Episode 2182 Scott Adams: UFOs, Hunter, Trump Indictments, Lots More Fun

Fix a little technical problem over in the Locals platform, but it looks like the locals platform is better than a doornail today. I'll try it one more time. Hey, it's looking better. Not so much. Well, we're. We're having a terrible time here, technically. Normally, I'd be halfway through the simultaneous sip, but it looks like we got nothing today, so we'll be closing up. Closing up locals and opening it up on my phone, which should work, but we'll see. Watch me scramble to make all this work while you wait, wishing there was actually a show going on. Yeah, it looks like locals is dead. All right. Today, it's all you. It's all you today. Would you like to start from the beginning? Good morning. Would you like to take this experience up to levels that you don't even believe are possible? Yes, you do. And all you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass, a tanker chalice to stein, a canteen, sugar flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine. At end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now go. That's good stuff. All right, ladies and gentlemen, have you seen any news today? There's news all over the place. It's like news happening like you can't even believe it. But let's go through it. So the Wall Street Journal is saying that the economy grew by 2.4%. We'll talk about Hunter and UFOs and stuff, but it'll take a minute for all the locals people to give up and come over here. Sorry. But what I thought was interesting about this is it's good news that the economy is doing well. But the headline was, US Economic Growth defies Slow down expectations. Whose expectations? Whose expectations? Because this was my prediction. So I would like to add to my most accurate political predictions and most accurate pandemic predictions and most accurate Ukraine predictions the most accurate economic prediction. Because I actually said we would not go into a recession. There we go. Remember I told you I was all excited preliminarily, you know, yesterday about this story that researchers had made a room temperature superconductor. Do you remember that story? Took about 10 minutes for people to crap all over it and say, well, let's wait to see if anybody can reproduce this. And there's something sketchy going on. So I would say that all of my optimism about superconductivity, completely gone. Completely gone. Yeah. It doesn't sound like it's real, but I would love to be surprised. So don't wait for any room temperature super conductivity. It might be as likely as UFOs. Well, there's a new photo of Wagner leader Prigozhin allegedly in Russia and he's just shaking hands with some African guy who's visiting. So that's true. Right? Prigozhin's fine. He's just hanging out. Hanging out in Russia? Sure. Yeah. There was a. Even CNN reported that. They reported that there was a picture of him. They didn't report he's alive or anything. They just said there's a picture of him, which is fair. And does anybody want to think that he's still free and just doing his own thing? He's just driving his RV around St. Petersburg? No, no, he's not driving his RV around St. Petersburg. He's certainly in. If he's alive, he's certainly controlled by Putin at this point. Did you read it in the news that it was the warmest summer? How many of you think we had the warmest summer because of climate change? The news said so. Well, it may be, it might actually be the warmest summer. But I'd like to give you a counterpoint which doesn't necessarily refute everything you've heard, but it gives you context. So here's some better context from Alex Epstein. He said anyone commentating responsibly on summer temperatures must acknowledge four facts. See if you agree with these four facts. Cold related deaths are much greater than heat related deaths. Did you know that? That the number of people who died because it's too cold is way higher than the number of people who die because it's warm. So in theory you can imagine that depending on where it got warmer, it would save lives. Right. So if the cold places got warmer, but the places that are already hot didn't get warmer or didn't get much warmer, we'd be better off, wouldn't we? Well, and then, then the reverse would be true. If the hot places got hotter and the cold places got colder, that probably would be worse. But according to Alex, Earth is warming slowly and less in warm places. Oh, so that's good. So the warming is more concentrated in the cold places, which should save lives. Fossil fuels number three. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temperatures. Yeah. What would you do if you didn't have fossil fuels? Wouldn't you be more exposed to what the weather can do if you can't send your car or heat your house and anti fossil Fuel policies increase the danger from cold. Indeed. Well, that makes sense. If fossil fuels protect you from temperature extremes, then not having them would make you less safe. So I think a lot of this turns on these two points, that it's better to be warmer than cold. And it's not warming as much in the places that are already warm. Now, this is my problem with averages. If somebody told you that the average temperature of the earth was going up, that's pretty scary, right? But what if they told you that it's warming up in the places that are too cold and the places that are already hot? Nobody lives there because it's a desert anyway. For example. Now that's the extreme. That's. I'm exaggerating the effect here, but that's your counter argument. So I'm not saying that the warming. The warming is not a problem. I don't know, might be, but we're pretty good at dealing with that kind of problem. All right, here's a quiz for you. And the answer is not 25%. I'm going to see. I'm going to see if you can get this right. Put on your thinking caps. All right, there was an article by Katie Mogg in the Wall Street Journal, and apparently there's a trend called the hashtag lazy girl job. And a lazy girl job would be defined as a job. Often you could work at home. You don't put in too many