Episode 2299 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/21/23 Everything Is Going My Way. Probably Coincidence. Or Is it?

Do, do, do, do. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. It's the Thanksgiving week special edition. What makes it special? I don't know. Just feels like it should be. And if you'd like to take this up to a level that nobody could even imagine with their greatest imagination, all you need is a cup or Margaret glass, a tank of chalice and style, and a canteen, jug or 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. End of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now go. Oh, so good. So good. Well, I have a theme for today. The theme for today is everything's going my way now, not necessarily because of anything I've done. It's just a weird day. I wake up and it feels like everything's going my way. Not as fast as you want, but going my way. Well, here's some stories in no particular order. Rasmussen polled people about their confidence in Social Security, and of course, some people said they're confident and some people thought they were not in terms of collecting it when they retire. But I want to see if you can guess roughly within, let's say, two basis points. See if you could guess how many people are very confident that Social Security will be solid. How did you do that? Well. Well, before I even finish the question. Yes, yes, it's 23%. How did. I don't even know how you did that. Wow. Once again, the smartest audience of any podcast ever. Ever. And by the way, if you're new, if you're new to this live stream and you're watching the other people knowing the answer to the question before it was asked, the. That's something you can learn, too. If you stay here, you'll know the answers before the questions are asked. For a whole variety of things, not just this. We're just showing off when we do this. It's just a taste. It's just a taste. Well, give me a fact check here. When I told you the news that Snoop Dogg announced he was going smokeless, did I tell you I didn't believe that? Can you confirm that? Because it turns out has nothing to do with cannabis and everything to do with the fact that he's promoting an outdoor solo stove that doesn't make smoke. That's a pretty good move, I'm gonna have to say. Nobody impresses me more. On the upside, More often than Snoop Dogg. How does he do everything wrong and continually get good results? You could write a book about what not to do. Well, don't do any of these things. And then you look in the book. It's like basically a blueprint for being Snoop Dogg. I think that's just charisma, isn't it? Complete charisma. Because, you know, somebody said black culture, but it's not anything about black culture. He's probably as popular with, you know, white people as everybody else. He's just a singularly charismatic creature. He's just sort of a one off. I don't know. I like Snoop. So that's going my way. Not only do all of my viewers know exactly the name, the outcomes of polls before they're asked, but. But I guessed correctly on Snoop Dogg that wasn't true. Well, we have a new documentary, I don't know if you've heard of it, called the Fall of Minneapolis. And it basically debunks the whole George Floyd hoax. You know the one that says Derek Chauvin killed him. Yeah. It turns out that the bulk of evidence is against that. And it looks like it was a fentanyl overdose. Exactly like you thought. But the most interesting part of it is that apparently it's well documented that all the police officers were trained to do exactly what he did, exactly the way he did it. It's actually in the manual. If you talk to Chauvin's mom, she takes out the police manual and she points to it with pictures and everything. And during the trial they have the trainer, you know, some head guy saying, no, we don't teach that. But then they talk to the other police officers, they go, that's totally what they teach. It's right there in the manual. Yeah, we all learned that. And he's in jail for that now. I guess the Supreme Court turned down his appeal, which had more to do with, I think, the fact that the specific appeal was super weak. Which doesn't mean he's guilty. It just means the specific avenue he took wasn't really there. So is this going my way? Because from the start I said it looks sketchy to me, didn't look like murder to me. Now here's what's going my way. It's definitely not going Derek Chauvin's way. But the fact that there was a crowd sourced documentary to debunk this thing is a really good sign because it shows that people are willing to put their money together to fix something. And they did. People put their money together and Some professionals apparently turned out a good product. Liz Cullen is the name behind that. She produced it. And I think it probably will be strong enough to move the narrative. But here's what's the part that's definitely moving my way. Watch me say something that I couldn't say during the BLM George Floyd years. I'll just say it now directly. But I couldn't say this before, so I have a little bit more freedom now. To me, it's obvious that it was a racially motivated decision and it's obvious that Chauvin did not murder him. And it's obvious that Chauvin is a victim. I mean, you could argue that Floyd is his own kind of victim in his own way, but Chauvin is the victim here and it's racist. It's obvious, it's anti white and everybody can see it. Now, I couldn't say that as directly before, could I? But now I can say it and I'll bet there won't even be any pushback. Do you know why there won't be any pushback? Because there's a documentary that backs me up. If they push back, somebody's going to send them a link to the documentary and then I'm done. Then I'm done. So thank you, Liz Cullen, my personal thank you for what looks to be good work for the country, but it helps me as well. So that's going my way. There's a story about a Navy aircraft, a P8A, that overshot the Runway and landed in the bay in Hawaii. So I guess it was probably some kind of training thing. Well, it was not in a war zone is what I'm saying. I don't know if it was for training, but it overshot the Runway and landed in the Kanahoa Bay. And so is there anything interesting about that story or. I guess that's the whole story. Did I miss anything about the story? Wait, what? Oh, yes. One of my favorite followers on X is an account called Amuse. And apparently Amuse pointed out that it was a diverse crew and that, you know, people like to point it out when a diverse crew does something that looks like a mistake. Now, I'm not really in favor of that because you got a whole world that makes mistakes all the time. So if you point out that the diverse crew made a mistake, that doesn't seem fair to me. Honestly. That's just anecdotal bullshit. But it's funny. It doesn't. It doesn't make it less funny. Can we agree? Sometimes it's Just funny. So amuse. Got a little pushback on that. Only to hear that the Navy is very proud that the crew of this particular aircraft is diverse. And then there was a. There's a photo shown. I don't know for sure it's really the crew, but it alleges to be the crew of that aircraft, and