Episode 2234 Scott Adams: All Of The News Turned Funny Lately. Come Enjoy It

Ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba la da da. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And I don't think there's been a nicer, better, sexier time than this, but amazingly, you could take it to another level. Yeah, yeah. There's another level after this, and all you need to reach that extra level is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank and shells of stye and a canteen jug of flas. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Go. Well, there was a gentleman with a Ukrainian flag in his bio who wanted to mock me by saying, scott. So, Scott, what happened to Dilbert? So what happened to Dilbert? Totally got me. Well, for those of you who don't know, Dilbert does run by subscription, both on the X platform. Hit the subscribe button. Or on the locals platform if you want your politics and your comics as well. But I want to read you today's comic because apparently this was missed by the Ukrainian flag gentleman. And you can see that starts with Dilbert just talking to. Dilbert's just talking to his boss there. And he just says, boss says, dilbert, I'm transferring you to our chemtrails secret project. And Dilber says, chemtrails are real. And the boss says, all conspiracy theories are real. And Dilber says, what? And then Dilbert follows the boss down the hallway because he's wondering what's going on. He says, was the moon landing faked? And the boss says, let me answer that. Answer your question with a question. He opens the door. He shows a scene of a lunar landing. He says, ever wonder why we have a conference room that looks like a lunar landscape? And Dilber says, stop it. My head is going to explode. And the final panel. The boss is looking at his phone. He says, michelle Obama keeps sending me dick pics, and his head explodes. So that's what you're missing. Now, the question you might ask yourself is, would that have run in newspapers? Scott, if you were still in newspapers, would they have said, that looks good, we'll run that comic? Probably not. Probably not. So that's what you're missing, Mr. Ukrainian Flag. If you'd like to know where it went, it improved. That's why I charge for it. If I still wrote the crappy comic you saw in the newspaper, it would be free. But if you want the good stuff? Anyway, here's the news. China has developed a tractor beam where they can move things at a distance, especially in space. They actually built a tractor beam. They don't call it that. They call it something else, but some kind of plasma magnetic thing where they could potentially move a satellite around in space. Now, apparently, it only works from, like, a mile away, but it could work from further and especially if it's in space. So are you worried about the Chinese tractor beam? I would say it's a little bit too early to worry about the tractor beam, but wouldn't it be great if both sides had a tractor beam and you went to war and you'd be like. And you take your gun, all of a sudden, you fly out of your hands up to space. You're like, damn it. Damn it. You grab your hand grenade, you throw your hand grenade. It gets about halfway there, and then it goes up into space. Yeah, the tractor beam would make all wars more fun. You'd just be, like, shooting at people, and your bullets would go right up to space. Everybody would live. You could have an entire war where there are no injuries. All your weapons would just go up into space. The tractor people would get them. Because I don't think it works on people. It only works on magnetic things. So you'd probably have to fight with clubs and fire and stuff, but that'd be fun. All right, my theme for today is. Let me explain how humor works and how it applies to the news. If I'm going to write a joke about a real thing in life that you've all experienced, if the only thing I do is describe it exactly as it really is, it's not very funny. It's just a description. But if you exaggerate a little bit, well, it's still not really funny. It's just an exaggeration. But if you exaggerate more until it's, like, really crazy, almost, you're almost there. It's not quite humor, but you're almost there. If you really, really exaggerate it. So it's so ridiculous. Your brain just has a. Has like a hiccup when it looks at it because it's so stupid. That's a joke. The news, by its natural just existence and the way it's designed, has now progressed from, oh, that's a. That's an unusual news story that's seems slightly heightened, a little bit exaggerated from what I was expecting. A little bit more than I expected. And then it went to, whoa, that's certainly surprising. But wow. Wow. I guess that really happened. That's surprising. And then it went to, did that really happen? I feel like maybe that didn't really happen. But you're not quite laughing yet. You're just confused. It's like, really, really. Did the president actually said, drink bleach? Really? And you're wondering, like, what's going on here? You're just sort of confused. But if you just wait, if you would just be patient for a while. People, people, if you would just be patient, the news would accommodate you by going so far into absurdity that you could no longer miss that it was all a joke. We're there, we're there. All the news is just absurd now. It's all funny. Like, it could be tragic at the same time. Don't get me wrong, real people are dying. Real people are suffering. But that was happening anyway. The way the news covers it doesn't make it better or worse. But I'll tell you one thing. If things are going to be bad, we might as well have a good laugh about it. And today we can say, I'm calling it. There's no difference between the news and humor. No difference. You don't believe me? Well, let's look at some stories. Let's see, who did the Democrats put up for their best? The best Democrats that we have. Well, there's one that's decomposing before he's dead. Yeah, he's actually decomposing now. A lot of people will wait. He's also got the rigor mortis. It started already. Have you ever seen Biden Walk? Yeah, he's got the rigor mortis walk. If you haven't seen it looks like this. Let me show you a normal walk. You want to see that again? Normal walk. And now the rigor mortis walk. See, see, those are different. Normal walk. Rigor mortis. Already set again, like that. Yeah. So the Democrats, knowing that the future of the planet depends on the. The leader of the United States to a large degree because of nuclear weapons and