hours. It might be an online kind of thing. You don't make that much money, but you make enough, especially if you live with your boyfriend or something. So apparently it's this big old trend to have a job that you can just sort of pay the rent, but you're not looking to kill, you know, kill it. This would be the opposite of leaning in. This would be like sleeping in. So apparently leaning in has turned into sleeping in. But that's not the question. Here's the question. This phenomenon has been growing lately and it's racked up close to 18 million views on a particular social media network. Go. Which social media network? Well, just to hypothetically, what would be a social media network that would encourage working age humans in the United States to not work hard, but maybe not send that same message to, let's say, China? What would be a platform that would do that? I mean, who would tell Americans to be lazier because it's awesome while not telling Chinese citizens to be lazy because it's not awesome? Who would do that? The answer is TikTok. Are you surprised? Oh, big surprise. A trend that's really bad for Americans. Seems to be running on TikTok, which does not run in the same form in China. So why are people talked into being trans if they never thought of it in their life? Before TikTok, but not in China. They don't run it there. And why are people told to not work so hard? Well, it doesn't happen in China. And what's Congress looking at this week? The fact that it's obvious that we have a brainwashing technology that's been inserted in the phone of every young American. Are we having a hearing on that today? No, no, it's about aliens, UFOs. Because it's summer and you don't talk about real stuff in the summer, you fool. Let's talk about UFOs. As you know, the Congress had some hearings about whether the government has secret UFOs that they're keeping from us. And I don't know about you, but after listening to some of the testimony about the UFOs, I'm left with more questions than answers, more questions than answers. Here are some of the questions I have. How much money did Hunter get from the UFOs? I assume he shook them down. I just don't know how much money he made. There's no reporting on that. Number two, are we using this advanced alien technology that we have to make video cameras for the White House that can't see Hunter? Yeah, special technology. The security cameras can see everybody except Hunter. He's just invisible on camera. And most importantly, number three, how many aliens are in Trump's boxes? Must be a few, because one thing we know is that we can't be told what's in the boxes. I can't think of anything else that they wouldn't tell us because anything else they could tell us. Am I right? They could tell us in a general way. Let me give you an example. If Trump's boxes of secrets had attack plans for Iran, we would hear that they just wouldn't tell us the details. If there were nuclear secrets, we would hear that they just wouldn't tell us the actual secrets. Right. If he had boxes that were full of, let's say, sensitive conversations with a foreign adversary or foreign ally, or maybe some something that we had found about a foreign adversary, we would have heard that, we just wouldn't hear the details of it. Right. What's the one thing that could be in the boxes that even the government wouldn't even say anything about? Aliens. Aliens. There have to be aliens in the boxes because it's the only thing they Wouldn't want to say anything about. Otherwise they would just say, well, yes, he has it. We just can't tell you the details. But they can't tell you that they do have aliens. They just don't want to tell you which ones. See, they can't tell you that. Okay, I'm joking. If you can't tell. If you can't tell, I'm joking. I'm joking. All right. Elon Musk weighed in on a Andrew Tate tweet. And Tate was talking about, you know, men who sleep with a lot of women and vice versa. And Musk tweeted to that. He said, to sleep with women endlessly without love is a cursed and hollow life. Well, if you were not already hating Elon Musk for being the richest person in the world, can you hate him now for apparently knowing the answer to this question? How you feel when you have slept with endless women without love? It didn't sound like he was guessing. I feel like if you're the richest man in the world and you're unmarried, you have experience sleeping with endless women without love. I think that's probably what a Tuesday looks for him. Looks like for him. Send in number three. Make sure there's no love. So we hate him for knowing the answer to that question. What does it feel like to have sex with endless women? You know, but. But I'm glad that he did this so we don't have to do it. Am I right, guys? Are you glad that Elon Musk told us what it feels like to sleep with endless women without love? Because I was going to go out and do it. I had plans for the week. I was like, you know what I'm going to do this week? I haven't tried this before, but I'm going to try having endless sex with women who don't love me. See what it's all about. But then I would have found out it was cursed in a hollow life. And so I'm glad that Musk did it so I don't have to. But there is something left out of his analysis, that sleeping with women endlessly without love is a cursed and hollow life. How does that compare to being married to one person? I mean, I think that's the valid comparison. I would agree with them that maybe it is a cursed and hollow life, but how does it compare to the alternative? You know, what is the worst advice anybody ever gave? The worst advice is follow your passion. You know what the second worst advice is? Find a good mate. This is the worst advice anybody's ever given. Find a good mate, you know, one that will make your life better. And do you know why that's the worst advice in the world? Because I'm no expert. I'm not a marriage expert. I'm just going to put this out there so you can do with it what you will. I'm almost positive that 100% of people who get married think they picked the right one. Do you have a different