they look to be 100% female, including the ground crew. Looked like about, I don't know, 16 people in the picture, all female. And, yeah, that. That feels a little too on the nose, doesn't it? It feels. It feels more like the women posed. But there probably were plenty of men there, too, I'm guessing. I don't know. I don't. I don't buy the whole story, but if you just like to laugh at the news. It was a story about a diverse group with a lot of women that ran up an airplane off the end of a Runway. I hasten to add, that doesn't say anything about female pilots. It's just this one story of some specific individuals. As I like to say, people are infinitely diverse from everybody else. All right, so that's not important. Apparently, it was a good move for me to sell my Apple shares a few months ago. Well, we don't know that yet. It's too early to say that, but I sold my Apple shares because I thought AI was going to hurt their business model. But that was before I realized that they're overtly racist as well. So Apple. Apple is overtly racist against white men, as a number of companies are, and their sales declined for the fourth straight quarter, marking the longest slowdown since 2001. So apparently, it's not a good sign to be racist against white people and also to be last in AI. Now, I do have confidence that Apple is skilled enough that they'll catch up on AI, but I don't see anything yet. You know, if you use your Amazon digital device, whose name I will not speak aloud, it's already AI Is anybody. Has anybody done that? Have you noticed that the Amazon Digital Assistant, it went from sort of like the Apple one, where it could answer some simple questions, but you had to ask the right question. But now it kind of just answers any question, just anything you want to ask it. If it can find it on the Internet, it'll ask it. It'll answer it. So Apple is inexplicably, woefully, ridiculously behind in AI. I don't know how that's going to get fixed. But being racist, unless an AI is probably not going to help their stock. So that's going right for me because I sold mine. Just lucky. I'm not going to claim that you should do it. It's not advice. It's not investment advice. I don't do investment advice. And you should definitely not do what I do. If you do everything I do, you could do better. You could do better than doing what I do. All right, here's another story in the category of, well, you should have just asked me. But the former White House doctor, this was doctor under Trump says that Biden does not have the cognitive ability to serve another term. That's Ronnie Jackson. Yeah, Ronnie Jackson. Now, he said this before, but it's in the news again because I guess he said it again. Now, I would like to add this to the list of not only something you could have just asked me. You didn't really need a doctor for that one, but I feel like they could have asked you. Do you think you would have gotten that one right if the press came to you and said, you know, we don't have time to ask any experts? So I'm just going to ask you, do you think Biden is cognitively qualified for the next four years? I think you would get that one right. Not only that, but you could go into any crowd and randomly pick somebody and say, hey, do you think Biden is cognitively capable for the next four years? I think we'd all get that one right. So I like to use this as more evidence that 80% of everything the experts do could be duplicated by. Well, just ask Scott. Just see what Scott says. Not 100%, but 80% solid. 80%. Just ask me. Saves a lot of time. Well, more good news. My God, the good news just keeps coming. Everything's going my way. So, as you know, Elon Musk decided to go thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters for allegedly making up a bunch of stats about alleged neo Nazi content by advertisements for big companies. And then those big companies like Apple and IBM pulled their advertisements from X, believing that that was a good idea. Now, they are, of course, embarrassed, I would expect, if you were. If you're Tim Cook, wouldn't you be embarrassed by this situation? Yeah. To find out that you pulled your advertisement based on an overtly despicable organization's opinion, and it was based on literally some shit they made up. And they pulled the. And not only did they pull their advertisement, but they acted to try to cripple the only remaining source of free speech in the United States. Nothing about that is something you should be proud about. You should not be proud of any of that. And worse, from the stockholders perspective, some professionals are already saying that advertising on X is the best deal for the dollar. So it wasn't good for their business because the best deal for the dollar looks like it's on X and it wasn't based on real information. That doesn't look good. They acted hastily. That doesn't look good. Nobody checked in with X to find out if it's real and they made a big public display of it. That was embarrassing. And they'll probably have to crawl back. You know, once Musk wins his lawsuit, which I kind of expect he will, what are they going to do? They're going to have to admit that they believed. Bullshit from an organization you should never believe anything from. If you believed what Media Matters told you and then you acted on it in a business sense, you should have the board removed. Like it should be like open AI. It's like you believed Media Matters was telling the truth on a purely political matter. And then you change your business strategy because of something that Media Matters told you was true. That would be like taking, taking direction from the kkk. Very similar, you know, disreputable organization. How do you defend that? Do they defend that by saying they think Media Matters is a legitimate organization? I saw an Indy no post today that suggests one of their editors is antifa supporter, just like you'd imagine. Yeah, nothing about Media Matters is legitimate. It's a completely fake organization dedicated to just slamming Republicans and anybody that they think is not on their side. But how did Apple fall for that and IBM? Do they just not follow politics and they just don't know that what everybody knows? I mean, most of you knew that Media Matters was not a legitimate organization. Am I right in the comments? Tell me, how many of you already knew and have known for a long time that Media Matters is not a real organization? Yeah, I mean most of us knew it, but nobody in IBM or Apple could figure this out. They didn't know this was a total, you know, a job, an op. How embarrassing. Think of how many billions of dollars they're managing on behalf of their shareholders and they couldn't figure this out. This one caught them off guard. That's just embarrassing. Honestly, that's just embarrassing. Well, so it turns out that Musk will have some help. How would you like to be Media Matters and wake up and find out that the richest man in the world and arguably the most capable human being that we've ever seen since I don't know, Ben Franklin or something that he's decided to crush you at any cost. At any cost. Because you know what Elon Musk did not