision? I doubt it, because nobody could. I couldn't in that situation. I would not be able to make a good decision. I mean, we could have gotten lucky and maybe a good decision was made. But to imagine that skill or good intentions or anything that's happening in your brain would have helped you in that situation. That's very unsupported assumption. Not only is it unsupported, it's the least likely possibility that you would have done a better job. Right. How many of you think you would have done a better job in a generic way? Here's what I tell myself. Well, at the very least, I would have made a lot more noise about being peaceful. Right? Don't you all tell yourself that? Well, at the very least, I would have really been noisy about be peaceful, but he probably thought he did. If you're the President of the United States, how many times do you have to say it, right? Everybody's paying attention to Trump. If he tweets, be peaceful and he says be peaceful in his speech, Those are the two ways he communicated that day. He gave a speech and he tweeted, and in both of those, he said, be peaceful. Do you think he was thinking he didn't do enough? I think he thought he did enough. I think he was busy and he was in the fog of war. And when somebody said, did you tell everybody to be peaceful? He probably thought, yeah, I did, twice. Like, what else do we have to talk about? I mean, he had everything going on, and he was in exactly the type of situation where you wouldn't trust anyone to make a decision. Let me say it again. Doesn't matter if it's Biden or Clinton or Trump. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. The age, the person, the gender, the political party, the race, none of it. What matters is you put any normal brain in that situation where they're positive something sketchy happened that really changed the nature of not only the country, but their life in an irreversible way. Nobody goes through that unscathed. No normal brain can survive that. They gaslit him until it broke his fucking brain. But he got through it. He got through it like he. He managed to get through that, and he's coming back now. If you ask me, would I support Trump for a second run, I say unambiguously, no. Under normal situation. Under a normal situation, no. No. The age alone is out. I'd like a Tom Cotton, maybe, you know, Desantis, maybe they'd be fine. In fact, be fine with either one of them. Right. I'd even be fine with maybe some. You're going to hate to hear this. I could imagine being fine with a Democrat. Sorry. Sorry. I did support Bill Clinton. I don't know if any of you know that, but I thought he was a pretty good president. That's my opinion. So here's the thing. Under normal situation, absolutely, I would not pick Trump as my first choice. But there's nothing normal about this situation. Do you know why I chose him the first time? Because I wanted to break all of this stuff. I wanted him just put a spear in it. I didn't care what he built. I only wanted him for what he could break. You needed some demolition before you can even talk about construction. I trust the United States and the American people to construct. Do you know what we're good at? We're good at building stuff. Americans are really good at building stuff. If you knock down our building, we'll build that back. You knock down our organization, we'll build it back. We build back. I hate to Use Biden saying, but we do build back better. We actually do that. That part of the saying works perfectly. And the part that we're not good at, what's the part we're not good at as Americans? Breaking the shit we already have, but we do it better than anybody. And if I had to say, there's one thing that defines Americans, I mean, you could think of lots of things. But the one thing I like to look at that defines Americans is that we're willing to break our shit to build better shit. Like nobody, right? Like we have less investment in the past than any society, I think. I mean, it feels like that, obviously. Obviously, I'm, you know, jingoistic American kind of point of view. So I'm sure you think your country does that, too. But the point is, and there may be lots of countries that are in that situation, but I think sometimes you need demolition and sometimes you need construction. I'm confident we can always build things. I'm not confident we always have the right assets to do the demolition. And when I see this January 6th stuff and I see what's happened to us, I feel like we need demolition again. I feel like we need it again. So if Trump could get back and simply destroy all of these hoaxes and have a strong vice president, I would support him just to destroy the system. It feels like the response that the country needs. Like the country needs him to just come back and break this stuff again. And I don't even care if he served the whole term. If he had a good year and broke some stuff and changed some things and then a vice president took over, that that'd be fine for me. Well, so what else we got going on here? Lots of stuff today. Did everybody see my Epstein thread? I don't know why I even tweeted this. I just had this thought and I thought, well, this will cause some trouble. I'm going to go through the thread and the argument is this, that the most likely explanation for everything we know about the Epstein situation is that he's still alive. Now, I'm not alleging he's alive now. You want to hear this part clearly? I'm not saying he's live. That's not my allegation. I'm saying if you look at the evidence that is presented to the public, it says equally likely. Actually, more likely that than the other alternatives. Here's why. Listen to this argument. I'll read it just the way