Episode 2161 Scott Adams: News, Propaganda, Narrative, And Delicious Coffee. I Have Everything Today

Do do, do do do, do. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. Probably the best thing that's ever happened to you in your life. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And it's here. It's here. Yeah. Good news. And all you need to make this a special day is a cup or a mug or a glass of Tanker Chelsea in a canteen jug or flask, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous hippocampus. Now go. Ah, very good. What a good way to start the day with all of you. I could not be happier. I don't know, is it just me or does it feel like there's something about the mental health of the country that's rapidly improving for reasons that I'm not entirely clear about? Does it feel like that to you? I feel very much like we reached peak wokeness and everything now is, you know, it used to be just a one way march toward greater wokeness and we all had to go to jail if we didn't like it or get canceled. But now it seems as though between the Supreme Court and, you know, just getting tired of things and maybe seeing things more clearly than we used to, I feel like we've reached the peak and it has started to reverse. And what it feels like is some kind of weird sanity breaking out. It feels like sanity. Does anybody have that feeling that something like common sense is starting to emerge from the miasma? I don't know. It might be entirely a sort of an individual experience of what news I'm reading or whatever. Now. It could be because the news over the summer is never real news. All the summer news is just recreational news. So we're going to treat it as recreation with the assumption that almost none of it is true, or at least true in total, you know, all context considered. So let's look at the stories. Let's have some fun with the news, which is purely recreational because everything is going in the right direction. The economy, pretty much everything is going in the right direction. Maybe slightly, maybe a lot, but pretty much everything's going in the right direction. It's kind of a weird time. You don't expect it. All right, here's what's happening. How many times have I told you there's a new breakthrough in batteries? Have I mentioned that ever before? Like every two weeks there's a new breakthrough. There's some company that's got a new battery breakthrough. Well, here's one. Apparently you can use rust for creating electricity and storing in a battery, and then you can reverse the rust and turn it back into its original metal, and then you can reverse it again, and that gives you the ability to charge up a battery and then use the power. Now, apparently, long ago, years ago, somebody discovered that rust or something that's like rust. I think rust is not exactly what it is, but it's rust adjacent. And it was good at storing, good at storing energy, and it was good as storing it in a, let's say, gradual release way, which is the best you want for the grid. But they were too heavy. Too heavy? Was it iron? Must have been iron, huh? They were too heavy. So they didn't make sense for automobiles or phones or anything like that. But if what you're building is a permanent battery for your grid, it doesn't really matter too much how heavy it is because it's just going to sit there forever. So it turns out it might be. Is it lead or is it. I don't know what kind of metal it was. But they rust it and reverse the rust anyway. It's supposedly the ideal technology for the grid. So that's good news. All right, you knew there was going to be a story about Don junior, right? Did everybody see that coming? Let's see. The news is filled with allegations about Hunter Biden and the cocaine at the White House. What do we think will happen this week? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. There'll be a story about Don junior. It's horrible, folks, I hate to break it to you. This terrible, terrible story about Don Jr. Oh, my God. He really. According to Aubrey O', Day, a sexy blonde woman who must be famous for something that I'm not aware of, she said that she once had sex with Don Jr. In a gay, gay club bathroom. So that's. I don't know. You got one doing cocaine in the White House. Another one's boinking a hot woman in a gay nightclub. So, of course, I had to check the comments on Twitter to see what people would say about that. All right, somebody beat me to the joke. Somebody asked if it meant that Don Jr. Was gay. That's what somebody about, you know, wait a minute. He had sex with a hot woman in the bathroom of a gay nightclub? I wonder if he's gay. That was the best comment I saw. Now I'm thinking to myself, this is just me because, you know, I have a boy brain, so I can only really think like a guy. I Can't really turn that off. And I read this story and I'm thinking to myself, seriously, Don Jr. Went to a gay nightclub and got laid. Oh, come on. First son, first son. Give it up for the first son. Whoa. All right, Don Jr. You go. You go, Don Jr. I suppose that's the terrible story about Don Jr. That we're supposed to feel bad about or something, distract us a little bit. But I think Don Jr. Has won the first sun competition fairly cleanly. Fairly cleanly, I think. All right, you might be aware that the Supreme Court ruled that the government can't coerce social media platforms to limit free speech, because that would just be an extension of a government limiting free speech, even though it's the free market. So now we're in good shape, Right? Thank goodness. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court. Yeah, we have that problem of maybe the, you know, maybe this platforms were biased by the government. And so the Supreme Court's fixed that forever. So we'll never have a problem again with bias. Problem solved. Oh, my next story is that. Do you know what happens when Twitter tries to be unbiased and stops censoring things? Well, it turns out that Facebook starts up a competitor. A competitor. It's called Threads. And it launched, I guess, yesterday, last night. And it's a Twitter knockoff, but it's by Facebook, slash meta, slash Instagram. And people are saying it'll, you know, it has a good chance because the Instagram community will just be moved over if you want to, optionally, I guess, so you can move your followers over to it. Number of people tried it. It had huge uptick. I think 10 million people signed up pretty quickly, etc. Now, Here's my question for you. Do you think the Threads would have happened if Zuckerberg, if Musk had not bought Twitter? Does Threads look like a good business play or does it look like somebody who is screwing his