Episode 2131 Scott Adams: RFK Jr.'s Path To The Presidency, UFOs Are Real(ish), Trump Summer Hoax

Do do do do do do do, do. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. As long as it lasts. Might be a timer on it. Now, if you've seen the news about the UFOs anyway, we'll talk about that. But if you'd like your experience to go up to a level that only UFOs have ever seen, then all you need is a cup of Margaret glass, a tank shell, joker flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee because I'm a human. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Ah. So let's talk about the news. Aliens are invading the planet. Well, we'll get to that. We'll get to that. You don't need that right away. We'll work our way up to that. Aliens. But we're going to start with RFK Jr. Who did some notable interviews yesterday. So he did a spaces interview with Elon Musk and David Sachs, and he did a Jordan Peterson interview that at least aired yesterday. And I think there was at least one other major interview he did. And let me give you. The correct opinion on RFK Jr are you ready for this? Now, one of the things he said talking to Jordan Peterson is that he has a path to victory. How many of you think he has a path that there is a way he could win? How many of you think that? A little bit mixed, but a lot of yeses. Yeah, a lot of yeses. A lot of no's. All right, I'm gonna. I'm gonna tell you that he has a path that might be the easiest path of all of them. You ready? All right. Look at Trump's path. Trump has to get past Biden. We know he's failed to do that once and we know that Biden's, you know, how much he can function doesn't seem to matter. There seems to be an anti Trump vote that can be activated. So. So Trump, I think, has a good chance of winning. Would you agree? I think he has a good, solid chance of winning. But if Biden is in the way, there's definitely a big if on that. Yeah, I feel like that's more of a coin to us. Trump versus Biden feels like a coin toss. What do you think? Coin toss. Let's say Biden is still somewhat functioning by election day. All right, so how about DeSantis? Does DeSantis have a path well, he only has a path if Trump drops out. What are the odds of Trump dropping out or some legal problem taking him out? Not very high. Not very high. Right. So on the Republican side, you've got Trump with maybe a jump ball, 50, 50, and then there's nobody else who seems to be sort of having a good chance. Would you agree with that so far, that of the Republicans, Trump's the one with a chance, and that's maybe a jumble. Now, let's look at the Democrats. What do you think of the odds, given what we see of Biden today, that he will still be functioning by the time the Democrat primary rolls around? I think it's low. I think it's actually low. And who is his backup? Who's the backup? Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom. I think it's RFK. Now, let me tell you the argument that RFK Jr. Makes, which I accept as a good argument. All right, Number one, he polls well with independents and Republicans for a Democrat. For a Democrat, he kills it on independents and Republicans. Now, do you believe that? I believe it because I'm seeing lots of interest from people who would describe themselves as that, more than I've ever seen. I've never seen this much crossover interest, have I? Maybe Reagan. I don't. I don't know. When was it. When was the last time somebody really legitimately attracted a crossover group from the other? It's very rare. Clinton. Yeah, Bill Clinton is a good example, but it's rare. All right, so he could get those votes, but what about getting his own votes? The hard part is getting Democrat votes. Right? Because apparently he's. He's not exactly catching the Democrat system on fire. But as he points out, and I agree, if he were to become the candidate, if he became the Democrat candidate, what percentage of Democrats would vote for him? Almost all of them. Almost all of them. Because he'd be a Democrat. And that's it. Now, apparently, he polls extra well against Trump because he pulls some Republicans and independents. So he would be the best chance to beat Trump on paper. Right? RFK Jr. Vs. Trump. RFK wins. Biden vs. Trump is a jump ball. All right? You're a Democrat. You want. You want four more years of Biden and only a jump ball chance that he's going to be Trump. But if you take RFK Jr. You have an 80% chance that you win versus a jump ball. It's not really close. It's not. It's not close. And there's no way that the people who, you know, have control of the Democratic Party. There's no way they haven't noticed that. You know, I'm not. I'm not breaking any news here. So the only thing that can keep RFK Jr out of the job, statistically speaking, is Biden's health in the next year or when is the primary. When does the primary happen? Can somebody give me a date on the Democratic primary? It's about one year. Is it? I thought it was in the summer. Summer of 2024. Is it the summer of 2024? Is that right? I think that's right. All right, so let's say it's a year from now. Do you think that. So Biden. We already heard that Biden's schedule has been constrained to four hours a day, although I think that's fake. I think he's doing other presidential stuff in the other hours, and then on the weekends are sort of leaving him alone. And this is stuff that even CNN is reporting. So even his own friendlies are reporting that Biden's failing. Basically, he's just not holding it together. So I don't know. RFK Jr has only one obstacle to the presidency, which is the health of a person who's dying right in front of you. Do you still think he doesn't have a chance? Let me say it again. According to the polls, the only thing that could keep him from the presidency