I tweeted it. I said, remember when you were sure Epstein died? If I were in charge of creating the illusion. I'd make sure you thought past the sale to the question of how he died. Was it suicide? Was he murdered? Suicide or murdered? Because if you can get somebody to think past the sale, they get trapped in a mental loop and they can't go back and check the question that mattered. How do you know he's dead? Right. How do you know he's dead? Well, how do you know he's dead? Have you ever asked yourself that? What sources do you rely on to know that he's dead? Well, we know that. Here's what we know. So. So instead of looking at the things we don't know yet, let's see what we know. We know elaborate hoaxes are a routine part of the top echelon of politics. I didn't know that before five years ago, I literally did not know that the government was in the routine business of creating elaborate hoaxes with characters and plots and story arcs. I thought that was too complicated and there would be too many witnesses. It just didn't seem like it could be done. But then we watched it being done right in front of us. We watched it being done over and over again. You know, I've got 12 things on a list of obvious hoaxes that the public bought in some fashion. So if we know that elaborate hoaxes with, like, characters and players and things are routine, would you buy my first assumption that as of 2022, it could be stated as a fact that complicated, multivariable hoaxes are routine? They're not even unusual anymore. Right? Would you buy that? Okay, so let's buy that big hoaxes are just a routine now. And we know, for example, that 50 ex intel professionals were willing to lie about Hunter's laptop. They got 50 people to publicly lie about Hunter's laptop and risk their careers. But of course, it didn't matter because we just forget. And what about the same? Probably a lot of the same intel professionals were behind the Russia collusion hoax. This is our own intelligence agencies. This isn't the other countries. This is American intelligence agencies were behind, and I don't know how much behind, but certainly supported the Russian collusion hoax, if not created it themselves. And those are the things we know about. How many things do we not know about? I mean, think about it. These are the things we know about, and they just happened. These are, like, recent news. And here's the other assumption. Don't you assume. I think everybody assumes this, that Epstein had a trove of videos for blackmail. Don't you think he had enough blackmail? I mean, even if it were only videos of people on the island, that'd be enough. And where is it. Why is it that you and I have never seen any leaked video from Epstein? Never any mention that there's some might exist that they found interesting? And why is it that we've never seen the list of his clients? I mean, you think by now. So what are the possibilities for why we have not seen what we all assume exists a trove of blackmail videos? What's the most logical reason we haven't seen them? Could it be because people who are powerful got their hands on all of the copies? How likely is that? If you were a rich person and you had been to his island and you were afraid that he had video, even if you could ask him to give you the video or delete it and you watched him do it, would you believe that the video was missing? If you were the rich person, would you believe that Epstein had gotten rid of all of his copies, even if he told you he did? Of course not. You would definitely not believe it. Epstein would be crazy to delete all of his copies. I had a blackmailer myself and, you know, asked the blackmailer to delete some stuff. Didn't. Pretended to delete it. Didn't. Of course, now, in my case, it won't be a problem, but, you know, blackmailers don't delete their material if they don't have to. They just tell you they did if it's digital, all right? And by the way, nobody had anything on me that I cared about, but they tried. That's the life of famous people. Getting blackmailed, having stalkers show up. It's like. It's just my normal. Like a normal life for me. Being. Being robbed of, you know, tens of thousands of dollars, being targeted for every kind of crime and hip piece, normal day. I did sign up for it, so I don't complain. It's just a. It's just a fact. All right, back to Epstein. All right, so we know that elaborate hoaxes are possible, and we wonder why all of his blackmail material never came out. What is the most logical explanation for why we haven't seen any of his blackmail material? And. And it's gone this far. The most logical way, the most logical explanation is that he's still alive, because leaving him alive is the best way to keep your secret safe for as long as possible. Killing him almost guarantees that you're going to be dead from your own blackmail information that's going to come out. So let me ask you this. What would Be harder to pull off a murder, a planned murder inside a secure prison for somebody who, you know is at risk and has cameras on him and is being watched? What would be harder? To pull off the murder in the prison or to pull off taking him out of the prison and faking his death with some photos and Photoshop, which would be harder? I think killing him would be harder. I think getting him out of there alive would be easier. And here's why. In both cases, you need insiders, right? I mean, we assume that the guards were not coincidentally asleep. We assume that the cameras were not coincidentally not working, right? We all assume that. So there was some insider involvement. If you're going to assume insider involvement, well, then anything's possible. Just opening the door and having