say? Well, as long as it doesn't go over a budget, I'm going to sue them. But you know, lawyers are expensive, so we're going to have to stay within the budget. If we start to go over a budget, I'm going to have to pull back. Didn't say that. Didn't say that. Nope. And now we see that the Attorney General for Texas, Ken Paxton, is weighing in that he's going to sue Media Matters too over the same issue and Missouri attorney general too. Now what does it remind you of when the states individually go after something? What's that remind you of? Sort of the Soros play, but the opposite direction. Right. So Soros realized that if he controlled the states or the local DAs, it was like a lot of bang for the buck. So you could use the states to get you things that you wanted on a federal level, which is in this case, get a grid of Trump. It's what they wanted on a federal level, but they used the state mechanisms to do it. So here Media Matters is going to have to defend not only against the richest human in the world and most capable, and I might say really mad. It's not even like it doesn't matter to him. I'm pretty sure he's really fucking pissed off about this. Just guessing, just guessing. So I would hate to be on the other end of that. And do you think the Media Matters thought they could get away with it? Did they think that they would just walk and they could get away with this? They did. Because things have gone the way of the left leaning place so long that they probably thought they could just get away with anything. Like the sky's the limit. Well, you just found the limit. Remember I told you that Republicans have this weird quality. Now I'm not going to call Musk a Republican, but he's not anti Republican, which is a big step in the right direction, which is they'll bend and they'll bend and they'll bend until they stop bending. When they stop bending, some serious shit is going to happen because they bend all that. You know, there's all that energy stored up from the bending. So it looks to me like it's going to be a full court press by Republicans to take out Media Matters, which makes me happy on a level I can barely even explain. And I even like the fact that it's going to take time because these assholes are going to have to spend all their time in court defending themselves. Probably some individuals will go broke over it. I don't know. I love everything about this so very much like the capitalism, the way capitalism works, it's got lots of sharp edges and lots of flaws, but if you wait long enough, the free market does correct in the free market sense. And that's what we're seeing in politics and the control of information. You're seeing a slow but very distinct correction. And certainly Musk buying Twitter was the number one part of that. But everywhere you're seeing it, you're seeing people being able to say out loud things. You see a documentary that backs up things that people couldn't say before. You're seeing it pushed in every direction. The attorney general is now they're getting in just everywhere. There's a push on every door in every direction. And none of that was there a few years ago. It's a very different environment. All right, there's a Harvard Caps Harris poll that said that there's a difference in support of Israel by age in the United States. So the people in the 18 to 24 year old category want Biden to pull back his support from Israel. Not completely, but, you know, pull back at least during the violent parts. And while 84% of the voters over 65 said that we should support. So that's an enormous difference between the under 24s and the over 65s. How do you explain, how do you explain that huge difference between the young and the old? Well, I call it the TikTok effect. Now, there are certainly other. There are other issues where young and old disagree, but usually when young and old disagree, it's because of the topic. Right. So old people would be less likely to want to allow marijuana. So you understand that just because there's an age, the age thing explains the whole thing. You understand why there might be a difference in a whole bunch of woke related pronoun stuff. All of that makes complete sense in the sense that young are always a little rebellious against whatever is standard. Right. Makes sense. But what would be the explanation for why the young and the old would have a different opinion on Israel? Because there's nothing natural about the Israel situation that speaks to young people. Like Israel is not a young person topic. Well, it is now. It's got to be TikTok. It's got to be TikTok. Then somebody pushed back on me in the comments and said, oh, but you boomers are being, you know, being equally influenced by the mainstream media to Which I say. That's my point. Yeah, that's my point exactly. But everybody's got an assigned opinion. But you know what the difference is? If the mainstream media is, let's say, giving you a biased version of things, and maybe, you know, maybe our intelligence people are behind it or whatever. Some say at least it comes from America. At least it's an American influence on an American institution. But if China is the one that's influencing your youth under 24 through TikTok, that's a whole different conversation. You know, I'm not. I'm not delighted with the fact that, you know, Americans are getting their opinions from whatever media source they follow. That's not ideal, but at least you're roughly on the same team. Even if you're Democrat versus Republican, you're still pro American, more or less. So I think this is a pretty clear TikTok effect. We hear that Grok, the AI, the X is rolling out, will be on a tab pretty soon. And I'm going to say again, Elon Musk is under. He's underrated for product design. Like him personally. His understanding of how a human thinks and what they care about it seems unparalleled. Which is weird because he says he has Asperger's. None of that makes sense. Like, if he's got Asperger's, can you just learn from a book how people work? And he did it better than other people? Like, how do you understand? How do you explain his deep understanding of human beings? And then also Asperger's. I mean, it's almost. Those are almost two impossibles. But maybe, you know, maybe if you're smart enough, you can, you know, just force your way to understand things that ordinary people can't. I don't know. So it's a little bit of a mystery. But here's another example of him getting it right. Wanting to make the X app the one stop place where you don't have to leave the app that gets everything right. Do you know how much I hate to change apps? And you do it all day long, right? Get out of one app, get into another app. I hate it. And I never have gotten used to it. Have you? I mean, the most common thing you do all day long is going from one app to another. And every time it makes me angry. Angry. I mean, I can't even get over it. That is so poorly designed that I have to get out of one ecosystem and then go look for it and have to remember its name. And I've got to get into A whole different flow. You've heard about losing flow when you're in the mode to do this task, but now you've got to get in