size of the economy, et cetera. So they decided that the way to protect humanity was to put forward as their champion somebody who started decomposing before he actually is technically dead. Now, does that sound like actual news or does that sound like a joke? It sounds like a joke, doesn't it? If you were to turn on Idiocracy or some movie that is clearly meant to be a joke, would this be beyond that level of absurdity? No, it would not. It would not be below the level of absurdity that we routinely consider Humorous exaggeration, but at least we have a capable vice president to back up Biden. Oh, no. We actually have the only vice president that nobody would want to even entertain at a child's birthday party because they feel it would embarrass them. Is that too far? No. Kamala Harris looks like she would be embarrassing in every situation. She said no successes. And she's probably drunk. I don't know that. So I can't say that for sure. I can say for sure that she acts like somebody who's drunk in public or inebriated in some fashion. Yeah. So we have somebody who, whether or not she is or not, seems indistinguishable from a sloppy drunk and somebody who is indistinguishable from somebody who's been dead for six days. Basically the same. And that's who the Democrats are running to protect the world. But at least the Republicans are doing a serious job. Right. So we've got the only. The oldest Republican we could find and the only one who's been impeached three times. And half of the country thinks he's Hiller. So that's what the Republicans have decided. That's their champion. But at least the Republicans are playing it for the right purpose. A lot of people were like, hey, let's get a president who's got good policies and stuff. I think Trump actually has good policies, but that's not really why he has so much support at the moment. Let me just say it. It's about revenge. It's about revenge. Trump says it directly, and it's exactly what you're thinking. If you're a Trump supporter, you are thinking revenge because you feel you've been abused badly for years. It's payback. Yeah. And the fact that you don't have to hide it is hilarious. Just think of the absurdity that we can say out loud that you support a candidate for revenge and that you can say that non ironically, non exaggeratingly. It's just a fact. It's a revenge vote. Boy, do I want revenge. Oh, my God, do I want revenge. I'd love to tell you. I don't. You know, I'd love to. I'd love to tell you. I'm so far above that. Oh, my God. No, no, we don't want any revenge. But you're dealing with seriously broken and bad people who are in charge of things. And I'm not sure I would call it revenge as much as I'd call it some form of justice. But if you want to call It Revenge. I'm happy with that as well. So that's just the baseline. The baseline is who we've decided to run for president. A pre dead guy, a drunken woman, or at least one who looks drunk. And the revenge guy. The revenge guy. So that'll be our contest. Does any of this sound like we're a serious country? Does it sound like we're even trying anymore? No, we're not trying. Nobody's trying. It's just all funny now. We can't tell the difference between what makes sense and what is just a joke. Parody and reality have completely merged. There's no difference. All right, I've said this before, but if you're not already acting this way, I really recommend it. When you see the. This is sort of a reframe. It wasn't too long ago some troll would come into my mentions on the X platform and say something evil and bad about me and I'd feel, oh, like I have to reply to this. Like, this is a person with an opinion that does not match my own. I must reply. But now I have good pattern recognition, or at least I think I do. Everybody thinks they do. Dunning Kruger. But my pattern recognition has finally created a shortcut. If I see a Ukrainian flag in the bio, you can really ignore everything they say. And I'm not trying to be personal about it. This is a statement about brainwashing. It's not a statement about the individuals. The individuals I see as purely victims. They have no idea that putting the Ukraine flag in their bio is basically telling us they're fascists. Am I wrong? The Ukraine war is largely for corporate interests. We all know that. Right? And what do you call it when the government and the corporations collude so that you can't tell the difference between the government and the big corporations? That's fascism by definition. That's specifically what it means. It's not like a general statement about you guys are bad. So we're using the word that sounds bad. No, it's by definition, specifically the big corporations and the government operating as one. So that's what Ukraine is. So the people putting their little Ukraine flag on there are coming onto X to call the Republicans, who are not so keen on having a war there, that they're the fascists. Now is that funny or what? It's funny that they're so brainwashed they don't know that they're the baddies. They actually don't know that they that they've been brainwashed by the worst people on earth to be to. To imagine that they're the anti fascists. I mean, that's. That's beyond just politics. That's into sort of funny. And what I mean is, when I see their little flag, how do you take anything they say seriously? Because they're operating under a complete brainwashing model. It's just total brainwashing. Now, I would argue also that the ones who put their pronouns there should be discounted for similar reasons, maybe a little different. But anybody with the pronouns there is going to go along with the crowd. Would you agree? Putting your pronouns in your profile says, I support whatever you tell me to support, and I'm going to really support it because I don't want anybody to think I don't support what you told me to support. Right. So that's a sign of a weak mind, in my opinion. I don't mind that people have pronoun preferences. That's a different subject. But if you feel you need to put it in your profile, well, you're signaling a whole different thing. I'm happy to use whatever pronoun anybody asked me to. That's my standard for life. Just in general, why would you like to be called okay, but putting it in your profile, that's a sign of something wrong. There's something wrong going on there. All right? So I just use it as a signal that it's somebody who believes the news is still real. Imagine having a Ukraine flag in your profile and also believing that the news just in general is actually