shareholders? Probably the meta shareholders. Do you think the Meta shareholders would like to clone the only social network? Well, it's not the only one. Snapchat doesn't make money, but Twitter doesn't make money. Does Facebook know that Twitter doesn't make money? So their idea is to make half a Twitter, like one that doesn't have the right mix of people to fight. So they've created basically a Democrat Twitter, which guarantees that neither the Democrat Twitter nor the Republican Twitter, if such a thing happens, and it just bifurcates, neither of them will have any energy, neither could they be profitable. To me, it looks like Zuckerberg is using the shareholders money for political purposes. Am I wrong? Does this look like a business decision? Does it look like Zuckerberg just thought, huh? What would be a good product in the free market? Well, Twitter isn't making any money. Yeah. Why don't we make something that's just like that? I cannot. There's no part of me that thinks that's a business decision. Do you think it is? Do you think that Zuckerberg believes that that's how he could make money? I don't think so. I think this is purely Zuckerberg being a good Democrat, you know, probably doing things that he thinks are good for the country. I'm not saying he has bad intentions. I'm saying that he probably thinks it's good for the country and shareholders be damned. This is why I don't own stock in Meta, because this is the sort of behavior that I'm not looking for in a company I'm investing in. Like, I definitely wouldn't want them to be doing this. That doesn't look like the right business move. But there it is. The first, I guess the first thread, if you call it that, was from Zuckerberg himself, and he said, I quote, let's do this. Welcome to threads. Let's do this. Now, the story does not mention whether or not he was playing white boy air guitar when he said it, but I believe that that goes better with air guitar. Let me see if. Let me see. I'll give you the two. Let's do it. Welcome to Threads. Kind of just lays there, doesn't it? But let's just take this up to full. Full boring, white guy level air guitar. Let's do this. Right. So much better. Zuckerberg needs some help in the air guitar. That. That just should have been part of it. All right, so that's happening. I saw a tweet by Donald Luskin, who's a good follow on Twitter. You should follow him. He points out that if it's not bad enough to have a guy named Blinken negotiating for us in China. That's right. Our negotiator is Blinken. It's just. I don't know, the simulation is just messing with us now, but now it turns out that Hunter Biden's new lawyer, who happens to be a GOP operative, is named Riggleman. Riggleman. A lawyer named Riggleman. Now, I think Riggleman should be working on election security, don't you? Yeah, I want. I want a lawyer named Riggleman working on election integrity. Just because. Don't you. Come on. We all want that. All right. Rasmussen did a little poll about what people think about that cocaine in the White House, and 58% of likely US voters think it is likely the president was involved in Hunter's foreign business deals. Oh, so there's more about the foreign business deals. So a majority, pretty solid majority, think that the president was involved in Hunter's business deals. Now, are you surprised that anybody still pretends that they think he wasn't? Do you think they're uninformed, or is this recreational belief where, for fun, you pretend that you're on the other side? Yeah, no, he had nothing to do with. Doesn't feel like a real opinion, does it? Like, I could understand if people are just, you know, uninformed, but the uninformed usually are smart enough to say they don't know when they get polled. But really, could there really be that many Democrats who actually believe that the dad was unaware? It doesn't even seem possible. I guess anything's possible, but it feels recreational. It doesn't feel like a real opinion. Maybe none of our opinions are real. Maybe mine are not real either. But this one seems extra not real. All right, well, by now you've probably all seen the press reports in which Hunter Biden's new attorney, Riggleman, denied that the cocaine found in the White House was. Was Hunters. Did you all see that? Did you see the press release where Hunter denied it was his? Oh, it didn't happen. Oh, no, you didn't see it because it didn't happen. Now, if you were Hunter Biden and you'd been accused of much bad behavior, which apparently was true, don't you think that right near the top of the things you would do in this situation if that cocaine were not yours, wouldn't the first thing you do really near the top of the first things you do in the morning when you woke up is call your lawyer and say, can you just put on a boring press release that just says, you know, I had nothing to do with it? Just put it out there. Where's that? Now, I do understand that if it had been his cocaine, it might be a bad play to deny it. You know, just. Just let it play out for a while. But what if it's. What if he knows for sure it's not his? How do you play it if you know it's not yours? If you know it, do you stay silent? Is that how you play it, if you know it's yours or if you know it's not yours? And the news is saying it might be or social media is saying it might be. So you just stay silent in that situation. Right? Hunter Biden went to law school, too. Isn't he actually a lawyer? And he's got a lawyer and he works in government. So he's surrounded by experts and advisors and staffers who can tell you exactly the right thing to do. You know, what the right thing to do would be if it's not his. The right thing to do is to say it's not yours. It's not really hard, is it? Now, of course, people might say he's lying or whatever, but it's the easiest thing to say, that wasn't mine. How hard is that? But it's not. There is missing. The dog is simply not barking. Not only is the dog not barking, but you had to wait for me to tell you that. Did CNN say, where's the denial? Did CNN say, we've contacted him and he won't comment? Do you remember that story where they tried to get a comment and he wouldn't comment? Or they couldn't find him? Or they couldn't find anybody who could find him. They couldn't find his lawyer, couldn't get any comment whatsoever. Do you remember when they reported that hunters had no comment? No, you don't, because they never reported that. They didn't report. They tried to reach him. They didn't report what he said. They didn't report where he is. They didn't report. They talked to his lawyer, nothing. And we all just sat here with our thumbs up our asses acting like that was normal. Oh, that's