a different head. It's like, oh, now I have to search for and remember the name of the app and I probably have to do my password because I haven't been in there. And then it's going to send me a note, a thing on my phone, you know, but then my phone's in the other room and then I just say it and I just don't do the thing. But if you put AI into X where I'm there a few hours every day anyway, that would be completely life changing because I would use it just because I'm not changing apps. The fact that Musk is the only one who seems to understand that fairly simple user interface fact is remarkable. Why is he the only one who figured that out or the only one who figured it out and could also execute on it? I guess two things. So that's cool. That's going my way. News from OpenAI. The most interesting drama in all of technology. So now 700 of the 770 OpenAI employees say they'll leave the company unless the board is changed out. So what's up with these 70 employees who say they'll stay? I've got a feeling that the 700 who say they'll leave would be very much the important 700, like the ones who could easily get another job and probably get a raise. But the 70 who are going to stay, are they HR? It's basically their DEI group, HR and the janitorial staff. But. But they're on board to stay. They're backing the board. I don't know if any of that's true. I don't know if any of that's true. I'm just making that up. But I have a feeling that the 70 don't really mean it, that they just haven't gotten around to signing it yet. Maybe they work remotely or something. That's probably the only thing. Anyway, I saw a post by Siki Chen. I hope I'm saying his name right. How would you pronounce S I? Q I? Siki. Siki. I hope. I hope that's close. But he points out that one of the board members of OpenAI, one of the ones that fired Sam Altman, Adam D', Angelo, he seems to be. Let's see, I think he's associated with Quora, but he's also launching some kind of creator monetization for some kind of AI site. Called po, which would allow you to generate revenue, which is the same thing that Sam Altman was trying to introduce. So in other words, one of the board members was directly competing with Sam Altman and then got Sam Altman fired. Now, there's no indication that that's a reason. Nobody's saying that's a reason. But what was wrong with this board? How in the world do you stay on the board when you're directly competing against them? I've never heard of that. Do you think the board of Coca Cola has somebody from Pepsi on the board? I'm going to say no. I'm going to say no. Probably not. Probably not. And again, in Hannity, Hannity always says that Hunter Biden was not qualified to be on the board of Burisma because he didn't have industry experience. Do you know who would be a much, much worse choice for Burisma? Somebody who had industry experience because they're probably competing or selling their consulting to another company or something. Anyway, there's a organization called Woke Alert, Consumers Research, and they're putting out alerts about what companies are too woke so that you can avoid woke companies. Now, when I say woke, I mean mostly racist. They're racist against white people. So Best Buy, Activision, Target, Nordstrom, and Home Depot are sort of on their hit list of companies that they say too woke to, which I say, that's going to be kind of hard to avoid those companies. Do you have any companies that are easier to avoid? I'll be down with that. But I'll do my best to avoid these companies because I do believe that they are negative for the country. So I have nothing against the companies per se, but they're just not good for the country the way they're operating. So that makes me happy. This is going my way. You see my theme. The theme is coming together, isn't it? I'm not even done. It just seems like everything's going my way now. It's also going your way. Right. So I'm not taking credit for it. I'm just saying it feels like things are going my way and your way, mostly. What else? The Christopher Ruffo is posting this. He says the Iowa Board of Regents has voted to abolish DEI in all state universities. Hello. So DEI is being banned now also in Florida. Right. So now Florida and Iowa. Any other. Any other places where DEI is banned? Did Texas ban it? You'd expect them to. Oh, Texas as well. Okay, so now we have three, obviously Republican states banning dei. Now, how many other things are like that. There aren't that many things that fall in the category of where one state specifically is endorsing it and even promoting it. Where another state says it's so dangerous we're going to ban it. Well, you got drugs, right? Legalization of drugs that could be banned in one place and legalized in another. You've got abortion. Abortion can be banned in one place, but legal in another. And now this dei. So dei, if you're in favor of dei, you're in the category of abortion and drugs. So good luck with that. Good luck with that. But that's going my way. At the same time, Argentina, you know, they elected their new leader who's libertarian but right leaning kind of attitudes, and the Argentina stock market just soared. I mean seriously soared after you get elected. So how does that look for socialism? Socialism failed and Argentina just kicked it out. That feels good for me. That feels like something moving in the right direction. But here's the best part. They did the entire thing with paper ballots and it was done overnight, just as it should be, or same day, I guess. And nobody's complaining about the outcome. Imagine that, a radical outcome. I don't think anybody's saying the vote was rigged. Do you know why nobody's saying that? Because they counted the ballots by hand and they had witnesses to every count, just like a lot of other places. Yeah, speaking of that, in Mojave County. That's in Arizona. Where is that? I think, yeah, Arizona, there was a movement to go to paper ballots, but the attorney general said you can't do that. That would be illegal because the, the state itself doesn't allow that. But it was voted down anyway. So it was voted down. But here's the reason given by the attorney general for why the hand ballots should be turned down. In addition to the fact it was probably illegal because of the state requirements, but the more reasonable reasons, the common sense reasons they would be turned down, is that hand ballots are less accurate and take too long to count. That was the actual reason. And nobody laughed when they said that the hand ballots are less accurate than machines and take too long to count. This is something that the Attorney general of Arizona wrote on a piece of paper. Like that's actually real. Now, am I wrong that the ridiculousness of this position is really coming into clarity? Now? Some of you may know if you joined me yesterday that there was a very unusually timed glitch in the YouTube stream and we're going to see if we can recreate it because it took out a minute where I said the most provocative thing about the election than maybe I've ever said. So I'm going to say it again as clearly as possible and we'll see if there's any kind of weird algorithm or