real. That's not funny to you? It's not funny that people actually believe the news is real. It's kind of funny. It used to be frustrating because I'd say, oh, don't you know? How do you not know the news isn't real? But now it's just funny. Like, I see them as victims. We're just like, spinning their wheels and calling me bad names and stuff. Well, we're going to have to talk about Russell Brand. Would you allow that I could make this story all about me? Because that's what we do. The important thing is that when there's a tragedy or bad news happens to anybody, we need to find a way to make it about ourselves. Because, in fact, that's how we judge everything. As funny as it sounds, it's also the only way people think, the only way we evaluate anything is. Is compared to ourselves. So we're always doing it. Just some people say it out loud. All right, let me make it about myself. I am scheduled to be on Russell Brand's podcast To talk about my new book, reframe your brain, the most powerful book in the country right now. And let's take a vote. So most of you have been watching the news. You've seen the accusations. We'll talk about those. Do you think that that podcast is going to happen? Do you think it's just going to be business as usual and you'll just do the podcast? I don't know. We hope so, but we don't know. Yeah, I don't know. I think it depends what his staff does. I think if the staff that supports him still supports them, that it will happen. And if his staff does not support him, then it won't. But we don't know if they're learning anything they didn't know and if it makes any difference to them. Have I ever told you that the news about public figures is complete? The sentence the news about public figures is always. Is always false? Yeah. So if you're looking at the Russell Brand story and you're asking yourself how much of this is true, I could give you the answer without knowing anything about it. It's always out of context. Now, that doesn't mean that any of the individual anecdotes didn't happen. So if you will allow, I'm not going to defend Russell Brand's sex life. Is everybody okay with that? I'm not going to defend Russell Brand's sex life. Like, I can't think of anything I would less want to support. That is none of my business. Right. We definitely care about the law and we would definitely care that there are no victims. That would be your ideal situation. But I'm not going to defend his sex life because he doesn't defend it himself. I mean, beyond. It was completely legal. That's what he's saying. But he's not saying he was a good person. I mean, he sought treatment for sex addiction and that's. Who does that like, who seeks treatment for sex addiction unless you've really got a problem. Would you agree? Because I would say that being a celebrity who could have sex with 80 women a month, which is apparently something he might have claimed once, that doesn't feel like a problem so much as a perfect life for some people. So the fact that he even recognized it as enough of a problem to seek professional help suggests that he's not defending his sex life beyond the fact that it was legal, in his opinion. Now, have I told you about the accusations that I've received from people I have literally never met, literally never met live in other countries yeah, There are people who make very detailed sexual allegations about me on a fairly regular basis who I've never met. Some I have met and then they have stories that are amazing. Yeah. So from my perspective, when I read a story that's very detailed and there's a specific person and maybe they put a name on it and there might even be another person who backs up some part of the story, that sort of thing, none of it is credible to me because I've lived through the other side of it. I know that you can have all kinds of detail from a real person that doesn't mean anything. Now, I'm not saying that these people are lying. I'm saying I don't know. And I'm saying that the context is that news about public figures really never is true in completeness. Elements can be true, but certainly the context would be removed. For example, you're hearing that he had a long term sexual affair with a 16 year old. Do you know how long it takes you to read the article before it gets to the point where 16 is the legal age for sex in the country that he was in? Great Britain, that was legal. Don't you think that saying it's legal should have been somewhere near the top? As in, you know, he's alleged to have done this with a 16 year old and again, just. Just to make sure, make sure everybody's on the same page. I'm not defending him, I'm just describing the situation. He has to defend himself. Nobody else can do that. But I feel like that would be a proper context. Yes, you can have bad feelings about what he did perfectly. That's your opinion. But you need to say it's legal first. That needs to be right at the top. And apparently the indication is that he was checking to make sure that she was really 16. Again, I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that the evidence suggests he was trying hard not to break the law and he knew what the law was for. Whatever, that's worse. I think that just needs to be somewhere in the top of the story. Now there were other women who made accusations that he didn't take no as no. So it's not like he raped them with a gun or a knife. But he's a very big guy and the claims are that he didn't take no and forced himself on some women who felt bad afterwards. Now, do you think that a story like that you can trust by hearing one person's side of it? Not by its nature. Again, you should definitely take serious Any accusations, because they're serious accusations, so you have to take them seriously. I think we'd all agree with that. But when you're trying to decide what's true, just hold it in your mind that you've so far heard one person's narrative. And we know that from watching documentaries, for example, if you see one person's narrative about anything, it's very convincing. Any one person narrative without the other side, very, very persuasive. So you wake up this morning and you see the narrative from one side and you say, well, now I know what happened. Do you? Do you really? I doubt it. And here's another thing that probably nobody would be dumb enough to say except me. Have you ever known anybody who is 6 foot 4 and good looking, like a guy who was also really horny? Do you know how much sex a 6 foot 4 horny single guy has? The stories that I've heard