normal. All right. What else? Now, what about the fingerprints? At least law enforcement has told us that. That the baggie didn't have any fingerprints on it. So at least we know that, right? What? What? Oh, we haven't heard. That's right, we haven't heard. Not only if the fingerprints identify anybody, but we haven't even heard if they tried to get any. Don't you think that law enforcement would say we have some prints? Or alternately, they would say we checked for prints and didn't find any. Wouldn't you expect that to be in the news? The single most obvious thing, the single most obvious part. Well, DNA. Could you get DNA off of just somebody touching a baggie? All right. I don't know if you can. I did hear from a fingerprint expert. This is what I love about social media, of all things. There's somebody who's a fingerprint expert, who's one of my followers, and the fingerprint expert said that getting a print off a plastic bag, a baggie, actually close to impossible. Did you know that? Did you know it's really hard to get a print off a plastic bag? Do you know how I knew it? Not from the news. Did you see it on cnn? Nope. Did CNN ever say, you know, it'd be hard to get a print off a plastic bag if it is? I mean, I heard it from one person who sounded like an expert. How about Fox News? Even Fox News didn't report it, that it's hard to get a print off a baggie or that it's easy. Tell us it's easy. It's hard. We could definitely get some DNA. We can't get some DNA. Might get a fingerprint, might not. Might be partial, might belong to other people. You don't know. Everything about this story is just missing. Everything that matters about this story is just missing. The only thing that I'm surprised they told us is that it tested out as a drug. That's the only thing I'm surprised about. All right. I don't know why this story is out of order. I've got an out of order story I'll have to get back to, but I don't know if you saw that. The Daily Wire featured one of my tweets on this issue. So Politico had a headline yesterday that said, white House Cocaine Culprit Unlikely to be found. Law enforcement says, now how in the world is that unlikely? How in the world is that unlikely unless. Unless Hunter's not saying it isn't his. Nobody's talking about DNA or fingerprints, and they're completely silent about surveillance and video cams in that area or even what area it was. But still, Politico is feeling some confidence in this headline, white House Cocaine Culprit Unlikely to be found. Now, what type of persuasion is that? Because this is obviously propaganda, narrative. What type of. So I call it softening up the room. Softening up the room. Basically, people can get used to anything if they just get exposed to it a lot. So what you don't want is to go down the line and then someday find out that you can't figure out who it is. You want people to say right ahead, I don't know. This is one of those situations where I think it would be unlikely we'd figure out who the real culprit it was. Very unlikely. So then a year from now, when in fact we don't know who it was or at least it's not reported, we can say yeah, that's sort of what everybody expected. The experts told us we're not going to find out who it is. Pure propaganda. So a number of people called them out for it. I was one of them. Daily Wire printed my tweet in which I said, we can now accurately predict all future headlines. Here's one we all knew was coming, and it was the headline about White House cocaine culprit unlikely to be found. Didn't every one of you know that that headline was coming? Is there anybody here who didn't know for sure that there would be a headline saying that? I don't know. We just can't find the Epstein client. Oh, did I say Epstein? I'm sorry. I meant a whole different story. Yeah, no, we will never be able to find the. You just knew it was going to go this way. Now, don't you think that the entire White House security operation should be fired? If it's true that there was no video surveillance in part of the White House? They couldn't. They couldn't even tell from the. Are you telling me they couldn't even tell from the hallway cameras who entered the room? Couldn't even tell who entered the room. Right, because there's no surveillance in there. Come on. Come on. The entire. They would all be fired by now if they didn't already know who this was. All right, I would like to add my own conspiracy theory to the mix. I don't believe I've heard this one yet. So will you do me some fact checking and tell me if you've seen this on social media or any pundit? The most likely person or entities that would leave that cocaine in the White House would be. Go. The most likely person to leave that bag of cocaine would be. Most likely. Most likely staffers. Zelensky, Don, Jr. Reporters. Yeah. So if it had been. If it had been left accidentally. If it had been left accidentally, you'd probably think the staffers. Yeah, I would think that Hunter is maybe not in the. Not at the very top of my suspect list. He'd be around number three. You know, just my personal judgment of things. But there could be lots of people. Right. All right, here's my. This might actually change the headlines, so I'm a little hesitant to say it. You ready for this? It looks like an intelligence operation to me. There's nothing that screams law enforcement or intelligence operation like planting drugs. Planting drugs is sort of like, you know, operation. It's like. It's like the first lesson, isn't it? What is more basic than planting drugs Somewhere, I can't think of anything, you know, maybe taking some naughty pictures of somebody having sex that they don't know about. It's like the most basic thing. So ask yourself this. How badly does the deep state want Biden to willingly get out of the race? How much do the real people of power, whoever they might be, let's call them the deep state? How much do even the Democrats want Biden to leave so they have a chance, a better chance of winning? A lot. Do you think it could be a GOP operative? Just somebody who had access to the White House and just took it out of their pocket, shoved it on a shelf and said, when they find this, that's the end of the Bidens. Because ask yourself this. Hunter Biden. You know, the story is that Hunter Biden is back in the White House, you know, after being sort of out of the news. His plea deal is the news, and then he's back in the White House. What are the odds? What are the odds that Hunter is the one who put it there? Really? Now, isn't that a little bit too on the nose? Don't we know that Hunter is somebody that forgets things like laptops all over the place? A little on the nose