is Joe Biden's health in the next year. Would you bet against that? Would you bet against him knowing the only thing keeping him out of office is Joe Biden's health? And he's literally dying right in front of us? I mean, we're all dying, right? We're all dying. He's. He might be on a. Let's say he might be on a fast path compared to some of us. I don't know if you're writing him out off. You're making a mistake, but it's entirely possible that Biden stays in the race and that's the end of the story. People ask me, oh, and so one of the big questions is his voice quality. And there are a number of people who say I can't listen to him. You know, it bothers me to listen to his voice. So I wanted to weigh in because I have some bad voice expertise. I had a similar problem for years, and here's my take on it. So I listened to RFK Jr. For over an hour yesterday between the multiple interviews, and I was riveted the entire time, because when he talks about the history of big pharma, and how the laws changed and how Big Pharma came to be able to advertise and how we're taking two and a half times more stuff and everything. Now, I'm not sure that everything he says has all the context and is really telling me everything I need to know. I don't know. But I do not detect lying when he talks. Have you had that experience yet? Imagine listening to a presidential candidate for an hour, and in that hour I did not detect a lie. How often does that ever happen? Because even when you listen to your own team, maybe the candidate you like, you can detect the lies. You can call it hyperbole, but you can spot them. I mean, they're really obvious. But when RFK Jr talks, he talks for an hour. And I didn't hear anything that was a lie. I heard things that I disagreed with. So let me be clear. I'm not with him on policy. I want to make that clear. He's not my guy for policy. I still like Vivek Ramaswamy because I'm a one policy guy on fentanyl. So he's not my guy in policy. When I talk about RFK Jr. I'm only going to talk about his odds of winning and the capabilities he's bringing to the campaign. So it's about persuasion. And his popularity is not about my preferences about his policies. Okay, but even when he talks about policies that are not my preference, he's putting a nuance on them. That makes me go, oh, take climate change. When he was asked about climate change, I think it was Jordan Peterson. I expected him to go full climate change, didn't you? I expected him to go full Greta. He did not go full Greta. Nope. He said he started by saying exactly what I say, which turns out to be exactly what Jordan Peterson agrees, which is there's something to the science, which is if you add human made CO2, it should make things warmer, all things being equal. But he doesn't seem to think that we should stop everything. And that's our biggest, our biggest thing to work on. That's very similar to my opinion. My opinion is it's real. But we'll figure it out. You know, we'll figure out how to protect ourselves. He seemed very much in the commonsensical cone of that argument. The common sense is it's a big problem, but we'll probably figure it out. And that's exactly where I am now. He differs from me on nuclear. I've talked about this. He thinks it's too expensive. You can't get insurance. What do you do with the waste, 30,000 years of waste, etc. Now separately I've described how if France can figure that out, I don't feel like those are real problems. Why would that not apply in France? They have a free market, so if they can figure it out, it's figureoutable both economically, safety wise and every otherwise. But that's a separate argument. He gave the best counter argument to nuclear. I've heard that's worth something. I mean, I just respect the fact that even in disagreeing with me, it's the best disagreement I've seen. It's the best. I don't agree with him, but it's the best disagreement I've seen. And his disagreement was the economics and the insurance. And I think that's all true in the American system. The part I don't like is that that's the part he needs to change. It's like that's your job. The nuclear company can't get insurance. Well, do something about that. France figured it out. It's not economical. Well, how do you make it economical? France figured it out, right, etc. So I'd like him to be more pro nuclear. But here's the best argument against it, that there is an alternative that's better. Now you're going to say to yourself, oh, that green stuff is no good, right? You can't get enough windmills and you're not going to have enough solar power. And what happens when it's cloudy and the wind isn't blowing? Right? So those are all the things that usually are the end of that argument. Would you agree that the the green only without nuclear argument always dies because the green only is not dependable. Am I right? Once you say it's not dependable, you're done with the argument because nuclear is dependable. It might be expensive, but at least it's there. It's better than not being there. But here's his argument and I hate how good this is. Are you ready to have your mind changed? You all believe that the green stuff, let's say just solar and let's just say solar and wind. Solar and wind are not dependable enough to be your primary thing and they're also not economical. Would you agree? Not economical and not dependable. Here's his argument that you can build a solar plant for something like a tidy fraction of what a nuclear plant would cost for the same gigawatts. Do you think that's true? If the only thing you were looking at is the cost of Building the plant. Is it cheaper to build your $1 billion solar plant than your 20 or $40 billion nuclear plant for the same wattage? Probably right. Probably right. If you're just looking