is that basically every woman says yes and you don't even have to necessarily get them home. Like it's in the parking lot, it's in the car. If you're 6 foot 4 and good looking and you're really horny and aggressive, you basically fuck everything that moves. That's been, that's what I hear from people who are in that situation. They can just fuck anything that moves. Now if you were that person, do you think you'd have trouble knowing where the line was? How would you know where the line was? Because let me tell you this as a near certainty. My guess is that some large percentage of those women said no while it was happening. I'll betcha. And they were probably thinking something along the lines of not yet or I don't know you or this isn't the way I wanted to do it. But then when it was over, bragged to their friends that they had sex with Russell Brand. Do you think that's ever happened? Do you think ever There was a woman who was definitely saying no, but when it was over she was like, ah, that was pretty good, I'll brag to my friends about this. Do you think that ever happened? Probably. Almost certainly. Because women are complicated and they change their minds and at any given moment it's hard to read what they want, etc. So under this condition, what are the odds that he went too far? At least once and definitely there was a line there, but he wasn't hearing it as different from the last hundred times. If 100 times in a row a woman said no, but then later she said that was pretty good actually. I'm glad I didn't wait. They wouldn't say that, but let's say it didn't go poorly a hundred times in a row. If you get to 101 and it's really. You really did cross the line, would you know it? Would you necessarily know it while it was happening? Especially if you're on drugs, for example? I don't know if that was the case, but. All right, so I'm not going to defend them because law is the law and the, you know, victims have to be. Have to be taken seriously. But I would like to say that if you think you know anything about what happened, you would be doing a lot of mind reading and making a lot of assumptions that are 100% false all the time, which is that you know what's happening in a celebrity's life. You really don't. So have I. Have I threaded the needle that the credibility of the story has to be considered low, but at the same time, you have to take it seriously, and those are not inconsistent. You can take it deadly serious 100%, while at the same time understanding it's in a class of stories that generally are low credibility. But that doesn't mean you don't take it seriously. I want to say that as many times as I need to. All right, so that's happening. And RFK Jr. Has got a war on plastic. He's going after plastic. Now. I think I've got mixed feelings about this because I do have discomfort with all the plastic in our food supply and water and all that. On the other hand, the way he wants to go after it includes banning fracking and not subsidizing plastic and getting some experts to study it and basically really tightening down on it and looking for alternatives and removing plastic. From our experience, or at least as much as possible, do you think you can even do that? How in the world would you get rid of plastic? This doesn't feel practical. Here's what I would have accepted. Keep doing what you're doing because we need to keep the economy running. But at the same time, maybe you could fund plastic cleanup. Maybe you could fund a plastic study to find out how dangerous it is. Maybe you could fund treatments, if there's any kind of treatment, to remove it from your body. Maybe you could fund alternatives, somebody to invent a safer alternative. Those all make sense. Those all make sense. But going for the fracking before you've got replacements, that feels backwards. I feel you get the replacements first and then maybe get rid of your fracking. If you still want to. You should be following Mike Benz, B E N Z on the X platform. He's got some real gems, especially about intelligence community. And here's one that I like. In 1954, apparently we know now because we know what the CIA did in the past. If you wait long enough, it all comes out. So we know that in 1954 the CIA engineered a coup in Guatemala and the Guatemalan government found out that the CIA had organized a coup. Or maybe they just found out it was a coup. The people involved in the coup sent a recommendation to their handlers and, and the recommendation was in writing. So they actually have this in writing. It was an item on a checklist that said, quote, if possible, fabricate a big human interest story like flying saucers, birth sectuplets and remote areas to take play away. In 1954, an element of our government at least considered doing UFO stories to divert from CIA activities. On September 13th of this year, El Chapo's wife was released from custody. Which probably a lot of you thought, huh? I have many questions about this. Why would El Chapo's wife be released on the same day? Ufo. The headline said UFO expert displays supposed non human alien corpses in Mexico's Congress. So apparently, apparently using UFO stories to divert you from intelligence agency activities feels like that's just a standard op. Let me ask you this. Why is so much fentanyl coming into the United States and why are we doing so little to stop it? Except we do seem to be doing something with China's supplier. It feels like we're doing more in China than we're doing with the cartels. Well, I would say that there's an obvious answer. There must be some powerful force in the United States, maybe Congress, maybe the intelligence community, and therefore Congress has to go along who wants the fentanyl to be coming in exactly the way it is? This can't be seen as an accident or incompetence. Would you agree that we've been watching the fentanyl flow in at such a rate that it cannot be explained by. We want to stop it, but we don't know how. Would you agree? At this point, it's super obvious that whoever controls our government wants the fentanyl to come in. Now people say, oh, it's. That's how the CIA secretly funds itself by supporting the cartels and making some money that way maybe. I know that doesn't sound out of. That would not be out of the ordinary, but I don't know. I don't have any evidence of that so I don't know if it's the intelligence community, but what else could it be? Unless the cartels have direct control of enough members of Congress that they can just force a vote any way they want, which