happens to be cocaine, just happens to be Hunter's preferred drug. And he's a guy who leaves things and places and he's just been in the news and. And then suddenly he brings cocaine to the White House. Isn't that a little bit exactly on the nose? All right, I'm going to go for fake story. I say it's not Hunters and it's not a staffer, and it was not left there accidentally. Not Hunters, not anybody else leaving it accidentally. It is not accidental. Now, has anybody else said that? Have you heard that as speculation anywhere else? Because I haven't seen it anywhere else. Anybody else. So you haven't seen that before. Now, you tell me that that's not the most likely scenario. Compare these two scenarios. If you wanted Hunter, Biden and the Bidens to go down, this would be the entire amount of effort it would take to take them down. Let's say you're just a bad person. You had access to the White House. This is your entire. That's it. And the entire administration is gone. You reach in your pocket, you stand in front of. Maybe you know where the security camera is. Maybe you even know where it is. So you just take it out of your pocket, you slip it in a cubby hole or wherever they found it, literally reach in your pocket and you end the Biden administration, that's it. Literally reach in your pocket, put something on a shelf or wherever the hell it was. That's the end of the Biden administration. You don't think that there's anybody who thought of that? It would be the perfect op, it would be the perfect opinion. Now, the only per the one, the one person or entity that I'm going to rule out. I'm going to rule out Ukraine. Ukraine, I think, likes Biden. I would rule out the military industrial complex because they like Biden. They like him spending money on Ukraine. So if the military industrial complex overlaps with the deep state, then it wasn't them. Because the deep state and the military industrial complex probably wants Biden in there now. Unless they figured out, here's the other possibility. The other possibility is that the deep state and the military industrial complex are working together. And they know that Biden, even though Biden was perfectly their guy for spending money, he might be declining so much. And they know more than you know. So the people closest to him, you know, the spooks, the CIA, they have a much better idea whether Biden can make it another year to the election. They know you and I don't know necessarily, we're guessing, but they know. So they would know his exact medical condition. They would know that when we don't see Biden, he's in bad shape. They would know what drug they give him before he goes in public, if there is one. Right. So they would have a much more dire opinion of Biden than we do because they could see it first. We, the public, are getting just these little glimpses that are horrifying. But imagine the stuff we don't see. The stuff we see Biden try to do in public is horrifying. Like his lack of cognitive ability. Imagine what that looks like privately. Just imagine what he looks like when he's not at his best, when they haven't made sure that he can get his good 10 minutes speech and get off the stage. It must be scary behind the scenes. So one possibility is it was a diabolical Republican who just had access to the White House and stuffed it there or bribed the cleaning crew to put it there. There's a million ways they could get there. But the other possibility is that the deep state has decided that Biden cannot represent them. It's just he's too far gone and they need a chance of winning and they need to take him out soon so that Newsom can slot in there and keep the money rolling for Ukraine. So having now heard this hypothesis, it's just a hypothesis. How likely does it seem to you that it was planted? Go. Have I convinced anybody how likely that was planted? We don't know. We wouldn't know who, but how likely it was planted. I'm seeing a lot of zeros and 20 fives. Interesting. The 25. You're probably joking, but I know. Would you take cocaine out of your pocket if you were in the White House? Would you. Would you take it out of your pocket? And if you took it out of your pocket and you used it, wouldn't it be the highest priority you were thinking about to not get caught and you'd look around your space before you left? I know it's possible that a druggie could leave some drugs. It's very possible. Druggies forget stuff, they leave drugs. Hunter's a perfect example. But if you compare the odds of that happening at the exact time. All right, all right. Here's a better way to say it. If you said to me, Scott, there was one time over the course of the four year administration that Hunter left some cocaine and White House, I would say the odds of that. Pretty good. Pretty good. But if you say to me that over that four year term, just this one week where Hunter. The story was that Hunter's back in the White House just that one week, that's the week that he left right after his plea deal, that's the week he's going to leave a bag of cocaine in the White House. You're going to accept that coincidence? Because that coincidence is galactic in size. You know that, right? That's like a one in thousand. So I think there's a one in one thousand chance it's a coincidence. So it wouldn't be unusual for him to leave a bag of drugs. We all agree with that, right? If I said four years, has Hunter ever left a drug in the White House? Most of you would probably say maybe like good chance at least once. But then I narrow that four years down to that one week, the one worst time it could have happened. No worse time than this one week. And that's the week you did it. Right. Sorry. Sorry too on the news. I think it was. I think it was planted. Boom. All right. I would not, let's say. I'll put a. Let me put a percentage confidence on that. 60%. 60%. 40%. It's just some person who dropped some drugs. Yeah, 40% is something completely ordinary. 