him walk out would be the easiest solution. And then, you know, fake that he something happened. Now you say to yourself, scott, Scott, Scott, too many people involved. You got the coroner, you've got this, and then that, you know, all these people involved. Do you know what else had lots of people involved? The Russia collusion hoax. How many fucking people were involved in that? A lot. A lot. So it turns out that the old argument of there were too many people involved, so it couldn't be a hoax. That doesn't hold anymore. Every hoax that has been perpetrated against the American people has had lots of people involved, all of them, and it doesn't seem to matter. My common sense tells me that that should matter. But we've seen example after example where it didn't matter for various reasons. I don't know why, but it doesn't matter. So there's the bottom line. I'm not saying that Epstein's alive. I'm just saying that if I were to rank the likelihood of each of these cases, it would be this rank most likely, not guaranteed the most likely explanation. He's still alive and was taken out by, you know, important people who can do that sort of thing. The number two possibility, this is just my opinion, is that it was a contract killing by a victim's family. In other words, some victim's family said, you know, for $10,000, I can get some bad person to wax this guy. Now, have you ever thought about that? If somebody did something terrible to you and they got caught and they went to prison, but you weren't happy with prison being enough. Have you ever thought to yourself, how hard would it be to pay somebody in prison to kill them? Okay, I do think about those things, and I think it's probably not that expensive, is it your Family or your kid. $10,000 if you kill this guy in prison, because you're in prison for life either way, but your kid will get $10,000. I feel like it's cheap. Do you think there's no victim, family member who could afford $10,000 and, you know, didn't know somebody who could get it done? I put that at the second most likely possibility. Contract killing from a victim's family. Then three, I would say guard assisted suicide, meaning that Epstein himself may have bribed the guards to pretend to be asleep and turn off the cameras because he wanted to kill him and maybe they helped in some way, etc. I think the least likely is that he was murdered in prison to bury his secrets. Two reasons. One, it's too on the nose because everybody thought he would be murdered in prison. And then, oh, yeah, he's murdered in prison. It's too on the nose. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Right. When I use that too on the nose thing, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that's a big red flag that it happened exactly the way people thought. Exactly the way. Hmm, That's a little too close. And so that's one thing that raises a flag. The second thing is that it wouldn't work, and everybody knows it wouldn't work if the idea was to kill him to keep his secrets buried. Nobody thinks that would work because everybody assumes somebody else has a copy. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you, if you were the blackmailer? You wouldn't have an auto release copy somewhere that says, if something happens to me, this is going to be released? Of course you would. I would. I mean, I'm not. I'm no Epstein, and even I would think of that. So that's my bottom line. Most likely possibility is live. You're going to say to me, but, Scott, what about the. What about the autopsy? What about that. What about that X ray of his neck with the bone, that broken bone in his neck? How hard would it be to get an X ray of somebody with a broken bone in their neck? It can't be that hard. Apparently, that's a common thing that people break. Apparently there are enough people who have broken that exact bone that the medical community could talk about it as, like, a common thing. Right. So, yeah, and if you. If you were to Google or, I'm sorry, if you say to yourself, but I saw a video of his autopsy, or I saw a photo of him dead, or there was somebody who testified that he's dead, we can't trust any of that anymore, can we? We can't trust photos, we can't trust videos, and we certainly can't trust people reporting to us. None of that's reliable. So, again, I'm not saying that Epstein is alive. I'm saying it's the only hypothesis that fits all of the facts. It's the only hypothesis that fits all of the facts. The rest of them fit a lot of facts, but there's only one that fits all of them. So for what that's worth. All right, Matt Gaetz is making some news. So I guess he was at the. What's the name of that event? TP USA or something. It was at the Young Republican event, and he was noting that the abortion protesters tend to be unattractive and overweight. And why is it that the people who most concerned about abortion rights are the ones you would least want to impregnate? He said, no one wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb. He actually said that no one wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb. So he was asked by a reporter, is it safe to say after the event, based off your comments, you're suggesting that those women at these abortion rallies are ugly and overweight. And Gates says, yes. And then the reporter says, well, what do you say to the people who were offended by that? And he said, be offended. And then he was done. Now, here's what's interesting. If you do to Matt Gaetz what was done to Matt Gaetz, which is you take everything from him, at least career wise, you take everything from him. The Democrats took everything from him. I mean, they removed his ability to be president effectively. And