at initial costs and also if you're looking at initial approvals, I would imagine it would be faster. You could probably build a nuclear, but that doesn't get you where you need to go. Right. Just building a bunch of solar doesn't get you to dependable. But would you. Would you buy just the first part of the argument that if it were dependable. I'm not saying it is, but if it were dependable, would it be cheaper? Because solar, you could just put it there and it just sort of runs. And you know, there's a recycling issue there as well. But I think he's. I think he's researched that and I'm going to. And let's assume the batteries are part of it, but. Right. Batteries are part of the answer, of course. So would you accept that he's done the math and he will tell you that building a solar plant is cheaper for the same amount of electricity as nuclear? When you consider all of the risks and costs of nuclear and how long it takes and all that, would you allow that the initial build cost would be far less for solar? No. I see disagreement. Okay. Now his argument is it's like a huge difference. It's just a huge difference. Now, who would agree with him on that? I think Elon Musk would agree with him. So you would be on the other side of Elon Musk on an area of Elon Musk's expertise. Is that where you are? Would you all disagree with Elon Musk on Elon Musk's area of expertise? Because he knows solar. He knows what he's talking about. All right, so let's do this. Since we can't solve it here, let's see if you can find me some sources that just compare the gigawatt price. Just the gigawatt price price per electricity of nuclear versus solar. But we're not talking about reliability yet that's coming. So I accept that that's true, but I could have my mind changed. You could change my mind. But I'll bet it is true. You could build solar cheaper. I mean, my common sense tells me that's true, but you could talk me out of it. All right, let's say that is true. Here's the rest of his argument. The real thing we need is to fix our energy grid in this country so that anybody who has electricity can Share it with anybody who needs it. Which has completely deflated everything I've ever thought. Because first of all, I don't know if that's practical. I don't know if it might be too big of a job. But he's talking about it as a massive national effort to build out the energy infrastructure. Here's what that would do. It would allow every person to be a creator of electricity and to sell it into the grid. And if the grid were done well enough, presumably you could get the electricity from wherever you have it. You've got extra to wherever you need it. So, for example, not everybody would have to be in the sun. As long as some people were in the sun. They could ship their energy to the people who didn't have any, etc. Until you had enough of extra of everything. Because every house would be manufacturing energy and putting it back into the network that you would have enough. And it would be the cheapest way to get there. It would also fix a problem that you would need to fix even if you had nuclear. Even with nuclear, you still want to fix your grid. So when he talks about fixing the grid as the solution that makes green energy work, that's a hell of a good argument. I don't know if it's true. Let me be clear. I haven't run the numbers, but it's a hell of an argument. And nobody's come close to making that argument that I've heard. Have you heard anybody make that argument before? That you could make the green stuff work reliably and far more economically than nuclear and without the risk if you fix the grid. I just don't know if it's true, but I don't detect it as a lie. It might be wrong because it's really an economics question. Might be wrong, but I don't detect it as a lie. Meaning I think he believes it's true. And it looks like it's. It looks like it could be. It's a hell of an argument. I'm still on all energy, everything you can do. So I would be in. I would be in favor of nuclear plus fixing the grid. But it's a. Am I ignoring life cycle costs? No. Now, I never ignore life cycle costs. For me, that's assumed because economics is my background. So I would always look at life cycle costs. I did separate the startup cost because that gets you going for your life cycle cost. I'm sure that the total life cycle cost of nuclear is bigger because of waste, etc. And even though the solar panels eventually Wear out and become waste. I don't see that as big, but I could be wrong about that. My common sense is guiding me. Not any specific numbers anyway. The fact that he could present an argument that is so different from what I think is the right thing to do, and yet he could sell it because there's stuff I can't check. Like I can't check his numbers too easily. It's very rare that somebody can do that. That's a really, really good sign of somebody who's got a mastery of the concept. All right, now there are complaints about his voice. Some people said, oh, I'll never be able to listen to him. I saw Jack Dorsey say, the RFK Junior's voice is a superpower. And I agree it's a superpower. Not only did I listen to him riveted, but because his voice was difficult to listen to, it made me think that what he was saying made more sense. Do you understand that? So there's a. There's a concept with the way humans are wired that if you pay for something, you'll think it's worth more than if you didn't pay for it. Did you know that one? Hypnotists know this. One of the reasons that a hypnotist charges you money is so the hypnosis works. If the hypnotist did it for free, the subject would say, well, if it's free, like, how powerful could it be? And how real could it be if you're giving it to me for free? So you automatically distrust anything