feeling about that? Are there a lot of people getting married saying, you know, this mate I picked is total shit, but I just feel like getting married? No. I believe that everybody enters an illusion in which they figure that whatever flaws the other person has, they'll. They'll work it out. And there are no new flaws. There won't be any new ones. You've seen everything there is to see. And so that therefore a reasonable and a smart person using good judgment can go out and find a good solid mate and have a solid life because of it. Now some of you say buzz cut, you fucking idiot. You idiot. There are plenty of examples. And I mean, maybe it's not over 50% of the population, but there are plenty of. Plenty of examples of people who looked and they found the right person. Are you going to tell me that? Would you like to tell me that? There are many examples. You've seen it yourself. Many of you are the example where the correct mate, which you wisely and with your good judgment and your free will, you chose that good mate and because of your good choice, things are better for you. How many? Raise your hand if you're in that category. You were. You wisely picked the right mate and it totally worked out for you. Go. How many of you? So, and there. And therefore would be a good technique, right? Yeah. All right. Does anybody see what's wrong with your analysis? Do I have to be the first one to tell you? You see what's wrong with the analysis? All right, you take a million people and you randomly pair them with each other, just randomly. Would some of them have happy marriages just randomly paired? What do you say? Of course they would. Of course they would. Yeah. Suppose you had AI match people. Would you know if you had a million of them, would some of them have amazing marriages? I think so. I think so, yeah. Does that indicate that you can choose the right mate? Because lots of people have done it. Alexa, cancel. I don't know what that was all about, but. So would you say that. The evidence is there are plenty of examples of people who consciously. And this is the important part, they were Consciously looking for a good mate. They found one. They lived their whole life happy that they found one. And that's proof that it's a good idea. Would you agree with that statement? It's basically solid. Well, maybe not proof in a scientific sense, but it's very solid, solid evidence. Because you know lots of people, you personally know lots of people who put the effort in, found somebody, and it worked, and it worked their whole life, and they were really happy about it. Right? That's not really thinking what you're doing there. There's no sense of reason or logic to that whatsoever. It's just the law of big numbers. If you have a lot of people doing something, somebody's going to win. That's it. That's the whole story. If a lot of people are doing a thing, some of them are going to get lucky every time. Not sometimes. Every time. So what would you imagine would be the rate of people getting lucky? That would indicate it's luck versus something. That would indicate it's a solid plan. Well, let me give you an example. Another solid plan would be if you wanted a good life, you would stay in the jail, you'd learn some skills, you know, you'd basically stay off drugs, do some things. How often does that keep you from being poor? If you do those few simple things that anybody can do, it's hard, but anybody can do it. And the answer is almost no poor people in that group. If you build skills, go to school, stay in a jail, do the basics, pretty much all of you are successful. What's the success rate for picking a spouse? Now, remember, you're not just counting the people who get divorced. You have to include the people who stayed married but kind of wish they hadn't. So marriage is more of a maybe. I'd say a 25% success rate if you're talking about your whole life. 25%. Does 25% sound like Chance or the result of people who knew exactly what they were doing, they knew exactly what a good mate would look like, and they went out and tried to get one. Does it look like that? Have you ever noticed that people tend to marry the people they work with? What are the odds you met your soulmate at work? It's mostly where people meet people. The thing we know about people is that they can fall in love with whoever's around. Would you agree with that statement? We're not looking for our Soulmate among the 8 billion people on Earth, we easily fall in love with whoever's nearby. Just proximity seems to be enough so how many of the people who just fell in love because they happened to be in the proximity of another person who was willing to say yes? How many of them are a good match? It would be kind of weird if they were. So I would say that 25% success rate of picking the right mate and making it last a lifetime could be a little more, could be a little less. It's definitely not over 50%. So what kind of advice is it to give somebody advice that could not work more than half the time? Is that solid advice, advice that will not work at least half of the time? I would call that bad advice because you do not have a mechanism or the capability to pick a good mate. Now, I suppose there's some really super obvious stuff like, you know, somebody who's been in and out of jail their entire life and has no intention of stopping crime, I wouldn't marry that person. Right. But I don't think that's what anybody's talking about. I think most people are looking at average looking people and saying, I think that's my person. I think that's the one that will work. But it's not because they're so smart or they knew how to pick a good person. Yeah, no. I think it's pure magical thinking that you can pick the right person. That said, you should try as hard as you can to pick the right person. I'm just saying it's magical thinking to think that's some kind of formula for success. It's not something you should try to do, but you really don't know how to do it. Nobody does, because it's mostly luck. All right, there's yet another announcement about AI movies. And now this Gen 2. I don't know