something that stops it. Okay? Now I'm going to put it in a sandwich between two things that will make it appropriate and not fake news. So the sandwich will be this. I'll start by saying I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that the 2020 election was rigged at any scale that would make a difference to the outcome. Are we all good? I'm not personally aware of anything that's been proven that would overturn that election. I think that's now compatible with the mainstream. But I asked this simple question. Why would you ever have electronic voting machines? Because we know that they're not faster and we know that they introduce an inability to fully audit and it introduces a new way to cheat. Theoretically, I'm not claiming it's ever been done, but hypothetically, anything that has a technological nature adds a new way to cheat that wasn't there if you're just observing people counting ballots. So I would propose this. I don't see any other reason for electronic voting machines other than the intention of the entity buying it to cheat. So whoever would make the purchase order, you would imagine that the only reason they would do it is for the purpose of cheating because it introduces more doubt in the outcome and it doesn't seem to make it faster based on what we've experienced in the real world. Now I'm going to finish my sandwich by saying I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that any US election was rigged. I just don't know any reason that we would have our current setup unless it was designed to be rigged. So our system looks more like it's designed to be rigged than and designed to be fast and efficient. Because you wouldn't do it this way, right? When we see elections in other countries, do we ever say we can get Afghanistan sorted out? If you'll just let us give you some electronic voting machines? It's because people don't trust them. By their nature, it adds a black box to the election. I can't see the code. I don't know what's going on inside the machines. So I'm making no allegations about any makers of machines. I will make the following allegation. If you were an intelligence organization, say a CIA like organization for any country, would it be your, let's say, a goal to see if you could corrupt electronic voting machines? Do you think that would be a reasonable goal for an intelligence agency of a major country? I would say that would be an obvious goal. In fact, our CIA probably would want to influence other elections in some cases because they have a long history of doing that. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if they could influence electronic machines? Because that would be easier to influence than fake ballots. Now, I'm not saying anybody's done it, I know of no evidence of such a thing. But how hard would it be? So the question you would ask is if you agree that there would be several entities, other countries that would have an interest in influencing an election, and maybe even within the own country there would be interest in influencing it. So would we all agree that there's no question at all that a number of intelligence agencies would have the reason, you know, full motivation to sway an election? They could sway. Would you agree? It's sort of. It's their basic duties. It's very much ordinary business for an intelligence group. All right, so if they have the incentive, and I would say it's not just an ordinary incentive, it's not just another thing that would be nice to do. It might be the single most important thing they could do for their largest mission, which is keeping the country safe, et cetera. So really the only question would be, can they do it? Would you agree with me so far that there's no real question that they have the incentive and there's no question that it's directly in their mission? Right, there's no question about those things. So then the only question is, could they do it? Now the question you'd ask yourself is, well, if it's an electronic system and it's a key, very important one, presumably it would have the highest level of protection. So that an ordinary hacker who just tried to hack in from the outside probably can't do it? That's my guess. My guess is it would be literally impossible to hack into their central operations from the outside. They probably have an air gap. But is that how intelligence agencies do stuff? Do they hack in from the outside? Sometimes. Sometimes. What is the more common way they do it? The more common way is to find anybody who has access to the code within the company and blackmail them or co opt them or bribe them. Do you think that intelligence agencies are good at identifying people in a company that have access to stuff they want to have access to and then bribing them or blackmailing them? Of course they are. Again, it's their primary business. It's not something they've done. Once in a while, it's their primary business is co opting people to be on their side when that would be disloyal in an ordinary sense. Now, given that it would be, in my opinion, almost trivially easy for at least one intel operation, like even if several countries were trying to do it, what are the odds that at least one would succeed over time? Well, if you're looking at any one election, well, maybe not that high a chance that somebody would succeed, but what if you just keep playing it forward year after year after year and everybody's trying and trying and trying? Presumably, don't you get to a point where it's guaranteed? I don't see any scenario where corruption of electronic voting machines isn't guaranteed in the long run. And I would say that the only thing you can know is, is whether it's happened yet. That's the only thing you can't know. But you can know is guaranteed. It's guaranteed. Would anybody disagree with my statement that it's guaranteed? It's actually designed to guarantee that eventually some entity will have control over the election. Hardware and software. That may not be what the managers of the company had in mind. It's guaranteed. Now that doesn't mean that if it happened, somebody wouldn't catch it and reverse it, but it's designed for this. Now did you notice that YouTube did not glitch? Now it doesn't mean that this will still be there when you watch it in playback. It doesn't mean that. So we'll see. Now you see how carefully I had to sandwich that. And again, I'll end it again by saying I'm not aware of any evidence at all that's credible that any of the elections have been rigged in any substantial way. I don't know of anything that I believe at all. It's just guaranteed. All right, well, knowing that, I believe that's going my way. Meanwhile, in Georgia, U.S. district Judge Amy Totenberg ruled in favor of handmarked ballots because of. Why? What do you think was her reason? So this is a different case. The US District judge ruled in favor of handmark ballots over machines. What was her reason? Machine flaws violated the constitutional rights of voters because there were cybersecurity issues with the machines. So in one state, in one state, people are threatened that they'll go to jail for believing that hand counted ballots are more