60%. That's too much of a coincidence. Too much of a coincidence. Coke addicts do it for one. No, I'm not. I'm not saying the Hunter only did one week of coke. Did you hear that? No. We assume that addicts are addicts. It's like you've never heard of an addict. An addict is somebody who always could do coke, no matter how long they've not been doing it. That's what an addict is. Somebody who's just sort of reflexively can drop into that without much effort. All right, so it could be exactly what happened. So let me say clearly, it could be Hunter's wheat, it could be Hunter's coke, could be somebody else's. I just think there's a slightly more chance that that coincidence is not a coincidence. You have to believe in a lot of coincidence for that to be the case. All right, where is Prigozhin? So today, finally, CNN and Reuters and others, Wall Street Journal, have decided that now they can say, hey, I thought we would have seen a picture of him in Belarus by now. And then the Belarusian leader, Lu Shenko, finally said, directly, he's not in Belarus. Said it directly, he's not in Belarus. He thought he might be in St. Petersburg. Unless he's already gone to Moscow. Yeah, because I'm sure that Prigozhin would feel pretty safe in Moscow, wouldn't he? Would he? No, he's not. I don't know if he's dead because Putin needs him alive to find out who the other plotters were. So part of the story is there are lots of plotters. Now, the reason I do this live stream, besides the fun of it, which is maybe the biggest reason, is that I like to make predictions, especially predictions that are not being made by the others. And then you. You judge the quality of my live streams, or you should, by how often I get a prediction. Right. Tell me who else said the Prigozhin did not go to Belarus. Name one other person. Name one other person in the entire world in, let's say, who does this, does a public kind of thing. Not one. Yeah, okay. Jack probably was on it early, I'll give you that. All right, so. So finally, finally, the mainstream media caught up to guy on Twitter who just looks at and says, well, obviously, obviously, Putin can't let him go. He's gotta keep him until he finds out who the other traitors are. Of course, that's just basic dictatoring. That's the most. That's gotta be like dictator 101. First you get ahold of your criticism, and then you find out what else the critic knows that you need to know. And then you kill them. It's like just basic. It's the most basic dictatoring you could do. I'll tell you what you don't do. Lushenko is funny. Lushenko said it's ridiculous to imagine that Putin would want to get revenge on Prigozhin for just trying to kill him and take over the country. I mean, Putin. Putin's not kind of a revengeful guy. I mean, what history do we have of Putin ever trying to attack a critic? It's just funny listening to the. What would you call Lyschenko? Listening to the Poppins talk. It's hilariously implausible. Anything they say, even more so than American politics, just hilariously implausible. All right, so just remember this story. Remember the part where Scott, who has zero military or geopolitical experience. You'd all agree, right? No military experience, no geopolitical experience. But I'm the only one who got that right. And it's not the first time I'm the only one who got some things right. Now, I'm saying this partly to brag because it's useful for telling people why they should watch the show, but it's going to tie into a point that's upcoming. So just put a little tack in that. I got a few things right. Okay, that'll come back later. All right, let's talk about Ukraine. What did I predict is happening with the counteroffensive? Do you remember what I said was going to happen with a counter offensive? I said, the war is already over because nobody's going anywhere. There's not going to be much land that's traded after this point, unless it's by negotiation. I said the war is over. We're into the hard negotiation that happens to involve killing each other, but neither side can win. The. The winning is just off the table. So the news is finally caught up to me now. Have I mentioned that I have no military experience? I think I did just a minute ago. Yeah, no military experience, but I told you weeks ago, there's no war. They're basically in. In place, and they're just waiting for a Republican president or something. But it's not really going to change any. You know, no leadership looks like it's going to change. No property looks like it's much going to change. And that's what the news is reporting. So the news has caught up with me, and they're saying, looks like a stalemate. The Russians did too good a job of digging in. The Ukrainians, of course, say they don't have the weapons they need, blah, blah, blah. All right, so I saw a tweet by David Sachs. Again, if you don't follow David Sacks on Twitter, you're missing a lot because he's got some good contrarian. Takes contrarian against the. Let's say, the military industrial complex. Contrarian against them. So he notes that there's this colonel in the Australian armed forces who's involved in the Ukrainian stuff, and he makes three points. The offensive has failed. So that's from somebody who was there, somebody on our side. You know, NATO says the offensive has failed. Not that it's just starting. Not that we're seeing the beginning. Not that if they keep pushing, it'll be good. It just failed. So basically, according to this colonel who is involved, it failed. Now, of course, Zelensky say, we're just getting started. So Zelensky is sort of like that knight in Monty Python after his arms and legs get cut off. Come on here. I'm just getting started. Number two, this is from the. Remember, this is from somebody in NATO. NATO military tactics do not work against Russian defenses. What? Wait, what? That's exactly what Sachs tweeted. Wait, what? Doesn't that get your attention? NATO tactics don't work against Russian defenses, at least on the ground. Wow. And then, number three, the colonel expects limited successes along the front line, but no major breakthroughs. None. No breakthroughs. Just minor. A little block. Air block there. So we're now at exactly the place that I told you we would be. How many of you would be willing to say I predicted that correctly? Again, the context is not just my ego, which I love. If anybody wants to say I did well, I like that. Everybody likes compliments. Everybody likes to be right. But a larger purpose here is I want to show you that non experts can be right. Would you buy the. Do you buy. At this point, especially after the pandemic, do you buy the notion that non experts can completely beat the experts? And routinely, it's not even unusual, and it's not something limited to me. I know you can agree with that. Right? I'm not the one person who did better than the experts. I'm one of many people who did better than the experts. Many of us. That's the bigger story. It's not about me. The bigger story is that the experts are garbage. So after David Sacks tweets this, pointing out that it was this colonel in the Australian. Oh, I'm sorry. I kept saying Australian, Austrian. So. Correct, Correct. Everything I said, it's Austrian, not Australian. Austrian armed Forces, which would explain why he's in NATO. Makes a lot more sense. Now, if you get rid of the Australian part, it makes a little more sense. Wait, is Australia