what do you do when you have nothing to lose? What happens? What happens if you have nothing to lose? I don't know if this is going to happen, but it might. Gates might go full truth, and that would be the best show you've ever seen. He might. I don't know if he will, but if you put me in a position where I lost everything, I would go full truth. And it looks like you started. I don't know if he's going to, like, carry this ball forward, but there is something that Americans love about telling the truth. You need to go Google Bill Burr in Philadelphia when he, I guess the crowd was getting on somebody and he took the stage. Somebody was a comedian and he took the stage and he spent, I think, 12 minutes just insulting the. Insulting the audience, like really deeply insulting them to the point where you thought oh, my God, this isn't even funny anymore. He's just ripping them a new asshole for 12 minutes. By the end of the 12 minutes, it was like a standing ovation. Americans love honesty. And Bill Berg just gave them like the most ugly honesty anybody had ever dumped on anybody. And they all said, yay. Yay. All right, we like that. Yeah, we like that. We didn't like those jokes, but all this ugly honesty. Give us some more of that. We're Americans. We can take it. Yeah. So I don't know. This is, this might be foreshadowing. If it is foreshadowing, he's on the verge of becoming the most interesting person in the country. Maybe. We'll see. Well, it turns out monkeypox is sort of real. It's being called an epidemic, I guess now national emergency or international emergency. So I think There are around 3,500 cases in the United States. And now we're getting some guidelines about how not to catch it. And I like, because I like to do helpful things on my live stream. I'm going to give you some tips for not getting monkeypox. If you see somebody who has open blisters on their body, don't lick those blisters. If you see somebody with open blisters, take a shower and put that wet towel, hang it on a hook, don't use that towel. That's an actual guideline. That's actually real. I'm not even making that one up. If you see somebody who is coughing and sick, they have a fever and they have open sores on their body and you're really horny, masturbate. So that's your sort of my medical advice. Just, you know, just, just start yanking. But stay away from that monkeypox infected person no matter how horny you are. If, if a monkeypox person dies in a bed, don't sleep in that bed until you wash the sheets. So I know a lot of this will be a lot of extra effort for you. A lot of you are going to say, well, I like to lick people's open sores. Why are you telling me how to live? Well, I know it's individual situation. So if you don't want the country to be closed down again, stop licking people with open sores, stop using their towels. And if they, if they're ready to sneeze, do not run over there and put your face in front of it. These are all not recommended. Not recommended at all. All right, so that's your monkeypox advice for the day. Now if you don't do those things, apparently there's not much chance you're going to get it. So, yeah, there's good advice over here over on the locals platform. That's good advice. Somebody said if rather than licking somebody who has open sores, just put your penis in them, but don't try to touch them or breathe in any way. Excellent advice. Yeah, you shouldn't listen to me for anything really. Well, Biden has signed an executive order to spend a billion dollars to federalize the Zuckerberg ballot box situation so that the government will run what I guess the Zuckerberg people funded privately. So HUD and other federal agencies will be in charge of this. So, you know, every time somebody makes a change to the election system, I say to myself, well, why that takes so long? If this was worth doing, why did it take so long? And if they're trying to make the elections more secure, why, why would you try to make the elections more secure? What would be the point of that? I mean, because we've already been told that they're completely secure. We've never had a problem. So why would you fix something that isn't broken? Oh, is it because they've been lying to us? And of course it's broken. And of course it's not transparent. And of course you can't audit it fully. And of course you don't know if your vote got to the final database. Of course you don't. But they're going to tell you at the same time that it works perfectly and we're going to fix it. They're not just going to build back better, they're literally building it back the way it was. So they're saying the elections are perfect, but we're going to build back to make them the same as they are by build. Wait. Okay, I guess none of it makes sense. Bottom line. Demolition. Yes, they need some demolition. All right, have I covered all of the topics? Is this the best live stream you've ever seen in your life? Come on, come on. All right, now here's my question. I know that Fox News, Hannity, Tucker, etc have said that the, and I think Mark Levin, probably others, the opinion people have said that nothing has come out of the January 6th hearings. How, how long has Fox News been saying that Trump has been exonerated by the hearings? Did it start around Friday, this last week, or have they been saying that for longer now? Greg Guthel said it also on. So is that now is that going to become the, the Fox or the right leaning narrative? That it exonerated Trump. Is that going to be the narrative from the right? Because in my opinion, it's not a narrative. In my opinion, that's literally just what happened. They went after him for a bunch of serious charges and found there was nothing