that's free. When you listen to somebody who's easy to listen to, it's free. You don't pay anything. You're just getting a benefit. You're hearing stuff you want to hear. If you have to work at it, you've got to put some investment into getting past the voice if it bothers you. And then you listen to it. And here's the good news. What he says is so interesting, just the way he frames things, that he'll hold your attention past his voice. If he can hold your attention past his voice problem, he fucking owns you. Do you see that? If he can make you work to listen to him, he owns you. It's really powerful. Now, the question is whether there'd be some number of people won't listen to him. But I would go back to his argument. Democrats are going to vote for him if he gets the nomination. Would you agree with that? Would you agree that all he has to do is get nominated and Democrats fall in line? They always do. And he's a candidate, for God's sakes. Of course they'll vote for him. They're not going to vote for Trump and they're not going to stay home because that lets Trump win. So of course they vote for him. So his voice isn't going to stop any Democrat and he's already proven that his voice didn't stop him from getting independents and Republicans. It's not going to stop him. It's a positive. If anything, it makes it more interesting and I would say more relatable. Do you know what you don't want? Well, I'll just talk for myself. Do you know what I don't want? I don't want a president who is both a Kennedy and problem free. I don't want that. I do not want a problem free Kennedy to be my president. Let me say that. You know why? Because he would look like a member of the elite. His voice problem normalizes him, humanizes him and takes the Kennedy off him. Right. If you think of the Kennedys, you think of sort of these, you know, beautiful, perfect people who just seem to have an extra gear that you don't have. But RFK Jr also has a gear that you don't have. I mean, he is operating at a high level. That's just shockingly interesting. But when you add the voice problem on top of makes him one of you, you got a problem. He's got a problem, too. Now, of course, I'm, you know, I have more empathy because I had my own voice problems. So that may be biasing me toward him. But I don't think the voice will be a problem in the end. And it's getting better as well. All right. His biggest problem is trying to beat the Democrat superdelegates, but that's only if he's actually in it. With Biden still in the race, the superdelegates would not be an issue if Biden is no longer in the race. And I think that's, I don't know if RFK Jr. Wants to say that directly, but the real bet here is that Biden is just not in the primary. By the time it comes around. That's, that's the bat, you know, But I don't think he has a chance of beating him straight up. Who would agree with me? RFK Jr can't be Biden straight up because the super delegates and the system will just want to keep Biden in place. So it's all about him not being in the race in a year. And I think the Odds of that are pretty, pretty good. Not 100%, but let's put some odds on it. Let's see the wisdom of the crowd. Wisdom of the crowd time. Give me your percentage odds that Biden will be still in the race and healthy enough by the primary. 25%. I'm seeing numbers from 90 to 2%, but if I had to average them in my head, it would be around 40%. I'm saying most people are around 25, but there are higher ones. So it looks like your average would be around 40%. Now, who has the best chance of winning the presidency? If you believe that Biden's chance of being the candidate are only 40%, that makes RFK Jr. Most likely to be the president. I don't know if the betting markets have figured this out yet, but if the betting markets are also saying there's only a 40% chance that Biden will be the actual, you know, healthy enough and together enough to be the nominee, if you take him out of the picture, it is RFK Jr. All day long. I don't know. I feel like that's what the conversation is going to turn into. Because if you take RFK Jr out of the conversation. Stop it, Adam. Nobody listened to Adam. Everything Adam says is untrue. Could not be true. All right, Let's see what else is going on. Oh, here's another one for you. So do you know why Democrats should have liked Trump? This will be a callback, and then I'm going to tie this into rfk. Why? Why should Democrats have liked Trump? Not for success. All right, this is. I know this is unusual, but Trump was a normal Republican, meaning that Trump didn't believe the craziest stuff that, that the extreme Republicans believed. And I believe that he could actually. I think he actually brought people toward the middle. Does anybody believe that? I think that Trump brought Republicans toward the middle. He did not make them more extreme. Now, if you were a Democrat, isn't that the thing you would want most in the world? You'd want the extreme Republicans to move a little bit in your direction. Trump did that. Now, of course, he was demonized to the point where you couldn't notice, but he did it. I think RFK Jr would do that for the progressives. We know that Biden is not, let's say, reining in the progressives as much as he could, although I would give him credit that he's ignoring them to a large degree. So he is doing a good job of ignoring the crazies. But I think RFK Jr would do even more because he's bringing this common sense, middle ground thing. So if you think the biggest problem in the world is wokeness, see this will be very non obvious. If you think the biggest problem in the country is wokeness, who is more likely to get rid of it? DeSantis, who's the anti woke guy, or RFK Jr. Who just says let's concentrate on common sense. It's RFK