NATO? Austria is not NATO. What Australia is. Do me some quick fact checking. Neither is. Somebody says neither. Well, somehow this colonel is involved in Subway. So I guess I don't know the details, but he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. So after David Sacks makes this tweet in which he's literally quoting this colonel, somebody named Akikako tweets back and replies to David Sacks. And he goes, and I'd like to do this with as much attitude as the tweet seems to have. So to get the right attitude, I'd like to invite Dale to join us. Dale, could you read the tweet by Eki Kako? Glad to do it, David. No, Dale, could you. More condescending. We need lots of condescending. More condescending. Got it. Got it. All right, how about this? David, I am curious to learn about your extensive military background and the comprehensive range of your military experience. Could you kindly share with me the specific details? The specific details and noteworthy aspects of your time serving in the military? Bingo. Zing, zing. Got him. To which my response was, there's still people who believe the experts. Let's form a contest, and the contest will be this. It'll be a betting forum for things in the future. All right, it's a betting forum, and you only get two bets, two possibilities. You either bet that the military industrial complex is telling you the truth on some specific issue, or you bet that David Sachs has a more accurate take. And there's lots of different iterations, lots of different bets. Now, I'm not going to say that David Sacks will be right on every take. Nobody is. But do you really think he's not killing the experts? He's been destroying the experts. Just that one person. He's been destroying the experts on a whole bunch of stuff. It's not just the Ukraine war. He's been more right than people have a right to be right about anything. How do people not notice? How do you not notice that there's somebody who's just right all the time, just like consistently right? And the experts are like, whoa, it's a weird world. All right, you are probably aware that until the Supreme Court's more recent rulings, that the Supreme Court would be an issue in the 2024 election because of abortion and Roe versus Wade. And you think that'll still be fresh and the Democrats will make a big deal about it, because they did in the prior election. So we kind of expect that. But saw a good warning. I think it was in the Wall Street Journal, an opinion piece that the Democrats better be careful if they take on the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court's vote on affirmative action is actually popular, like the majority of the country agrees with the Supreme Court. And the ruling on student loan relief is also favored by a majority that, you know, not doing it. And more to the point, the people who are most against student loan forgiveness were older, public, you know, part of the public that's older, and they're more likely to vote. So it turns out that the abortion issue, I think, is going to get a little bit stale by 2024, because the Republicans have the ultimate answer to that. We kicked it to the states. So it's closer to you, the individual. You want the decision to be as close to the individual as possible. And while we certainly have opinions about what should and should not be legal, we think the federal government should get out of it. So you're not really arguing about abortion. You're arguing about whether you should make the decision close to the public or farther from the public. That's our only point. So this would be the Republican take. The only thing we're asking is that you get more involved in your own decisions, get more involved in your own life. That's what we're asking. We're asking that you don't let the federal government make decisions that you should be making. Make it as close to your local government as you can, and then you're going to feel the most comfortable with it, and people will get different answers in different states. Now, that's a pretty good defense. I haven't heard any Republicans say it the way I said it. They do say it, but they don't say it cleanly. And it's just. They don't package it well. But it's a perfect defense because it actually gives people more of what they want instead of less. Or at least you can phrase it like that. You can still have your abortion. You might have to move to a state where people agree with you. But if you live in a state where the people around you don't want it is that our problem is that the federal government's problem, that your neighbors don't like abortion. It's a pretty easy sell that you need to work it out at the state level and that that's all the Supreme Court did, in my opinion. That is all they did. I don't think they ruled on abortion whatsoever. They just said whose authority it was. So I do think that the Supreme Court, which I thought was going to be the biggest problem for Republicans, might have actually reversed in terms of its impact. If the Republicans can, let's say, elegantly handle the abortion question. And they should, because it's right there. I mean, it's right there for them to take. It's free money. It's just sitting on the table. You just have to pick it up. Don't tell us what you think about a fetus. Do not care. The best thing that Trump could say about this, or let's say any Republican, is, why do you care about my opinion about abortion? I care about your opinion about abortion. Oh, that's good. Shit, that's good. Imagine you being president, you say, why do you care about my opinion of abortion? You should care about yours. Because that's what I care about. I care about your opinion about abortion. I'm not going to have a baby. Look at me. I'm not going to have a baby. But you might. Your opinion on abortion is critical and vital to me. My opinion on abortion should be zero interest to you from the federal government. Work it out at the state. Isn't that strong? Now, that's sort of political narrative persuasion. I mean, it's not based on truth per se, it's just persuasion. But you would love any politician who said, stop asking my opinion about your body. Yeah. Oh, that's even better. Oh, my God, that's even better. Stop asking my opinion about your body. That's the end of it. That would end the debate. Stop asking my opinion about your body. Wow. Yeah. That dropped a few mics, didn't it? That is really strong, isn't it? Let me just pause here and ask you, in my mind, that sounded like insanely strong. Did you feel it? Did you feel that as persuasive? Not really. Some yes, some no. Now, persuasion, of course, doesn't need to get you all. It doesn't work that way. You're only