there. That's what it looked like to me. So if Republicans are just treating it like there's some kind of ongoing thing and some allegations came up, they're really missing the boat on this. What they should say is they should honor the January 6th hearings and say, you know, I was skeptical, but it did show that the President was, you know, didn't do anything wrong except the fog of war decisions, which you understand. And so we're glad that that was all aired because it cleared the path for him to run. And even if you don't think he should be the president, isn't it good that this hoax was cleared up? So the best, most effective persuasion you can do against an enemy, let's say an opponent. I don't like to say enemy. An opponent is to agree with them. It's a real baller move and say, you know, I didn't respect that January 6 thing. But I have to admit, once all. Once all of the allegations were aired, it makes us feel a lot better that there was no problem there. So let's move on. If you brand the January 6 thing as a valid process that cleared Trump, it will drive them fucking crazy. If you want to make the Democrats actually crazy, embrace the January 6 thing. Say you were a skeptic at first, but it did show that the president didn't do the things that were alleged, and we thank them for their service. Yeah. You still have to do something about the political prisoners. That's not cool. And by the way, as long as there are January 6th political prisoners, I'm balls to the wall for Trump. They just force my hand. And I don't want to be. It's not my first choice. But that's sort of a red line. Political prisoners of people who look like me. That's a red line. You crossed the fucking line on that. Right. You know, and I have to say, it would have taken a lot to make me unambiguously pro Trump for a second term. It would take a lot because he's not cheap, am I right? Like, he cost me money because, you know, my career takes a hit with any reputational, you know, association, it's terrible for me. So you have to push me pretty hard to make me go unambiguously pro Trump in this situation. But putting People in jail because they look and talk and act like me, well, that's over the line. So if it takes a Trump to unfuck that, I will take him every day. If the only thing that will unfuck that is Trump, and it looks like it is, I will support that every day. And I don't care what else he does, I don't care what else. Just do that. I could be a single issue voter on that, no problem. Your career would take a hit with support of any Republican. Probably true. Trump, Gates, 2024. That would be the ultimate fuck you party. Trump and Gates, the no apologies. Oh my God. Oh my God, oh my God. I hope I didn't just see the future, but if Trump and Matt Gates ran as a team and his slogan was no apologies, It's over. It's fucking over. Just a big bus that says no apologies and it's over. Do you know how many people want to HEAR no apologies? 100% of Republicans. He would get 100% of the vote. He would be the first candidate who got 100% of the vote from his party. And he wouldn't even need to propose any policies. He'd just say, no apologies. That's it. No apologies. Wow. You know, as soon as I thought of that, like the, the no apology tour, like you could feel it, couldn't you? It almost feels like the future. Like I don't think it is. Like my brain doesn't think it is. But why does it feel like it is? It feels just like that's the future. Right? How many of you have the same impression? When I said it, you got goosebumps. Yeah, that felt like the fucking future, didn't it? You know, I only had this. I've had this experience once that I can remember. Well, twice, actually. Twice? Twice I've had an experience where I thought I actually saw the future. More than that. But two that I'll talk about. Once was when somebody suggested that a little cartoon character I was drawing in the office should have a name. And the name should be Dilbert. The moment I heard that name, and I've told this story before, I felt myself pulled down a tunnel to the future. And then I saw it. I saw Dilbert in the future. And as soon as I saw it, I was like, holy shit. I got pulled back down the tunnel, back to the present again. And I sat in the present saying, something just happened and I actually saw the fucking future. And by the way, the future played out just like I saw it now. Could be coincidence, could be Optimism. Right. The other time that I had that sensation was when Trump entered the race, and I just saw him winning. I just saw it. That's the main reason I wrote about it, is that I couldn't explain everything. A. I don't know, a weird vision like that just sounds crazy. And even I think, you know, it's probably just a mental thing. But I felt it. I felt it like it was real. And then it happened. When I said no apologies and I thought of Trump and Gates, it just felt like it's already happening in the future, doesn't it? I mean, it actually feels like it's already happening, but in the future, it doesn't feel like imaginary. It's weird. Now, I'm going to bet against it, because that would be the weirdest specific prediction in the world. So I'm going to bet against it, but I'm going to call out the fact that it feels like it already happened. And some of you felt it, too. Right. I once had an experience with a psychic. I don't believe in psychics, but I had this experience in which the psychic said that the past and the present are the same thing. We just don't realize it. And that sometimes you can see the future actually accurately, but you're not really seeing the future, because the future and the past and the present are not really separate. You're actually just seeing