Jr. Because he's the one who could lead his own side. Nobody's going to listen to DeSantis. The more he says you should be anti woke, the more they're going to say, oh yeah, I'm going to be twice as woke. I will triple my wokeness just because you don't like it. So the weird thing about RFK Jr and Trump is is that they're the ones you would want the other side to have as their leader in case you lose. He's like an insurance policy. So if you're a Republican, you might prefer running having him as the other side because at least if you lose, the crazies won't be in control in the Democrat side, at least you get that right. That's not nothing. That's not nothing. But you still got a lot of, you know, a lot of questions around the second Amendment and nuclear power and climate change and a lot of things he's going to have to answer for. By the way, I saw this. There's some, I don't know if it's a rumor or true. At some point in the past, RFK Jr said that climate deniers should be jailed. Is that something you've seen? Climate deniers should be jailed. Now, I assume that's fake news. It's in a video. But that doesn't make it not fake news. You know that, right? The fact that you saw it in a video has no, no impact on whether it really happened because you've seen a million videos where you saw it with your own eyes. But it didn't happen because it was edited to change the reality. Here's what I think, based on what I've heard of his current opinion on climate change. There isn't any chance he said that now. You might have a video, but there's no chance it's real. Was he talking maybe about only some big climate polluters like the Koch brothers or something? Was that the context that was, was it removed? I think the context was limited to some specific players who were so bad in polluting the world they thought maybe they should go to jail. So I don't believe this had to do with you and I doubting climate change. Let me do this in a different way. Consider that Democrats really believed that President Trump praised neo Nazis in public and did it with forethought and intention. And Democrats actually believed that. Do you know why they believed it? They saw it on a video with their own eyes, heard it with their own ears. That's why they believed just didn't happen, because they cut out the context that reversed its meaning. Same with the drinking bleach. Right? How did anybody believe that in the first place? How in the world did any Democrat believe that really happened? That he suggested maybe putting some disinfectant in your body, some household disinfectant? Of course it didn't happen. Of course it didn't. And the fact that you saw it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears is meaningless in today's world because it was an edited video. Now put your. Put yourself in the Democrat shoes and now you just heard that a guy who's running for president, a serious common sense guy who's running for president, you believe that only in 2012 thought that you should go to jail if you don't believe in climate change. Do you believe that? Do you. Do you believe that he meant the ordinary people who should go to jail? You really believe it? Okay. I don't know what to say about that. That is so far from the believable zone that I just don't know what to do about the fact that you believe that. That's very. Why don't you send it to me and prove it to me? Okay. Send me the. Send me his writing. Don't send me the video. So somebody said it's in writing. Send me where he wrote that and prove to me that he thinks that people like you and I should go to jail for doubting climate science. Because everything he says is the opposite of that. He's very much the free speech guy. The free speech guy is an absolute. He was saying. He was praising the ACLU for defending Nazis back when the Nazis were wanting to protest and the ACLU defended the right to speech. He actually said that again. So you think the guy who thinks that even Nazis should have a right to free speech thinks that you should go to jail for doubting climate change? You think that happened in the real world? Say it. Do you really think that happened in the real world? Of course it didn't. Of course it didn't. There's no chance that happened in the real world. I don't know what that video is or what you think you saw him written down, but it's not really possible in the real world. He's ultra super free speech. That, that just doesn't get you to go to jail for climate change. There's no way that those two things can both exist. All right, let's talk about UFOs. So there's a whistleblower, claims to have been part of the UAP task force who says not only are there real UFOs, they're alien ships. They're definitely alien and we've captured a number of them. Not just one, but a number of them. Including dead pilots. That's right. We actually have dead aliens and a number of captured UFOs. Now, because he's a whistleblower, you would expect he's seen him, right? I mean, he was on the UAP task force, so he's seen them, of course. No, no, no, he hasn't seen them, but he's talked to people who have, who are curiously not whistleblowers. And the other thing we know about these UFOs is that they only seem to crash on American territory unless every nation in the world is in on it. For example, do you believe that there's never been a UFO crash on the continent of Africa, but there are fallen like flies on the United States, and we're just picking them up before anybody notices. Really. There's not a single one that ever fell in a country that doesn't have a, a good, let's say a government that can swoop in with their high technology and cordon it off and keep it from you. We've never had one fall in the desert where anybody on a camel can just walk up to it and