if it's hey Gen or Gen 2 or whatever it is, but there is some new AI that can make movies make an entire movie just from some prompts. Here's my prediction about movies made by AI. Do you know why I don't watch television right now? Besides the fact the content is bad? It's because there are so many streaming services and each one takes a lot of effort to make it work on any given day. Like, I've got streaming services that work on some devices but not others. Oh, I could probably fix that, but sometimes I just want to watch a show, so I'll just go to the other streaming device. So I've got all these streaming devices and as I've said many times, instead of watching content, which is what I used to do, now I just look for Content. And I'm sure that there's something better I haven't found yet. And then I never watch any content. So the amount of content made watching content impractical. Would you agree? You understand what I'm saying, right? It's like going to the Cheesecake Factory and They've got the 50 page menu and you're sitting there with somebody who's not good at making decisions about food. It's don't go to the Cheesecake Factory doordash. Do not go there with somebody who's not good with decisions. You're going to be there a long time. Would you like to see my impression of going to the Cheesecake Factory vegetarian page? All right, so you fish vegetarian. I'll do same thing I did last time. Good. And decision made. And here's me for the rest of the 15 minutes. That's me eating at the Cheesecake Factory with anybody. So where was I going on that? Oh, AI movies. I think when AI can make movies, everybody's going to make an AI movie. Would you agree? The moment you can make a movie just by typing in some text, there's going to be so many AI movies, how are you ever going to watch anything? Do you think any of these AI movies are going to be good? Probably not. I mean, it's based on human patterns and only one out of a thousand movies are good. So it's not going to be better than one in a thousand. But you know what's going to be different? There will be a billion of them, right? When you go to look for a movie, there will be a billion. A billion movies, like actually a billion. And how many of those will be good? Maybe none. Maybe one in a thousand. How long are you going to look for the good one? How much time are you going to spend looking for the good one? Now here's even like a deeper, a deeper analysis of this. Years ago I made the mistake of trying to become a script writer for movies. So I was going to make a Dilber movie. And I, you know, read some books and studied up on the structure of scripts. Unfortunately, that process ruined movies for me forever. Because once you know how a script has to be written in order to make it onto the screen, you realize it's a formula. And if you don't use the formula, you're not going to get it made. Nobody's going to fund it because they need the formula. That's what works. But once you see the formula and you're like, oh, it's a three act play, I get It. This is the first act we have to go through. Somebody got hurt, Something bad happened. All right, then third act. And then you know that the B plot interferes with the A plot. You know that anything you see that's called out in the first act has to be important in the last act, or else they wouldn't call it out in the first act. And once you see the whole process and the structure, it doesn't look like art anymore. And when it stops looking like art, it loses all of its punch. So I would say that. And other people have had the same experience. I've talked to them. The moment you can see the gears, you lose all your love of the movies. I don't know how people make movies. Make movies and watch them because they just should know too much. Maybe they watch them for a different reason, to see how well they're made or something. I know. But once there are tons of AI Movies and they're all using the same formulas that humans use, and there's billions of them, I think this will destroy movies as an art form. I just don't think movies will be a thing. Reels might be a thing, but not movies. And of course, when I say that, it's more like radio. You know, radio lasted forever, even though television was supposed to get rid of it. So there will be probably some AI Movies and other movies, but movies as a major cultural phenomenon should shrink to a niche. All right, Democrats really don't like free speech. Everybody says it, but when you see these numbers, it's shocking. So Pew Research, or the Pew Group, or whoever they are, found that Democrats and Democrat leading Independents are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to support the US Government taking steps to restrict false information? Now, this isn't just free speech. It's specifically about false information. So 70% of Democrats and leaning Democrats think the government should restrict what is, in their opinion, false information. And 39% of Republicans say the same. So before any of you Republicans get all feeling good about yourself, 39% of Republicans think the government should restrict bad information. Really? How did we get to this place? You see, the problem is that this requires somebody to know what information is good. As soon as you say somebody's going to be the judge of what good information is and what's bad information, you're dead. You are so dead. If you let somebody decide for you what's true, you cannot live in that world. That is the end. That's the end of the Republic. How do 70% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans not know that allowing the government to tell you what's true would be the end of the Republic. How do they not know that? What's going wrong here, and my best guess is, at least with the Democrats, is that they've been so propagandized that Republicans are putting out bad information that they can't see that their own information is bad as well. Is that what's happening? Would you say that the propaganda makes them think that the only bad information is coming from their enemies? They don't understand that the bad information is coming from inside the House and they still don't know it. Even after the pandemic. Think about that. Even after the pandemic, when we've learned almost everything the government told us was a known lie. They weren't just wrong, they knew they were lying. And yet the Democrats, 70% of them somehow are not influenced by the fact that, that we know the government lied to us massively, not only about that, but everything from the laptop to, you name it, and that doesn't have an influence. 