reliable. Actually threatened with jail for even believing the hand ballots would be more reliable. In Georgia, a judge looked at all the evidence and said, oh, hand ballots, far more reliable than machines. That might have cybersecurity issues. And by the way, I don't think the cybersecurity issues of the machines are the real threat. I think it's an insider problem. Like, if you were to rank the threats, it does look like there's a real risk that some hacker would put a thumb drive in some machine somewhere. That looks like a real risk, but that'd be kind of hard to get away with. I feel like you'd need somebody on the inside. Or maybe both, like you said. Maybe both, possibly. So I would say this is moving in my direction because we've gotten to the point where you have battling attorney general in one state versus the district judge in another state, well, a U.S. district judge, opposite opinions about this topic. Now, let's do a little risk analysis, shall we? I have a view that Democrats in particular are bad at risk analysis, and that explains a lot of what looks like a political opinion difference. It's not really that. It's just if you're good at risk analysis, you have one opinion. And if you've never done risk analysis and you don't know how it works, or you have a half opinion where you're not even including all the variables, well, you have a different opinion, but it's not political. It's just one looked at all the variables and knew how to do it, and the other just didn't know how to do it. So here's your situation. You have experts who claim that electronic, that electronic machines have risks and that also they might be slower in some cases and have less credibility. Paper ballots have the same claim that they could have problems, but we have definitive examples where it worked fine. Would you agree that the paper ballot method has multiple very definitive good election results in other places? So I would say that the paper ballot is close to close to everybody agrees works, wouldn't you say? Pretty close to solid agreement that if you had people on both sides watching every ballot being counted, that'd be hard to beat. And I'm sure we could do it fast enough if you had enough people involved. But would you say the same about electronic machines? Well, with electronic machines, there's either a catastrophic problem or no problem at all. Catastrophic would mean it would change the election. With paper ballots, you could easily imagine a whole bunch of errors, but probably like individual mistakes that are honest mistakes, you know, a little bit of weaseling, but probably sort of averages out. Whereas the electronic machines could actually completely reverse a vote. Hypothetically, or at least people imagine it actually it would be the same. The argument would be the same if the citizens simply imagined it could happen, even if it couldn't, because your elections have to have credibility for the system to work. We have to know that the right person got elected. So from a risk perspective, it's kind of a no brainer, am I right? To me this is an absolute risk assessment, no brainer. The electronic ones, I have no specific reason to doubt them. Right. I have no evidence that anything went wrong with any election. It could be that they've never had a problem ever. Could be, I don't know of any, any that changed an election. But we also know that that would be the one way you could really flip an election if, if a bad actor got in there. But the paper ballots probably couldn't flip the election even if he tried. So to me, there's literally no risk analysis question here whatsoever. The only time it would make sense to have electronic voting. Now watch this point, this is important. The only time it would make sense to have electronic voting machines is if the public was confident that they worked, even if they didn't. But if the public had confidence in them, you know, even if there was some trickery, we'd still probably go on and not even know that the wrong president got elected and just go on with our lives. But the public has to believe it's credible. And we don't have that for maybe half of the public. Actually, I think that's the number. I think Rasmussen said something like half of the public thinks there might be some, some monkey business. So I think that's heading in my direction too. The larger issue of election integrity. Well, there's a horrible story somewhere in California. Colin Rugg was posting this. So there's this male babysitter, Matthew, blah blah, blah. He got sentenced to 700 years in prison for sexually assaulting 16 boys that he was the babysitter for. Now remember I said my theme was things going my way. Well, this is a horrible little story and nobody wanted this to happen. But I reposted it with this comment. I said when people call me a bigot, I like to ask if they would hire a male babysitter. It's a real conversation ender. It is. And by the way, you've heard me say this right before this story, you've heard me say explicitly, if you think that you're not a bigot, would you hire a male babysitter? Now do you see the difference? Let me explain it again. Everything's going to come into focus. Here's where you should never discriminate in love, in friendship, in hiring, in renting apartments, in politics, you could probably come up with a dozen other things where the country just doesn't work if people discriminate in that way. So it's not good for the discriminator, it's not good for the person discriminated against, and it's not good for the system. So literally nobody benefits. So there's a whole bunch of discrimination that any reasonable person would say, all right, that doesn't work for anybody. Like that's just a losing system. Don't do it. However, there is one category of discrimination that's not only morally and ethically allowed, it's really, really recommended. Do you know what it is? Self defense? Safety. When it comes to your self defense and your safety, nobody gets a second guess. Do you know what? Your opinion about how I defend myself matters to me. It doesn't. Does my opinion of how you should make yourself safe, should it matter to you? No. No. I mean, unless I was some expert or something, which I'm not. No. Anybody's decision about what keeps them safe, such as making sure you don't get a male babysitter. Absolutely. Ethically, morally, logically defensible. Absolutely. And if you're in any other situation in which your safety is immediately at risk, you can discriminate all you want. You know it's not even illegal, right? It's not illegal. Would it be illegal to prefer a female babysitter? Well, technically. Right. If. If they were going to go thermonuclear and sue you? Yeah, technically. Do you think anybody in the world would take that case? I don't think so, no. I can't imagine a lawyer arguing for the male babysitter and let's say some other case with the intention that if I win this case, there'll be a lot more men babysitting. You wouldn't even get a lawyer to take the case. It's just so obvious that you don't give up safety for wokeness. Everybody clear on that? When it comes to your own personal safety, discriminate all you