what is there. All right, so I don't even know what that means, but it sounded cool when I said it. Yeah. Maybe it's just cognitive dissonance. Who knows? Maybe we saw the potential. But in terms of motivating me, what I most want to do is stop apologizing. It's weird. That's my. That's my. I didn't realize it until I said no apologies. But I feel like that's one of my strongest urges right now, and I didn't really even know it. What about legit apologies? The trouble is, other people always think the apology or the need for it is legit. So if you let other people tell you what you should apologize for, you're right back to apologizing for everything, because they always have a reason. So you either have to never apologize or you're apologizing for a lot. I don't think there's much middle ground. Can you ever apologize enough for being white? I'm being asked. I don't think it's possible. But, you know, the way I see all the racial stuff is just power dynamics. If you could say something about another group to reduce their Power and increase your power. People do it. So, I mean, that's all that's happening. All right. Yeah. The trouble with apologizing is that it focuses on the past. Now, in a personal. In a personal situation, apologizing makes a lot more sense because the apology is more about showing you have empathy for the person. It's not even so much about the past, but that doesn't apply. So much for apologies in public. Those are just performance. Nobody really feels those apologies. Yeah, I did see the interview between. I'm being prompted. The Lex Friedman interview. Interview with Donald Hoffman is highly recommended, by the way. Lex Friedman and Donald Hoffman do it. Do Google on that. You won't. You won't regret it. That is a fascinating interview. I don't think you're going to see Matt Gaetz be picked as a vice president today. Somebody said that on YouTube. Here's why it won't happen today. Because if it were going to happen today, Matt Gaetz would not have caused trouble the day before. The fact that Matt Gaetz went full face into trouble with not even a pause suggests that he's not trying to make Trump happy at the moment. Which means he's not already selected for vice president. Doesn't mean he won't be, but it means he's not. That decision definitely has not been made. All right. Shouldn't use the word no in no apologies. I see what you're saying because the brain sees the active word and not the no word. But I think in this one instance, this would be a worthy exception to that, because a slogan, you do spend a lot of time on it. The problem is on a sentence that's a throwaway sentence. The no gets disappeared. But if it's a slogan, people really do spend time thinking about that. And then. And then all of the words will register. Yeah. Robert Barnes says the deal's been made. The deal for who did you think it was? Desantis? I think I'm hearing the rumor that the. There's a DeSantis Trump deal coming, and I'm going to predict against it. Here's the reason for predicting against it. You don't put somebody that strong in the vice president chair. You just don't do that. That would be basically handicapping Desantis. It would be smarter to let him run for his own office in 2028. So I don't see the Republicans making what I would consider a mistake, even though the two of them would win. If you're saying to me, is that a strong package and would they win? Yes. And having DeSantis there would make me much happier about a president at that age. Oh, you know how he could. You know how they could win me over on that? I mean, it would be hard. Here's what you say. You know, there is an issue with having a president of a certain age, and that's why my vice president is going to be unusually strong. Now, I believe that Biden tried to sell us on that, but he tried to sell us on Kamala Harris, and nobody was buying that she was the strong choice to make up for him. But Republicans would definitely buy that DeSantis is a strong backup, just in case. You would definitely buy that. And I would also accept the possibility that Trump would leave office before his fourth year of a second term. Do you know why? Because he might think he needs to. And it would be one of the most awesome George Washington things that ever happened. Because if Trump left his office early in the second term, then everything that you believe he did about trying to hold power for the first term would dissolve in your head. It would just dissolve. If he became most famous for the person who walked away from power, let's say second or third year of a presidency, then he becomes George Washington because he walked away from power. But if you don't do that, then the January 6 thing haunts you forever. Behind the scenes. Trump threatens to run if Garland decides not. I don't know what that means. Wouldn't it link to Nixon? Candidates should not come from the same state. Yeah. Is that a law? Is it a law that a candidate can't come from the same state, or is that just a standard? If it's not a law, it doesn't matter. Constitution. Are you saying the Constitution says you can't be from the same state? That doesn't make sense. I don't believe that. Do you believe that Barnes cleared that up? They can. Oh, I guess Trump would only have to register to vote in another state. Okay, so that wouldn't be so hard. So I guess the Constitution bans it, but it wouldn't be hard to get a workaround that makes sense. I'm going to bet against DeSantis for vice president, but it would be a baller play if Trump wants to sell DeSantis as his worthy backup. I don't know. Might work. Might work. I was quoted on Gutfeld. Yes, I saw that. All right, enough for now. I'll see you later. YouTube.