say, hey, what's going on here? Never happened. And here's the interesting part. When the UFOs fall, they're falling quite frequently on United States territory, according to the whistleblower, that they never fall where civilians can see them. Isn't that cool? They only fall where the military can get to them before you can see them, because otherwise there would be all kinds of pictures from civilians. Hey, this fell in my backyard. Here's a picture. Or they're so good, they've somehow gotten all the pictures anybody ever took. I'm sorry, I'm not believing any part of this story. At the very least, you want to talk to the person who said he saw the dead bodies. If you don't talk to that person, you're one away from the possibility. Now, I do love the conspiracy Theory of it, the conspiracy theory, is that the UAP task force would be like a decoy. So the government would create a task force, but then the government would. Would prevent the task force from seeing any good evidence, so that the task force would do their work and conclude that there's no evidence of aliens. Because the government itself wouldn't let its own task force see any of the good stuff. That's his claim. Does that sound reasonable to you? That the government created a secret task force with the specific intention of keeping them from finding out the truth? That. So that they would lie to the public without having to lie? It would be all they knew? I don't know. That's a little too conspiracy ish to me. Little too on the nose. All right, so I hate to ruin your fun, but I'm going to say there are no alien ships in our custody. How many of you believe there are alien ships in our American custody? I see some yeses, lots of no's. Kind of a mix. I think I may have, you know, browbeat you into saying no, but I want to believe this. I. I don't think I've ever seen a story I wanted to believe more than this, but I don't. I don't believe any of it. Yeah. You think his ships. Well, he was very clear that there are dead pilots in the. In the ships. Dead alien bodies. And we have them. No, I want to be wrong about this. Oh, man. I want to be wrong. It'd be so much fun. But no. All right, The crypto exchanges are being targeted by the sec. I guess that's how they take crypto out, is they won't necessarily have to go after every individual crypto, they'll just go after the exchanges, and then your crypto is worthless anyway. Is Coinbase going to be taken down? And what happens to my money in Coinbase if it does? Do I need to, like, pull my money out of Coinbase as soon as I'm off this? I mean, I don't have a ton in there, but I'd hate to lose it for no reason. All right, so allegedly. Here's the article. He wants a law. I can't click on it when I'm on the call, but I'll look at it later. All right. I don't have to read that to know it's though. Do you want to test my filter? I say that the link you sent me is before I. Before I look at it. Now, if it's not, then I, of course, will publicly confess my arrogance and stupidity As I do so often, but I'm going to bet against that pretty heavily. All right, we know that the Mar A Lago boxes are the current hoax. So now the summer hoax on Trump is all about the Mar A Lago boxes. Now, the newest thing is that allegedly when the Mar A Lago swimming pool was drained, presumably for maintenance, they drained some of the water into one of the rooms inside the building. What? The story doesn't even make sense. The story is that when they drained the pool, somehow it drained into a building full of files and computers. Do you believe that there's any. Do you believe that you can drain a pool and it ends up inside your building? I don't believe that. But it's all part of you finding anything they could do to keep this story in the news. Yeah. And just he finally drained the swamp, but it turned out it was his own swamp. I don't know. Everything about that sounds like. So it just looks like they want to keep it in the news a little bit longer. All right, here's a little test of your intelligence. Go. Give me the answer before the question. Answer before the question. Go. Now look up. And there it is. You have the correct answer before the question is even asked. 25% is the right answer. The question was, according to Erasmus and poll, what percentage of the voting public say that the Target store focusing on Pride month made them more likely to shop at the store? 25%. 25% were more likely to buy things at Target because they had Pride merchandise and Pride signs. Now, would you like to see me step on a third rail just for your entertainment? Is Pride really the right vibe for 2023? Is it? Because it was definitely the right vibe in 19, whatever. Whenever the idea of gay pride first came up, I think that was sort of right on point because they didn't want to be shamed. And that was sort of the big problem. But it's 2023. When was the last time you met somebody who didn't think that a gay person had full respect or whatever words you want to put on it? I don't run into anybody like that. Nobody? No Conservative? No. Nobody. It's just not a thing. So at this point, the pride thing no longer feels like underdogs trying to rise up to where everybody else is now it sounds like you're trying to get ahead. Am I wrong? Sounds like you're trying to get ahead because the context changed when it was, let's say, you would be the subject of mockery or whatever. If you were gay, then Pride is exactly what you want to try to bring up. Bring everybody up to something like equal. But once you get there, and even your staunchest critics agree that, okay, everybody's equal, the Constitution gives you rights. Let's just let everybody be human. Once you get to that point, and I would argue, for the most part, we're at that point. I mean, there