want. And I'm not saying white people should discriminate. I'm saying everybody all the time. If your safety is involved, discriminate like crazy. I got canceled for saying that because I said it inelegantly. And the other example I use besides the babysitting one, let's say you're a black family and you're trying to decide what community to move to. You're relocating, and one community has the KKK headquarters. But probably most of the people who live in that town are not racists. So do you move to the town? Do you move to the town or are you going to be a big old bigot and not go to a town just because the KKK headquarters is there? Well, I would black, I would black. I would back any black family who said screw this. You literally have the KKK headquarters in your town. I don't care that some of you are nice. I care that I'm safe, my kids are safe. So you go to another town, you get the F out of there. Now would that be discrimination? Yes. Would it be good self defense and smart for that family? Yes. So none of this has to do specifically with what just white people are doing. It's a universal law that you don't want to go where the odds of you being hurt are higher. Don't do that. Go where the odds of you being safe are better. And you know, what if somebody else says, but hey, you're calculating the odds wrong, you know, because you're a bigot, you've calculated the odds wrong. Do you know what I say to that wasn't your decision. You don't get a vote. When you calculate your odds about how to keep yourself safe, I don't get a vote. So you're welcome to disagree. You're not going to arrest me for it. So I think even this male babysitter story is going my way. Even though it's a horrible story. I saw an article on X that said that Eisenhower said 50 years ago that it would take. I'm sorry, Eisenhower said that it would take 50 years to re educate the Nazis. That's exactly my estimate. Because I was wondering how long would it take to basically brainwash another generation? I think you need two generations. Here's why. So you generate, you brainwash the first generation but you're not going to get a full take. But then that brainwashed young people, they become the parents and then you keep brainwashing. So now you've got a kid who's hearing from the parents, but also from the school, the same message. The first generation would maybe hear a different message from their parents, from the school. So it's like could be better, but by the second generation you're getting it from the parents and the school. So 50 years is sort of a two generation play. And remember one of Israel's leaders, a general or somebody I forget, said that right after the October 7th attack that they were going to change reality in Gaza for 50 years. They were going to change the reality for 50 years. To me, that sounds like they need two generations of brainwashing, which they do. There's not a second way to handle this. If anybody could come up with the other way to handle this, I'd love to hear it, but I don't know what it is. So, yeah, 50 years of brainwashing is ahead. There's multiple reports that there's going to be a hostage deal today, or at least Israel's meeting to approve it or something. Is there, is there an update since I started, is there an update to confirm or not that the hostage deal is going to happen? I don't see any confirmation. We're still waiting. Right. I'm going to make a prediction that there will not be a hostage deal, or that if they make a deal, it goes wrong, it doesn't work out, because here's the part I don't understand. What exactly is Israel offering in return? Israel has said as clearly as possible, we're going to kill everybody in Hamas. Right? They're going to kill them all. They're not going to like, oh, we got 20% of you guys, I guess that'll teach you. No, they said they were going to kill you all, every single one of you. Or put them in jail, I suppose, if they surrender. So what is Israel offering in return? We will kill you at a slightly slower schedule. How does that work? Will kill you, but a slightly slower schedule, or do you think that the Hamas fighters are trying to get their own prisoners out and so what they're really trading is those other prisoners that Israel already has. Why would Israel let them out? I mean, I, you know, I don't think they would do it just for trading. Trading people. I don't know. I feel like both sides are playing an op on the other and that neither of them expect to sign anything. So I think it just doesn't feel real. Yeah, it doesn't feel like it could. Because I. If what Hamas is asking for is a ceasefire, why would, why would the IDF think that was a good idea unless they were sure they could gain nothing from it? If, and let me ask this. If Hamas said we need a four hour ceasefire to pull this together or whatever hours it is, wouldn't Israel say, okay, but you have to do it in the daytime so that the hours of the ceasefire are daytime hours, so they could just watch what's happening from above. Because if you could just watch in the daytime, wouldn't you see them coming in and out of tunnels and maybe pick up some patterns? If you saw Them trying to gather up the hostages from the air. If you could figure out where they were going or where the hostages came out of, wouldn't that suggest that there might be more hostages there? Like, in other words, did they only collect up the hostages they plan to release or were they taking two from this group of hostages and two from this? So there might be a whole bunch of intelligence that Israel could pick up by pretending that they're going along with this. So, but I don't think this is a straight deal. There's something about the deal that one or both sides is not saying directly, but that's the real play. There's something else going on here, so don't. What I don't expect is that it will be as clean as here's 50 people in return for a four hour pause. I don't see that happening. All right, here's my hypothesis. So have you noticed that some of the polling is inexplicable? So we've heard lately that Trump is winning with black men, which would be the weirdest turnaround of all politics. But then we hear that Trump is actually beating Biden in the 18 to 39 category. I think it was NBC did that poll. Now, does any of that sound true? It doesn't sound true to me. But would NBC have any motivation to give you numbers that weren't legitimately done? Well, I don't know. But let us speculate. People who know more about these things than I do often say that NBC is the organ that the CIA uses to put out stories that are to their benefit. People also say that the CIA is more of a Democrat machine and that the media, the intelligence people and the Democrats are all one big blob. Well, I don't know if that's true. But if that's true, why would, hypothetically, why would the CIA and or Democrats want to put in a poll that absolutely nukes Joe Biden? Here is my theory. If Democrats saw that Biden's overall numbers had gone down in every category, but just a little in every category, it was enough to make Trump poll higher, would that send panic into Democrats? The simple fact that sort of in general, in