is possible. What else could it be besides the intelligence community wants it to come in? I can't think of any other alternatives because if you're telling me that even Biden couldn't figure out how to stop the flow of fentanyl, I'm pretty sure he could because he has people who work for him. You don't think that there's anybody on border patrol who would know how to stop the fentanyl or at least slow it down? Of course they do. Of course they do. Do you think our military doesn't have snipers? You just put a sniper on the border and take out all of the human traffickers who are letting the people flow across. You just take. Drop them where they stand. There are a million ways to stop the illegal flow of people and the illegal flow of fentanyl. Now. So at this point, don't you say that it's obviously a policy and it must be Democrat led. But you have to wonder why Trump couldn't do anything about it. If Trump couldn't do anything about it, that suggests it's somewhere else in the government. Because I'm pretty sure Trump does not want fentanyl coming into the country. All right, can we all agree that there's no chance, no chance that Trump wants any fentanyl to come into this country? There's no chance. But he couldn't stop it. He didn't even slow it down. That suggests there's somebody more important than the President at any given time who is in control of that issue. Who would be more important? Who would have more control than the President of the United States. In the United States, the deep state and the intelligence groups. I mean, who else could it be? So process of elimination. The simulation is making us laugh. With this interview. ABC News was interviewing Anthony Blinken and Blinken was asked about these new long range missiles the US Is giving to Ukraine. And it says, the question was, are you okay if Ukraine uses those missiles to strike deep into Russia? And Blinken said, and here's the funny part, he said it without blinking. Blinken didn't blink. And he looked like he was in a hostage video. You have to, you have to see it. He looks like he's in a hostage video. He does not look like. That's his opinion because his eyes don't blink and he Looks at the camera and he goes, well, that's the targeting. That would be their decision, not ours. Okay, I may have exaggerated that a little bit, but he looked uncomfortable. And I think he knows that this could start World War 3 or a nuclear war, and I don't think he's happy about it. So what's going on? It doesn't sound like Blinken is on the inside track of people who have any power. I feel like he was just sent out to explain something that can't be explained. We also saw there's some question about Tom Cotton, who came out publicly and said, yes, we have to support Ukraine so that they can win. Win. Tom Cotton. Tom Cotton has been watching the Ukraine, Russia situation and believes. Does he actually believe that they could win? And what would winning look like? But he used that word win as if that were one of our options. I didn't know winning was an option. When did winning become even one of the possibilities? I mean, early on, you could have said, well, anything could happen, but at this point, there isn't any winning. What kind of winning could you have possibly? So I've seen people question his independence, if you know what I mean. And I would question it as well. I would think that there are some big questions that have to be asked here about why that is his opinion. And the thing is that is well understood as a reasonable person, so that it's not tracking. Wait, what? Why would a reasonable person say Ukraine could win if we give them more money? That doesn't sound reasonable. A reasonable person would be saying something like, well, it looks like there's a stalemate. So everybody who dies from this point on is a waste of death. So let's just wrap this up. That would say that's what a rational person would say. So why would Tom Cotton appear to be on the side of something that's irrational? You know what it feels like? It feels like a hostage tape again, like, I feel like. Let me just put that out there. That opinion seemed so opposite of what I'd expect from Tom Cotton that I feel like he was signaling it was under duress. What do you think? It was almost like he's trying to tell us that that's not his real opinion, because going all the way to win just doesn't sound like something that would really come out of his mouth in the real world. It sounds like he's sending us a signal that it's under duress. Right. So both Blinken and Tom Cotton both are acting like people who don't are not on the page, but want you to know it. I swear to God, even Blinken looked like he was signaling. I don't really believe this. Well, it's totally up to the Ukrainians to do the targeting. It's up to them. I mean, seriously. All right, so that was funny, watching them do hostage videos. And so Joy Behar on the View says that the young Republicans are stupid, to use her word. And she even said that Vivek was stupid while mispronouncing his name. And I'd like to see Vivek Ramaswamy take an IQ test at the same time as Joy Behar while we watch. I'll just sit there for half an hour or whatever it takes them to do the test, and then we'll just grade them and then compare. Can you even imagine Joy Behar calling Vivek stupid? Like, isn't that beyond. Now, remember my definition of humor. Is that a small definition? Is that like, a small exaggeration? No. Is it like a really big exaggeration? It's not even that. It's all the way to batshit crazy. So it's just funny. How can you take seriously Joy Behar calling probably the smartest person who's ever run for president who wasn't named Thomas Jefferson, that he's stupid? What part of her brain, that little P in there gets her to that point of view? I would have respected her opinion if she'd said something like this. Well, some of them are very smart, but I worry that they have the wrong motives or they've been brainwashed or they're just part of the team play or something like that, those things would make some sense. But to call the smartest person we've seen in modern times running for president and to say that he's literally stupid compared to the people on the View and their audience is pretty funny. Pretty funny. Could you imagine the View if that ran during the time of the founding of the country? Yeah. Well, George Washington is obviously a warmonger. And Madison and Jefferson, two little idiots. Two fucking stupid people. That would be the view back in 