trying to pick off the 5% that might be persuadable. Women never forget rights taken. Yeah, well, that's certainly, certainly the pro abortion people are going to phrase it as a right taken away, but I think it's too easy to answer that. It's a right that's driven down to, to you. I'm giving you more control over your rights. Yeah. All right. That is what Trump has been saying. Yeah. I don't think he says as well as I said it. All right, let me give you an update on global warming. There are two things happening with global warming at the same time, and these are both confirmed. The planet is getting warmer and the planet is cooling off. Confirmed. So there are two things I know for sure is that the planet is getting warmer and also colder at the same time. And I know that because of data. So I've looked into it, I've done a deep dive, I've checked the data, and as of today, the Wall Street Journal, which is not noted for its left leaning politics, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that we reached a new global high in temperature. It's a new high and things are getting warmer all over the world. If you go to Twitter and just put in climate change, you'll find very credible people telling you exactly the opposite. And they'll show you data, and they'll even show you official data. They'll show you data from the people who claim that climate change is an emergency. They'll use their own data and they'll say, here it is, it's not true. And then other people will look at, I guess, the same data and say, there it is, it's true. Yeah. So I have no idea. I don't even know how you figure it out. How do you know it's true? I don't know. So I'll just re. This is maybe the most dangerous thing for the planet is that we can't tell. Now, I happen to think that no matter how true or not true it is, we're going to do all the same things, meaning that we're going to. The free market still rewards people if they came up with a better form of energy or even just a good enough form of energy that you could sell a lot of it. So the free market should be doing everything it needs to do to come up with alternative forms of energy. And it seems like it is. So probably we'll be fine. Whether it's actually getting warm, like warmer, like the Wall Street Journal reports today, or it's not. As people all over social media like to tell you, we're going to do the same stuff. Probably doesn't make any difference at all because we're so good at remediating against extremes, everything from extreme heat to extreme everything else. We're really good at it. I think we'll, I think we'll survive. All right. Desantis campaign made a, I think a big gaffe. You tell me. So Desantis tweeted, I guess his campaign tweeted an anti lgbt. Well, what they tried to do Desantis Tried to make Trump look like he was too pro LGBTQ. Right. DeSantis retweeted a mean political ad that. That tried to paint Trump as a bad person for being too supportive of lgbtq. That actually happened in American politics. That really happened. Oh, my God, that's such a mistake. You know, Trump has lived in the sort of a Hollywood celebrity world for most of his adult life. If you know anything about the Hollywood, you know, famous rich people life, you know, it is just full of LGBTQ people. I would guess that Trump is very comfortable, certainly the way he talks about it is very comfortable with the LGBT community and is fully supportive of them having a full and free quality life. So going against Trump on this issue is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Like, I get that there are, you know, some anti LGBTQ people, and maybe they'll say, yeah, DeSantis really goes after him, but if you tell me that you're going to pick the campaign, who's going after, going after a segment of Americans, what. That doesn't work for me. No, no. It's one thing to say, you know, progressive politics are crazy. It's one thing to say, to say AOC is crazy, or, you know, the politicians, you can call them crazy, that's fine. But you don't go after. You don't go after a segment of the American public. How does that make sense? How do you win an election doing that? That's pure Hillary. That's like Hillary department. Well, we got these deplorables. Wait, what? What? You just called a bunch of law abiding Americans deplorable. Did they break any laws? Did they violate your Constitution? Did they poop on your lawn? No, you don't do that if you're running for president. If you're president, everybody's cool. That's got to be. That's just got to be the base. Everybody's cool if you're. If you're following the law. We have different opinions of what law should be, but everybody who's following the law, you're all cool. Anything beyond that is just fucked up. That's just fucked up. So I think Descendants probably just destroyed his chances with that. I don't know what chances he had. Now, would it be surprising for you to learn the Ramaswamy is picking up polling steam? So remember, Ramaswamy was polling at, like, about Nothing, close to 2%, I think, in the beginning, 2 or 3%, and DeSantis was around 20%. Well, it depends what poll you're looking at. And I don't see the name of this poll, but allegedly, according to the Hill, Desantis is down from 20 to 16 and Ramaswamy is up to 10. That's right. Whose campaign is working? Vivek's. So Vivek is, first of all taking strong positions on stuff like Fentanyl. Very strong. But the brilliant thing he's doing is he's going into the enemy's cave and walking out with their scalps. He's walking into CNN and he walks out and he holds up his scalp and then somebody else invites him in and he walks out with his scalp. It's really effective. So he's not afraid of the hardest argument. He's going into the darkest caves and he's walking out with a scalp. He's doing it one time after another. And after a while, you can't ignore it. If he does it once, he got lucky. If he keeps doing it. If he keeps doing it, you can't ignore that. And I don't really see him generating what I would call gaffes or let's say, reasons to not like him. I mean, if you don't like his policies, that's fair game. But he's not giving you a reason to dislike him. And other politicians, do they give you a reason to dislike them? He doesn't do that. He just tells you what he thinks will work. He takes the role of a patriot, the very best kind. He's impressing the hell out of me. Will he win? We'll see. Anything could happen. He does have a path. His path is to slightly pull ahead of Desantis, which looks doable, believe it or not. Actually, it looks doable. He's within stretching distance. If he could get into something like a legitimate second place race with