70% of the Democrat leaders and Democrats are not influenced by recent events. They still want somebody to tell them what's true, or more importantly, to tell the other side what's true. Here's my take on this. I think this is bullshit. I think that it's just a team play response. I think that when people answered the question they were answering as Democrats, well, I would like my enemies not to talk as much. I think that's what it is. But if you ask them, if you. I think if you took any of these 70% and sat them down and said what I just said, just the two of you talking, not a poll, say, all right, you know that both sides are put out bad information. Well, yes, that's true. And you know that if somebody in particular is in charge of telling you what's true, you know that you're in big trouble, right? Yeah, that's true. I mean, I don't think anybody actually holds this opinion. Isn't that weird? People are giving opinions they don't hold because they think you probably have a strategic benefit. I think so. I think people are just asking, Answering what would be a philosophical question. I think they're answering it strategically, partly what's happening. All right, but is it more than just false information? Wouldn't you say that there's also a suppression by the left of opinion? Don't you think that it's more than just what's true or what's false, but that opinion is also being Suppressed, you know, stuff that's clearly opinion because some of the opinion is about what's true and what's not true. So you end up blocking opinion when you try to black block fact. All right, now it might be just because there's so many Democrats who are unable to speak in coherent sentences. You got your Kamala Harris, your Joe Biden, your Fetterman, your Senator Feinstein, Feinstein who actually can't communicate anymore. But now we can add to that Mitch McConnell. If you saw Mitch McConnell's tragic press announcement and he stood there and actually couldn't speak, and he looked like he was having some kind of an event in his head, apparently he can speak because he did come back, but he's in bad shape. So by my count, that is five major members of our government who can't form sentences. Is that right? Tell me I'm wrong. There are four elected people who are really prominent. These are not minor people. These are prominent politicians. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Fetterman, Feinstein, and now Mitch McConnell. How is this okay? How is this okay? I mean, really, there's nobody who can tell Mitch McConnell its time. I'm pretty disappointed in Republicans. You know, let me just say this. If you're a Republican or a conservative, and you've been saying that Joe Biden needs to step down because of age, but you're not saying it about Mitch McConnell, then we can't take you seriously. You're not a real serious person. Both of them need to step down, like really soon. Yeah, Grassley actually is. Weirdly, Grassley seems pretty capable, doesn't he? Relatively speaking. But, you know, like you said, he's close. So. Yeah, I mean, the, the team play here is just disgusting because none of these people would be in power if people were trying to pick good people, right? So picking a good mate is like picking a good politician. You have every good intention of doing it. But then, you know, there are reasons. There are reasons why you got to pick these bad ones. We're going to use those reasons. Speaking of bad ones, Adam Schiff was. Adam Schiff is so entertaining because he. I don't know what's in his head, but it seems that he must be aware that he can say anything and the news won't check him on his side. You know, only the Republicans will fact check him and nobody. He doesn't care about them because his base and his voters will never see it. So he said the Republican desire to impeach someone, anyone, no matter if there's any evidence, just shows how they have descended into chaos. Right. So the Republicans are crazy because they want to impeach the person who's in charge of the border, who's just letting everybody in. That's crazy. It's crazy to want to impeach somebody who's just not doing the job on a vital thing. And of course, the Biden stuff is just beyond the pale at this point. So at the same time, there might be a Trump indictment today. Is there been any news yet on a Trump indictment? Don't they usually happen in the morning? Can we say there will be no Trump indictment today? Am I wrong that they always happen in the morning or is that just me imagining it? Maybe I'm imagining that. All right, but we'll keep waiting. That. So I tweeted because I thought it was funny that the News today has UFOs and a possible Trump indictment. That's got to tell you that Hunter's in trouble. But then somebody pointed out to ruin my fun that the UFOs are. That's all the Republican process. So the Republicans are not trying to cover up any Hunter stories. But it is funny that we get these two flashy stories at the same time. Hunter. Hunter's in trouble. Coincidence. Anyway, you all heard by now that Hunter lost his sweetheart plea deal. Now, I'm no lawyer, so I'm going to give you the idiot's version of what I understand about this. So Hunter had this sweetheart deal worked out in which he would plead guilty to some minority stuff among a large bag of potential stuff that could have been even worse. Now, that's unusual. Normally you would plead guilty to. Well, let me take another tact on this. So the idea was, at least these smart people are saying that. It seems to have been crafted explicitly to get Hunter off, but more importantly, to prevent anybody from