1770. Whatever. All right. I've heard some people say that the video of Representative Boebert having some handsy fun with her date, and in that theater, some are saying that the Democrat that she is seeing, he's a Democrat, they say, a bar owner. And they're saying it must be a setup because he's a Democrat and he did it in public to, you know, sort of embarrass her. Now, I've got some questions. Is it true that men who are Democrat won't do heterosexual stuff unless you pay them? Is that, is that sort of what you're thinking? It's like, all right, we're going to have to get. We're going to have to set up this Representative Boebert, but we're going to need a heterosexual. And they looked around and like, all right, no, no, not a Republican. And somebody says, all right, could we get, you know, maybe we could get Stephen Miller. No, no, you can't have a Republican. No Republicans. We're going to have to get a Democrat. But we need this Democrat to do heterosexual stuff. Like, how are we going to get them to do that? Like money, maybe for money. You know, some, some people, some Democrats will go non gay for money. So they got a Democrat to do some heterosexual stuff on camera to frame her. Come on, this is funny. It's funny that they had to pay a Democrat to act heterosexual. That's just funny. It's not really what happened, but it's funny to think about it. And then here's the other question I asked. Is that what heterosexual man would have to be paid money to want to feel up Bober in a theater? I don't know. Nobody's offering me any money. And if there's any kind of a line, I would get in it. So, you know, I usually don't like to travel, you know, but if it were an option, I would even pay for the ticket. But yeah, I think most heterosexual men would like to take her to the theater. So I don't think it's a setup. All right, what do you call it? There's a political term I'm looking for and I couldn't think of it when I was getting ready for the. There's a political term for this. What do they call it when, let's say if Feinstein either retires or is moved from office and then Alan Schiff or Adam Schiff becomes appointed, what is that called? There's a word for it. If Feinstein retired, like before the end of her term and then Gavin Newsom retired. Now there's a word for it. Oh, I know the word. The word is. It's a lateral move. It's a lateral move. If the one who is brain dead leaves and they put in Adam Schiff. That's called. The political term is a lateral move. See, everything's funny. They're actually looking to replace Feinstein with Adam Schiff. And honest to God, that looks like a lateral move to me. How could it be worse? The only Way it's worse is they found somebody who's brain dead who still talks. They got somebody who's brain dead who doesn't talk so much. So they need a brain dead person who talks. It's like. Well, it feels like an upgrade. All right, Did you see that? You all saw probably the viral video that's not on the news, but all over Twitter of two young men who murdered a guy on a bicycle intentionally. You can see the whole thing developing as they're talking about it in the car and as they target him and kill him. He turned out to be a retired ex police chief. The Las Vegas Review Journal, their headline, the way they described it, was that he was killed in a bike crash. He was killed in a bike crash. They didn't say two young black men targeted him and murdered him, which is actually what happened. But is the fact that they were black important to the story? No, because individuals are infinitely different. As soon as you buy into the narrative that there's like an average black person and you should compare that to the average white person, you're already gone. They already got you. Don't ever buy into the narrative that comparing the average of any two groups gets you anything except cancelled. That's all you're going to get. Rather you should say, there are two individuals that are such horrible people, we would all like to see them murdered in a terrible way. Okay, not all of us, but I would. I'd like to see them get murdered because they're terrible, terrible people. Which has nothing to do with their DNA. But it might have something to do with the way the news is being presented to all of us. That may. That may devalue some people's lives more than others. Some people's lives may be devalued by the news. So that's important to know. But what's not important to know is that there were two terrible people. But the Las Vegas Review Journal is a newspaper. And when they completely hide the news by calling it killed in a bike crash, but yet I'm sure they made a big deal about George Floyd. I don't have to check, of course, course they did. People ask me, scott, how do you feel now that you're no longer associated with the newspaper industry? Well, let me tell you, how would you feel? The newspaper industry just referred to this as somebody killed in a bike crash. How would you feel if you were no longer associated with them? Fucking good. Like really good. Like really, really, really good. I gotta tell you, it was a struggle to have the Washington Post carry My comic, because, you know, I didn't want to make waves. I mean, I was criticizing the Washington Post, you know, pretty vigorously the entire time. So I knew, I knew my time in the Washington Post was limited. I didn't know that they would all cancel me at the same time, but I knew the Washington Post would have to get rid of me. They just needed to do it undercover of everybody else doing it at the same time. But obviously they had to get rid of me. So, yeah, I feel pretty good about not being part of that. I guess. Meet the Press did a interview with Trump that's pre taped. Does that mean we'll see that today? Are we going to see Trump on Meet the Press? Well, here's what Jane Powers writes on X. Jane must be a Democrat. Just guessing. She tweets this, hey, NBC News. And Meet the Press pull the plug on the disastrous Trump interview. If it's pre taped, just don't air it. So in other words, Jane has not seen the interview. Has not seen the interview. But if it's pre taped, it's disastrous and it should be pulled. It is awful. And I guess the new host is named Welker. It is awful, and Welker ought to be ashamed of herself. Boycott Meet the Press. So the Democrats literally don't even want news. They don't want the news to do the news. And they say it kind of directly now that you can't even listen to Trump, that the problem is freedom. Freedom of speech itself. If