Desantis, and then let's say something happens with Trump, because when you talk about Trump, something happens is guaranteed. Do you think Trump is going to have no shocks or scandals or be taken out of context again? Of course he will. The press will make up a news story about Trump and it will be devastating, like all the old stories they made up about him. And Vivek will just be sort of unscathed because they're not going to put enough attention on him. So he might be just the only unscathed Republican at some point, if that point is the right point. He goes all the way. So he does have a path. I mean, it's narrow, it's very narrow. So it depends entirely upon Trump. So his fate is his own against Desantis. Yeah, that's the best way to say it. So if Vivek can completely control his fate against the other candidates, he has complete control of that. He does not have control over whether he could beat Trump. Trump would have to take himself out or the Democrats would have to finally succeed. But he's going to be the strongest one who's just sitting there waiting potentially. Now, DeSantis is going to get a lot of heat from the LGBTQ and other places, and so he might look a little damaged. And I don't think he could beat Viveka in a debate because DeSantis is a pleading voice. I've talked about this, and Viveka is a commanding voice. And I don't mean the quality, the sound of the voice. I mean the way they present. DeSantis is complaining and then telling you he'll fix it. And Vivek also, you know, calls out the issues, but it's more of a commanding, you know, I'm going to do this, we'll do this kind of thing. So I think Vivek would beat DeSantis in a straight up debate. But, you know, I've been saying this a lot, but I like to just remind you every now and then, because it's really easy to get down on your country. Real easy. But just think about the fact that we have Vivek, DeSantis, RFK Jr. Trump, you know, Biden, I think, you know, he's passed his expiration date. So it's not about him being a Democrat or not, because, you know, RFK Jr. Is a Democrat. But when I see those three characters being, you know, serious contenders for the race, I say, I think we'll be okay. Like, America can still feel that level of talent for the top office. And to me, that's a really high level of talent. Whoever wins, you know, if one of those, if one of that group wins, I don't know, I just feel like the country's in good shape, even if you don't like some of the policies. So DeSantis also decided that he that Florida will not, or I guess the state decided, but DeSantis is probably behind it, that there are five states that Florida will not accept their driver's license of their state. So if you came to Florida from Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Rhode island or Vermont, you wouldn't be able to rent a car. Do you know why? I believe the end, the reason is that these five states give driver's license to illegal immigrants. And DeSantis is saying, if you're going to give licenses to illegals, and that license allows them to get services. My state doesn't give services to illegals. So if you're going to certify that these illegals have driver's licenses, we're going to ban your state. You can't have a driver's license in our state now. All right, so somebody's saying free money. I get that. It's popular. However, that would. That would be a good move as a what? That would be a good move as a governor. Yeah, that's the problem. He just screwed five states and he's running for governor. Let me say it again. In one week, DeSantis insulted the LGBT community in five states. Five states. There's five states that can't have a driver's license or can't legally drive in Florida. Not good. Not good. So no matter what you think about how smart that is as a governor, as a presidential candidate, it's just a. That's just self immolating to me. It's the most ridiculously bad idea I've ever seen. Ever seen in my whole life. No, that's not true. It's not the worst idea I've ever seen. But this is very governor like, and that's the wrong vibe. I don't. I don't want a governor vibe from my president. All right. And the thing I said I was going to get back to was my favorite story of the day. A lot of good ones today. But my favorite is there's a Twitter user. I'll call him a user, but he's a political troll called David Leavitt, I think that's pronounced. And he was complaining to Musk and Twitter that somebody had called him the C word. It rhymes with runt, but starts with a C. And he was saying that he couldn't believe that Twitter would allow somebody to stay on the platform after using such an insult. And it took about a minute for somebody to produce a November tweet from David Livitt in which he called somebody a runt. But we're the C. But with a C. That's right. So my advice to you is you should always check your past tweets before you take a stand. Don't take a stand if you don't know what you've tweeted in the past. Sounds like a drunk tweet. You're right. But I think my theme for today is everything's moving in the right direction. Further proof that everything's moving in the right direction. On Twitter, you can use the C word. Now, I'm not going to use it here because I only use it in anger. I like to save it. You don't want to. You don't want to use its energy in just talking about it. That would be a waste of it. You want to keep it fresh. Okay, that was a terrible retreat. Retreat. Go back. Reverse, reverse, reverse. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say keep it fresh. I'm going to say you want to keep it powerful. You don't want to drain the energy out of it. You want to keep it powerful, not fresh. Powerful. Fresh would be good too. I'm not saying it shouldn't be fresh. Keep it fresh if you can. I'm just saying that my point was about the energy. You want to keep that energy in there in case you need it. So once again, I'm right about precosion. I'm right about everything. I'm having a good week of being right about everything. Wokeness is disappearing. You may have noticed that I'm slowly being rehabilitated. From what am I disgraced cartoonist? You see it in small ways. So for the Daily Wire to feature my tweet, it would suggest that the Daily Wire is not afraid of me because they were mentioning it in the same sense as other standard, what they would call right leaning pundits. How many shows in a row? What? So everything's going well? Can I believe the experts? They got nothing on us. No, they got nothing on us. All right, YouTube, thanks for joining. Fun day today. I'm sure it'll be fun tomorrow. I love this summer news. Summer news is the best. And I will talk to you tomorrow.