ever finding out more information. And the way they would do that is have a deal in which there's no trial, so you don't have the discovery of the trial. But moreover, if the press asked questions, they would still be able to say the investigations are ongoing. So somehow they were going to say we've made a deal and all the investigations are closed, while also saying they're still open. So we can't talk about was some weird situation that was ridiculous on its surface and was really transparent even to the judge who overturned it because it seemed obvious this was so non standard. It could only be put together for the purpose of protecting Hunter, could not have been done in any reasonable person's opinion for any kind of justice or you know, normal process that another person would go through. So here's my big question. Is this going to unravel everything? Will everything become to light now? Because if Hunter can be prosecuted, doesn't that open up the. The ability to investigate everything related to it, which would necessarily include the entire Biden criminal family organization? And by the way, I have no problem saying it's a Biden crime family, because I think the evidence in the news is now overwhelming. It seems to me that the 20 shell companies and the six banks and all that stuff, you could do away with all the alleged audio tapes. Let's say we never hear any of these alleged Ukrainian audio tapes. I don't think we ever will. You can say that all the documents like that, 1023, you could say those are all fake. But all you need is to know that a huge amount of money flowed from other countries into a labyrinth of shell companies and banks that has no purpose other than to hide your activity. That's the whole story. You don't need any documentation. All you have to do is show this flow of money and the structure it flowed into and then where it ended up. Now, we do have direct witnesses, right? We've got the Devon Archer, etc. Tony Bobulinski, so we have direct eyewitnesses under oath. And we've got the bank records and the money and where it went. Now, although I would. Yeah, you make a good point. I always say people are innocent until proven guilty. But if I watch somebody shoot somebody in my living room with my own eyes and I'm standing right next to them, I'm not going to say that that person is innocent. You know, I don't need the court to validate it because I can observe it directly. This is one of those cases where you can observe it directly because Hunter's defense has offered no explanation for why you would have all these shell companies and banks and even what they did for the money, what was the product they gave for the money. Without that, I would say this is as obvious as watching somebody murder somebody right in front of you. And that would be a real. It's a very rare exception to innocent until proven guilty. Now, somebody who definitely should be innocent until proven guilty would be Andrew Tate, because we don't really know anything about that, do we? We know these allegations, but nothing really sounds right about any of it. It's Romania. You don't know if there's corruption. So Andrew Tate is the perfect example of innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the truth is. Whereas this Hunter situation was so well understood that I think you can go beyond the court opinion to have your own opinion about it. Now, I would say that's different than the Trump boxes because the Trump box case really relies on a lot of legal theory and who did what exactly when. And I would say that's innocent until proven guilty. I mean, it looks like maybe there were some technical violations that nobody should care about, but. Yeah, anyway, so we'll see what comes to that. But it does look like, I would say there's no chance of Joe Biden being the next president. Do you think there's any chance of that now? Because I think the evidence that we have already would guarantee he can't win against any Republican who's sane. And you're going to have strong Republicans going into the race. Whoever it is, it looks like Trump at the moment. But no matter who it is, any of the top four is going to just destroy Biden. I mean, all you have to do, imagine a debate. Imagine a debate in which Trump or somebody says, look, we've discovered 20 shell companies, six banks, and whatever the number is, $17 million that flowed into the family, and no explanation of what services were provided for that and no explanation of why you needed to hide that money. Now, ladies and gentlemen of America, I submit to you that if they offered a defense, you should consider it. They've not offered a defense, and the facts are no longer under dispute. Look with your own eyes. See it with your own eyes. This is the swamp. This is what I'm trying to get rid of. And I'm trying to get rid of the head of the swamp first. Let me take the head of the snake, and we'll worry about the rest of the snake when I get elected. But I think all of you can see what I see. Although I agree that people are innocent until proven guilty, there is no other explanation for this money flowing from other countries and from the countries that were exactly the portfolios that Biden was controlling in terms of policy. So let's not get caught up into the legal details. You can all see the stuff that nobody's arguing about. You can all see for yourself. It's been proven. We have the documents. The money flowed from other countries. There was no product or service provided. This is the swamp. This is what you need to get rid of. Everybody wins in that case. Now, I believe that the Democrats are unwilling to rig the election for Biden even if they could, and there's no evidence that they ever did. But if they could, hypothetically, I don't think they would because I think they don't want him to run. It's too much trouble. So even cnn, you know, is starting to run some anti Biden commentary. All right. So, yeah, I think, I think Biden's done. That's my prediction. My prediction is that Biden can't win. So I'm going to go with doesn't matter who does win. It matters. But that's