you have freedom of speech and a free press, those things are considered threatening to the left. Freedom of speech and free press are threats to the left, but they know it. You know, I'll give them credit. They know that if they don't control the media, they lose because the narrative is not going to support the ridiculous things that they're claiming and acting on. Let's see if there are any other situations like that. Let's see, is there any other situation in which Democrats are trying to squelch free speech and the news? Well, there's the Russell Brand situation, which you could say, oh, that's not about that. That's about his behavior. But interestingly, his behavior didn't matter to anybody until he became well known for debunking the mainstream media narrative. But now suddenly his past behavior is very sketchy, and now we've got to do something. So does this look like a normal progression of the legal system, or does it look like an attempt to reduce free speech? Could be both, but at the very least, it would decrease free Speech. What about Tucker Carlson getting fired from Fox? Do you think that was a way to reduce free speech? Of course it was. It may not work out, but that's what it was. What about Assange? Assange in jail? That's about free speech. But Republicans like that, too. Assange is in jail because even Trump thought he should be in jail. So I'm not going to use him. How about the ADL trying to destroy the business model of Twitter now, X because Twitter was going to be a free speech platform. Does that look like somebody's afraid of free speech? Well, the story would be that there's too much hate and anti Semitism, but the data doesn't show that, so it's interesting. There's always a cover story, isn't there? Now, we're not trying to. No, no, no. We're not trying to stop Russell Brand from speaking. He just did some bad sex things we think years ago. That's what we care about. No, no, no. Tucker Carlson is not being removed from the air because he's effective. No, no, it's not about free speech. No, it's because he said some things that were not true about an election, we think, and we got sued and it cost us a lot of money. And that's the reason. Yeah, that's the reason. And what about the gag order on Trump from Smith, the prosecutor? Do you think the gag order on Trump, who is running for president, whose primary, I'd say his strongest focus is the weaponization of the government. So the weaponized government told them to shut up about talking about the weaponized government. Does it sound like they did that strictly for good legal hygiene? Because sometimes you need to ask people not to talk. It's part of the, you know, making sure the process is credible. But do you think that's why they did it? Or do you think they just wanted to limit his free speech because what he would say would be inconvenient for them? What about Representative Boebert? Do you think the problem is that she was vaping and making some noise in the theater? Or do you think maybe she says things that some people don't want to hear? What about Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski? Do you think nobody knew that they were up to something for a long time? Do you think that the reason that now we're looking at it is because, oh, hypocrisy is bad. And is that why we're looking at it now? Nope. It's to shut them the fuck up. How about me? I got canceled by all the Democrats and none of the Republicans. Is it because the thing I said was so awful? Well, the thing I said was awful. It was designed to be awful. But, you know, of course the point of it was to be awful. So of course it was awful. But do you think that's why I got canceled? Do you think that's why? Probably not. Probably if I had been black, I could have said anything I wanted. So we seem to be in a situation in which 100% of the effort on the left is to prevent you from knowing the news. The entire pandemic was an exercise in preventing you from knowing what was true. The Ukraine war is a huge exercise in preventing you from knowing what's true. The fentanyl, whatever fentanyl stuff we're doing is clearly not real in the sense that whatever is the truth, we are prevented from knowing. Whatever is the situation with these fucking UFOs were prevented from knowing. The UFO story is not about getting to the bottom of it. It's literally about fooling you so you don't see the real news. Everything that's happening is an effort to take away your information and your freedom of speech. Everything. It's just that everything can be couched as a different thing and you wouldn't notice until you saw the pattern. If you looked at any one of these stories individually, you'd say, well, leave me alone. Russell Brand did some bad things. That's the whole story. Or if you only saw Tucker, you say, well, it was just a business decision. It was a business decision. Or if you only saw me, you'd say, well, look what he said. I mean, look what he said, obviously. And if you didn't know that it was only Democrats. So I think the pattern is pretty clear. The left seems to be completely aware that if they let the truth get out, they couldn't be in charge. Why does the left create fake fact checkers and pretend that they're real? Because if real ones were there, their whole game would be uncovered. So they have to have fake fact checkers because they're protecting the fake news. Yeah. So 100% of everything that the Democrats are doing is to make sure you don't know what the Democrats are doing. That's the whole game. Now, I don't know that that's exactly the same for the Republicans. I mean, I'm sure that there's a lot of fuckery in the Republican Party. I'm sure there's a lot of bullshit and lying, of course, because it's politics. But I don't really see the Republicans trying to remove free speech and information from you. Have you ever seen a Republican say, I think, well, you know, actually the public says CNN should go out of business, but you don't really think that you'd rather they cover the news. If they're not going to really cover the news, then going out of business is actually the first choice. But it's only because they're not covering the news. Nobody wants CNN to go out of business if they cover the news. That's not even a thing. It's only because they don't cover the news and they aggressively don't cover it. Like they really make sure they don't cover it, if you know what I mean. At least the context that would matter. So what a comment is that GOP fuckery is more about dodging taxes and