will always be lingering bigotry in every area, but at some point, pride is just the wrong word. Like, once you've succeeded. I would say that the gay community, lgb, maybe the T is still coming along, but the Q part, I would say it's the most successful population group in the country in terms of turning around their reputation or their. I don't know, their situation in the country, I would say that by far, they're just the most. In my opinion, my respect for the LGBT community is extreme because I think they took the. The hardest. The hardest turn. I mean, race is hard, too, but they took the hardest topic and they turned it around completely. Is there anybody here who would be afraid to go into a gay neighborhood because that high gay crime, zero. Is there anybody here who wouldn't hire a lawyer or a politician because they were gay? No, it's not a thing. It's just not even a thing in 2023. So I think the gays should take the win. Take the win. You're not done. When I say win, I don't mean all bigotry is removed, blah, blah. Lots of work to do, always is. But I don't know if pride is. I think you accomplished pride, and now maybe there's something else you should accomplish. I don't know what that would be because it's not for me to say, but I think you got pride. Pride's done. Just take the win. See what else you can do. All right, what else? So Tim Scott, Senator Tim Scott, went on the View, and they wanted to talk to him about his view that systemic racism shouldn't hold you back. You know, you blacks in America and everybody else can do well if they do the right things, as he did. Now that there was a little bit of pushback because they were saying, he's a special case. And then they pointed out. Was it Sonny? Sonny. What's her last name? What's Sunny's last name? Hostin. So Sunny Hostin was saying, okay, but you're a special case, Tim Scott, that you're a black man who became a senator. And. And then she said that she was a special case because she was a host on the View. And then she said, probably Whoopi Goldberg is a special case because she's also on the View. Now, let's put it all together. Three of the six people on the View were black. Do I need to go on Three of the six people on the View, like one of the most famous storied shows of all time, as you know, hits above its weight and political impact and everything else. Three of the six people were black, counting Tim Scott that day. Three out of six. Take the win. Take the win. Now, Tim Scott got a lot of credit for holding his own, and he did a really good job of getting time to speak. Sorry, YouTube. I keep losing the connection there. So here's the question I asked myself. Why is it that Tim Scott was treated so respectfully and it seemed different from the way other people have been treated on the show? What do you think it was? Do you think it's because he was black? That was my first thought, is they were giving him a little extra consideration because he was black. But I don't think it's just that. I think that's part of it, but I don't think that's the big part. You know what I think it is? I think he has that leadership thing. That's what I saw. I think he has the leadership thing. And what I mean by that is that when he talked, they actually wanted to listen. Do you hear what I'm saying? That when he talked, they wanted to listen, they disagreed with him, and yet they wanted to hear it completely. And that's because he does the following things. He doesn't say crazy shit, right? Doesn't say crazy shit so they don't have to talk over him and yell at him when he's saying crazy shit. Because he just doesn't do it. He just says obvious common sense things which you might disagree with, but none of it's crazy. He is polite. He doesn't talk over them. And when he comes at them with his leadership, polite, common sense, it completely disarmed them. They just put down their weapons. Now, that's what I saw. And I thought that was really impressive. And I'll bet he couldn't do that in other contexts, right? So if you're looking at Tim Scott as the black guy, maybe you should take another look, because he showed me that he's got another gear. Because the deference that they were paying him was real. And it looked like he earned it. That's what it felt like he had earned credibility. That even the View, who didn't like his views, they Understood the credibility behind it. And his politeness to them, which was real, caused them to be polite back because otherwise they would look like turds. Right now, if you throw somebody like Trump in there, you know he's going to be a fighter. So he's going to say some provocative things, and that's going to cause them to say provocative things, and then you got to fight. But Tim Scott led them. He led them like he sat down. And he owned the group and he owned them by common sense and by politeness that completely disarmed him. Good job, Tim Scott. He would make an excellent vice president and potentially president. I like a lot about him. Here's how I would prefer talking about the subject. So this is sort of a Tim Scott advice. I believe that we make a mistake. We humans typically make this mistake. We connect the problem with the solution. Now, that doesn't sound like a problem, does it? Don't you think the solution should be related to the problem? Common sense. Here's the problem. I think the solution should be related to the problem. That just makes sense, except that it doesn't make sense every time. Here's a case where it doesn't make sense. Let's say you believe systemic racism is a real problem. I do. It's a real problem. Is your. Is your way to get past it to directly find a solution that is directly related to systemic racism? Is that your best play? Well, if you could do it easily, it would