not part of the prediction. Prediction is Biden will not be president. Whether he gets, whether he gets the primary or not, he doesn't have, I'd say, any chance of winning at this point. This will be a good test. Have you heard anybody else say that Biden can't win based on the Hunter stuff? Especially has anybody in the pundit space said, because I think most people are still on the page, the Democrats are thinking he can win and Republicans are thinking he can win because something will happen with the election. Right. Or the Democrats don't care if he's sentient or not. Right. So I don't know how many people have predicted this, if any. I haven't heard it from anybody. But I'm going to say there isn't any chance he can be president again. So between his health and the Hunter stuff and the fact that the Democrats don't want to put up with it again, and even CNN started to change his tune a little bit on the reporting. Yeah. Now, remember, you're saying that the cheating can make him president. I'm saying that they wouldn't cheat in this case because they don't want him to be president. So if there were going to be cheating, it would make far more sense to put in a better candidate ahead of time so you don't have to cheat. See where I'm going. If you imagine there's such a thing as some Democrat conspiracy to cheat, they would be pretty well organized. Would you agree? If that existed, and there's no evidence of it, but if it existed, they'd be well organized. But they would certainly be well organized enough to make sure they were not in that position, to make sure that Biden was not running. And I think they could make that happen. They? The imaginary people in charge. So that's all just imagining that such people exist. Maybe they do, maybe don't. I don't know. All right. How bad should we be about this? I think we found something we can all come together on, and that's rare. The left, the right, black, white, lgbtq. There's one thing we can come together as. I think we can come together as nation and universally condemn those things that nobody ever said. Can we agree? Would you join with me to condemn the terrible things that nobody's ever said? For example, nobody's ever said that slaves had a good deal. Nobody ever said that slaves were benefiting by those, you know, in a way that made slavery sort of a good deal by having skills. Nobody's ever thought it. Nobody's ever said it. But the entire country is deciding to argue over it. The thing that nobody said and nobody believes. Am I wrong about that? Nobody said it, nobody believes it. And we're having a big argument about it. The thing that nobody said and nobody believes. So that's happening. But at least we can come together on condemning the things that never happened and nobody ever said. And the funniest part about that story, it's, you know, the topic is history teaching in Florida and whether it should say that the slaves were acquiring skills that had some benefit to them later on. And it turns out that the people who are really mad about the DeSantis Plan for history lessons want to replace it with a more generic one that they're happy with. Do you know what the difference is between the generic one that the unhappy people would like to replace and the one that DeSantis wants? Do you know what the difference is on this question? None. It says the same thing. Same thing that slaves learn skills which they could take with them later, both during slavery and after, and it would be better to have a skill than not to have a skill. They both say that not only is the entire debate about something that nobody said, nobody said the part that the slaves had a good deal. Everybody said the part that they learn skills. And everybody agrees that learning skills is better than not learning skills. So this is like a double, triple absurdity situation. This is summer squared stories that aren't real. But we have something to talk about. All right, I would like to give you the best part of my presentation today, which is how to deal with the Republicans, mostly the Biden camp, who are calling Republicans extreme maga. Does it seem to you they're getting some traction on this extreme MAGA situation? Does it feel like it's working? Because it feels like other people are picking it up. But I'm going to teach you a persuasion trick for removing extreme MAGA from the attack. You ready? Now, it's not much different from other techniques. You'll recognize the technique as an embrace and amplify, but I'm tweaking embrace and amplify a little bit, because embrace and Amplify means you just embrace somebody's dumb ass idea and then you pretend you agree with it. And the pretending you agree surfaces. All the problem with the idea, this is a little bit different, but it's a close cousin to that. All right, imagine a video skit. So it would be a viral video using actors, right? The actors are a couple of very Republican, ordinary looking people, just like the most ordinary Republicans you could have. But let's say they're a little bit overweight, just so you can imagine this going to draw you a picture in your head. They're a little bit overweight. They're very middle class. So you see them in their living room sitting on the couch. Maybe mom is knitting or something. And dad's there with a man's beer, not a Bud Light. And they're watching the news and you hear Joe Biden say something about extreme, mega, extreme, mega, extreme, mega. And you see the two looking at each other and they're like, well, we're regular maga. Was that an upgrade? Is that like a promotion? Like, I'd like to be more extreme. And so you see the two people trying to figure out how they can get to extreme. And so they talk to their friends. It all happens really quickly because it's like a quick video. They talk to their friends and they're like, we'd like to be more extreme. And they're like, well, you could wear this, you know, this hat that has embossed lettering on it and they're like, is that extreme? Well, compared to the regular hat that has no embossed lettering, that's way more extreme. So you would do like little skits