being able to kill spotted owls for sport. See now that's just a good exaggeration. So you could recognize that for what it is. Yeah. So we've learned that science was a way to launder opinion. Right? Science in 2023 science, at least the science that has an impact on our policy. Not the basic science that's just happening in the lab, that's probably fine. The basic science that's non political, it's probably half right, that's as good as it's ever been. But it's all we got. But any science that has a direct impact on policy is just a way to launder opinion or to launder your money making schemes. And war, of course, is a way to use up your old ammo. So you have to buy new and test out your weapons. Because nobody cares about young men. Especially. Can you imagine what Ukraine would look like if people cared about the lives of young men or men in general? If anybody cared about men, there would be no war in Ukraine. It is basically that it's free for the Ukrainians. The only thing they're spending is mostly young men and they were free. And the money that they're spending is somebody else's. They're spending our money and they're spending the lives of males which are free. So it's a free. Just follow the money. If you're in Ukraine, why would you stop fighting? You don't care about the people who are dying. There aren't that many civilians dying at the moment. That could get worse. But the moment is mostly military people dying, mostly men. Nobody cares. Yeah, that's pretty much the whole story. You could describe Ukraine in one sentence. Nobody cares if men die. If they did, there would Be no conflict at all. All right, So I think we got to the point where we understand that almost everything Democrats do is a diversion from letting you know what's happening. Now, the only way that I would say that the Republicans are similar. There might be some other examples here. I don't want to make it all one sided, but there might be some other. Some examples such as the Republicans talk about debt, but they don't seem too serious about it, if you know what I mean. Like we've never seen a Republican come up with a budget that would reduce the debt. Have they even tried? No, because the thing with the debt is there will always be the person who comes after you that will do worse. As long as the administration that follows you, you know, is going to do worse. And they will, because the debt's out of control. Then you could say, well, look, do you think Obama's bragging because Trump added more to the debt? Of course. Do you think Trump's bragging because Biden added more to the debt? Of course. Of course. Yeah. As long as you can be sure that the next administration will be worse. Spend whatever you want, it's free. You'll always be able to say, well, it was only half as bad as the current guy, so leave me alone. Yeah. So our government has created a situation where they can drive the country into ruin while never making it look like it was their fault. Because there will always be somebody else to blame. By design, we should be going out of business as a country by design, not by accident. It's designed to go out of business at the moment because there's nothing to stop the debt. If we had something in our system that could potentially stop the debt from increasing, then I would say, okay, we've got a plan, but we actually have a design to put us out of business completely. We could change the design, but there's. I see no action. Does anybody see anything that would even remotely change the fact that we're flying out of control in debt? I've never seen anything that would even remotely get to it because my understanding is our economy could never be big enough to pay it back. I don't think there's any scenario where our economy would ever be big enough to pay back the debt or even to reduce the increase in the debt, which would get you the same place. Yeah. So I don't know. Unless we do some radical shift to bitcoin or something. But I don't know. I don't know what the plan is and I don't know how we Even got this far without going out of business. But maybe other countries are worse. All right, ladies and gentlemen, did I miss any stories, or did I make you so depressed you can't stand it? Sometimes I wonder if I'm too happy about things. People don't like it because sometimes you want to be angry or you want somebody to share your anger about what's happening. There's plenty to be angry about. Yeah. We didn't talk about soup beard. Well, what is Jack Smith. Is that the name of the prosecutor? Jack Smith. He's got a beard that looks like it has soup in it, but I don't know. Just me. Oh. So, yes. So in Florida, there was an impeachment against the attorney, impeachment attempt against the Attorney General, Paxton. And he was acquitted on all charges, right? Acquitted on all charges, Yeah. So do you. Do you therefore say that the charges were invalid because he was acquitted by Republicans? I don't know. I'm not ready to say that he did nothing. I just haven't followed the story. I just know that if you get acquitted by your own party, it doesn't really mean what you think it means. Yeah. I have no idea if any of the charges were real, but I do assume that they were trying to remove him for. Because he probably had real data and real information or something. Gaspacho goatee. That's funny. All right. Susanna Gibson. Chatterbait scandal. I don't really care that there was a. We have a politician who was once in sex work. Does anybody care about that? So there's. There's some story that I, you know, barely followed because I don't care. There's some woman who used to do some online, you know, sex work, but now she's. Yeah, it's the same job. I would say that she's very qualified. It doesn't mean anything. Somebody says she's hot, but her performance was lackluster. Well, that would count against her running for public office. I wouldn't want to know. She was bad at it, Right? If you told me she was good at it, I'd say, well, that could be a plus for public office. But if she was bad at being a sex worker online, I'd have to hold that against her. The 19th Amendment has entered the chat. What's the 19th? Remind me, what's the 19th? Women voting. That's funny. All right, I think we've done everything we need to do for today. Have we not? Have we not done everything we need to do? I've got some stuff to tell the locals. People privately after I go private. So, thanks for joining YouTube. Always a pleasure. I'll talk to you soon. Bye for now. See you in the morning.