be if there were some easy way to stop systemic racism that permeates everything. Yes, if you could do it, but nobody knows how. If you don't know how to do it, you're going to have to get creative. The best thing you could do to get rid of systemic racism is focus on individual success strategies. Specifically, the strategy part. If you took, let me say this. If you gave me 100 young, poor black kids and you just said, all right, Scott, your job is to just teach them strategy, just life strategy. How do you think they do? Let's say I got them from kindergarten and I just had full control of, you know, their education. So all they, all they'd see is basically their parents. And then you know me because I'd be teaching them. You don't think I could teach all hundred of them to do pretty good job and to be way above the average of white performance? I could, I could take any hundred black kids on average and make them on average higher earners and have better, more successful lives than an average white person who didn't have any strategy, who was Just trying to figure it out on their own. So in my opinion, the way to address systemic racism and this feels like a message that somebody like a Tim Scott could take because he did this. Tim Scott overcame systemic racism by personal strategy. Strategy. He just did the things that you do to win and then he won. So I think that the message should be that systemic racism is real and you should not ignore it. And if you can do anything to make it less, go ahead and do it. But that's not your solution. Your solution is to take people who are in a hole, give them strategy, make them successful, and then systemic racism goes away on its own. Imagine, if you will, a future in which a black candidate comes into your office for a job and, and the first thing you think is, oh, good, I hope I got one of those strategy guys. Oh man, I might be lucky here. I might have one of those good strategy guys. Right? How hard would that be? That's a one generation fix. In one generation you could teach black Americans strategy and every time they came into a job meeting, your bias would be, oh, a strategy person. That's exactly what I want. I want somebody who understands strategy. So you do that. And systemic racism largely melts away on its own. So don't go after the systemic racism directly. Go after the individuals. Fix them so they can slice through the systemic racism and then there won't be any. Because when those people come into your office, you're going to say, yay. Got one of those. All right. Over in Ukraine, the counter offensive is totally on, or maybe not. And a big dam was blown up either by the Ukrainians or possibly the Russians. So we got lots of good information coming from there. And also the Ukrainians are totally winning, but also the Russians are totally winning. Totally winning. Both sides are winning and losing. Both sides are losing at the same time. Now the dam happened to be in the Russian controlled territory, so I'm going to go with Ukraine blew it up. What do you think? Do you think that Russia blew up a dam in the territory that it controls? No, no, Russia did not blow up their own damage. But the news is acting like it's a question mark. Did the Russians blow up their own dam like they blew up their own pipeline? Or could it be that an unfriendly entity is more likely to blow up your shit? I wonder. Quite a mystery. They did it to slow the counter offensive. You think the Russians blew up the their own dam to slow down the counter offensive? Really? Because I'm no military expert, but let me weigh in on that strategy, the parts that are flooded, the Ukrainians can ignore because that's already conquered by the water. They're not going to fight the water. The water will conquer a certain amount of places where it floods, and then that part's out of the. That's not in the war anymore. I mean, the war just won't count because it's flooded. What the hell are you going to do, put a flag there? So, I don't know. I. I don't see them flooding it in this scenario. I understand there could certainly be a scenario in which your own side blows up a dam. I get that. But I don't see it here because there's this gigantic swath of territory that the Ukrainians could attack. They don't have to attack that little flooded part, do they? Nobody said it was so critically important to the war that if it's flooded, it's going to change the course of the war or anything like that. To me, it looks like it was just the Ukrainians taking out the electricity in the area that they're attacking, which it did. All right, they have to cross it to reach the other areas. But was that the one place they had to cross? I mean, I've got a feeling that there are just lots of ways that Ukraine can get at that gigantic line on the border. I don't know. I could be wrong. I'm just going to say. I'm going to say Ukraine. The water pushes them to a kill zone, maybe. Actually, that's a pretty good theory. So the theory was that the flooding could push existing forces that maybe have already started a counter offensive. It could push them in a direction of disadvantage. I could see that. But I feel like you wouldn't blow up your own dam unless it was your last resort. Of course, it's not their dam, so maybe they don't care. But I don't think you blow up your own dam unless you think that's going to win the war or really make a big difference. And I don't. The experts are not saying that it's making a big military difference. Could be wrong. As Crimea's water supply. Distracts from their failed offensive. Maybe it's about making people suffer. All right, Crummy is water supply is okay. All right, that's all I got for today. YouTube. I'm gonna say bye. Oh, you're bad, you're bad, but I love you anyway.