just a very general way, Trump pulled ahead? Probably not. Because a year before the election, that's sort of a common thing. The person behind can come back from that. So they wouldn't panic from that. And it wouldn't be necessarily an indication that Biden was the problem. You know, maybe it's just a Democrats policy thing. So why would there be instead of a General poll going down. Why would it hit these two categories like black men and young people? Well, I would argue that the Democrat party is a three legged stool. The strongest parts are women, black voters and the young. Would you agree? Three natural groups, women, black voters and young people. Well, now the poll has shown that somebody's saying Jews, but it's such a small percentage of the public. That's not, that's not a big polling part. So is it a coincidence that two of the major legs of the stool, young people and black voters, both suddenly were wildly and a whack with all past polling, kind of suddenly and inexplicably an awac? And even pollsters are confused, which I confirmed this morning. Pollsters actually don't quite know what's going on there. Like it's not real. Now there's some thought that maybe bots are involved or there's something about how polling has changed. And that could be the whole story. But consider this possibility. If your candidate was simply a little bit underwater compared to the alternative, and he had beaten the alternative last time, and the one who was underwater hadn't really campaigned very hard yet, you'd still say, well, give him a chance, right? That would not be cause for removing them. I've never seen it happen. You wouldn't remove somebody for being down 2%. But suppose you had the candidate who is not only down compared to the competition, but was going to remove two of the three stools of your entire party and maybe they would stay that way. Like if you, if you get people to vote the other way once, it could get sticky, they might not come back. So it looks to me, and I'm not saying this is true, it looks to me like an op in which some shady forces have gamed the polling system somehow to make it look like Biden is not just somebody who's 2% lower than the competition, but somebody who has destroyed the architecture of their entire power system, which is they got to have the three legs of the stool. And this one candidate, Biden alone, is the only candidate who takes two of the legs out of the stool. That is an ironclad argument for replacing them. Because you're not just losing an election, you're losing the Democrat party. So to me, it's a little too on the nose that two out of the three stools get taken out by recent polls at exactly the time. You know, you see somebody like Axelrod saying, hey, maybe he is too old, he should consider dropping out. Does it seem like a big coincidence to you? I Don't know. I'll just put that out there. And then there's a report today that Biden's strategy for the black vote is not to concentrate so much on racism and racial equity, but rather cost of living. Does that sound like a good strategy? I don't know that that's going to be a strategy, but that's what's being reported, that he's not going to hit the equity, equality, racism thing too hard. Now, that was his entire approach in the first election, was racism, racism, find people hoax, blah, blah, blah. Do you think he's going to abandon that? I do. Do you know why? Because it's fucking embarrassing. And if he brings up the fine people hoax one more time, He's probably going to have it shoved down his throat. I think we're at the point where the fine people hoax doesn't work anymore. I think somebody just shoved it down his throat. And so they've moved to cost of living. But listen to how weak this argument is. So imagine being in a meeting where somebody's advising the Democrats or the president and this is what they advise them to get the black vote. You ready? This will get the black vote. They're going to run a series of ads that talk about the president lowering the cost of living, including health premiums, prescription drugs, and the cost of insulin. Okay, Those are real things. Those are real things. It's just so bad politics. If you wanted to convince somebody that the cost of living was too high, you go for food and gas and rent. Am I right? Health premiums, definitely. People care about. But you know who is most associated with health care? Democrats. Democrats are most associated with health care. So if your health care costs too much, you need to avoid that conversation, not. Not draw them to it. Right. Do you, do you think that black people are looking at their health care premiums and they're saying, whoa, thank you, Biden, I don't think you even won. I bet there are zero black people who looked at their health care premiums and said, thank God there's no Trump. Look at this good price I'm getting on my health care. Now, it might be true that health care would be even more expensive, but you can't see that. You can't see would have been more expensive. You can only see that it is expensive. It's exactly the wrong persuasion, political place to go. I mean, it's like they have no instincts whatsoever. So they, you know, they better have a backup plan, if you know what I mean. So am I right about that? Now the thing about gas and food is that you do them more often than you do anything with health care. So you're reminded of those things more often. And health care premiums are often deducted from your paycheck or from your account, so you don't see the costs every month for your health care. You might see them when you buy some meds. But even when you buy meds, have you ever picked up some prescription meds and said to yourself, wow, these are a lot cheaper than they could have been? Never. You just say it's expensive. You just look at it and go, oh, this is expensive. You've never once said, it could have been worse. Never. But when you buy gas and you buy food, as I did the other day, I'm one of these guys that you hate who doesn't do a lot of shopping on his own. But the other day I went into shop, and you've had the experience. So I'm just telling you what you already know, right? I've got this little bunch of food that's like, literally, you know, the entire footprint of it would be like, a little bit bigger than a football. And they're like, and that's $160. I said, what? What? Are you kidding me? Oh, my God. So if you want to tell people that you're working on prices, you better do something that they can see at the point of purchase, and they're not doing anything like that. So I. So I don't want to give advice to Democrats, but that's a losing play. That, ladies and gentlemen, is all the important things I had to mention. Oh, hello. And did I miss anything? An orange in japan is $5. Wow. All right. Looks like I hit all the big things. I never talk about Rush Limbaugh. Should I. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Just looking at your comments. Throw in my hat as CEO of OpenAI, I don't want a real job. All right, that's all for now. YouTube. Thanks for joining. And looks like we were glitch free, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.