of regular Republicans trying to become or get upgraded to the excitement of being an extreme maga. But they can't figure out what is included, so they're trying to figure out how to do it. What's the process? How do I get to be more extreme? And of course, the point of it is it's a ridiculous concept. There's no such thing as an extreme maga. It's all made up. So you want to embrace it so that you can mock it. That's different than embrace and amplify. Because when you embrace and amplify, the mocking is sort of embedded in your actions, but you're not actively mocking it. You're pretending like you're just playing it straight. In this case, you would be actively mocking it, but you're embracing it before you actively mock it. So close cousin of embrace and amplify. Now, in my opinion, the Silliness of Extreme Maga. You could immediately take it from Extreme Maga. Sounds like racist, right? Crazy racists. But you can make Extreme Maga just seem silly and cute and ridiculous just by having more attention to the counter point. What do you think? Would it work? Lots of videos of the Extreme Maggot. And then you also get. You'd also want your Republicans to make fun of it. Can you imagine Vivek or somebody who's got a personality saying, you know, are you extreme mega? Do you agree with this? Extreme Mega? There's an extreme mega. Wow. Is there any kind of a sign up for that or is it more of a self identification? How do I become more extreme mega? You know, just. And just, just mock the thing by smiling, laughing at it. You know, I don't think I'm extreme mega enough. I'm gonna, you know. Or how about this? All right, here's another idea. You show somebody with a Make America Great Again hat on, you know, the red hat. And then they're trying to figure out how to become extreme. And then one of them has an idea and they turn the hat around backwards and everybody's like, I think you did it. That's like crazy. Oh my God. My God, could we do that too? How did you do that? And then they're all like. And they turn their hats around and they're like. And suddenly they're all excited. We've done it. We've done it. And they go to have a drink, but it's only Bud Light. They're like, it'd be hilarious. You should make 50 of these. We should use that AI. That's what you do. Since now we've been told, and I'm sure it's true because people said so, that you can just write text to create a whole movie. So you can just write some text to create this little play of the MAGA people trying to be extreme Mega. And it'll be totally watchable because AI made it, right? No, it won't. If you want to show yourself that AI can't make a movie, no matter how many posts you see about it, at least now it can't make a movie. Try to do that. Try to do just that little short film, a two minute clip with a very clear message and see you tell your AI to make that and watch how much you don't want to watch it when it's done. But humans could make the hell out of that. AI can't do that. Yeah, you need humans editing, period. Because the, the machine can't tell what's working and what isn't. That's a human job. Make your bed. What would be the funniest thing a MAGA person could do? That in the humorous world would look extreme, but would be silly. Now, I was also imagining what would be extreme MAGA sporting events. You know, if you had like. Because extreme MAGA sounds like extreme sports. So I was imagining. Suppose all the extreme magas had some kind of Olympics just for extreme magas. What. What events would be there? And I thought, you know, the. The real Olympics already has the skiing and shooting. I have this feeling that a Republican Extreme MAGA events would just be regular sports, but also shooting. So it'd be like tennis, but you could shoot. You could hit the ball, or you could shoot it in the air. It'd be like basketball, but instead of playing defense, you could just shoot the ball when it's in the air. So I think you just take regular sports and you add shooting. You got your extreme MAGA games. Extreme mega. We've got basketball with shooting. We've got soccer with shooting. We've got curling with shooting. That's. That's it all right here. We've got racing with shooting. We've got lawn darts. Well, the lawn darts stand alone. That's the only one with no shooting. We've just got lawn darts. But you can fire them at each other. It's more. It's less target practice and more team against team. Cornhole. It's cornhole, but with shooting and no Bud Light. Yeah, maybe it's mowing your lawn and not drinking a Bud Light. I've been mowing. I'm so thirsty. Yeah, that would be the competition. You have to mow your lawn on a hot day, and there has to be a cold Bud Light sitting in front of you, and you see who can go the longest without taking a sip of the Bud Light. You have to just keep mowing in the sun, and you can't use sunscreen. You're just getting redder and redder. Like, Whoever can last the longest wins that competition. Yeah, the mowing and resisting the Bud Light would be a good extreme mega. What else? What would be extreme Chess boxing. Chess boxing. That's more mocking Republicans. You can kind of see a chessboard and then two Republicans wearing boxing gloves, and they don't know the rules of the chess game, so they just punch each other instead. That would be pretty funny. Nascar Wiz shooting. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I think I've done what I need to do, and we've accomplished everything except getting the locals platform to work. So I guess I'll work on that when I'm done. The wet T shirt contest. This episode. Men. Cornhole with Grenades. Now you're talking. Jousting with baguettes. Okay, Yeah. Sinead O'Connor passed away. I didn't hear of what? Chess. Boxing is a thing. Is it real? The wife. All right, competitive. Get off my lawn. Get off my porch. All right, I think we've done it. Thank you for joining and I will see you tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen. And if you are a member of the local subscription service, I will probably see you tonight. But I don't know how many are listening here. Bye for now.