Episode 2314 CWSA 12/06/23 Lots Of News With Persuasion Angles Today. That's My Jam

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. The best time you've ever had. How would you like to take it up to levels that even Rob Reiner could never understand? Just randomly picking his name? All you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass, a tank of Gelsenstein, a canteen jugur 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 hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better and makes you better too. It's called the simultaneous hip. It happens. Now. Go. Oh, that's good. Oh, that's so good. Yeah. Well, just an update. Yesterday, the locals platform had a little glitch, but that was related to a big technology migration they're doing to upgrade their system. So when we get through this little ugly patch, might be a few more bugs, but when we get through that, it will be a lot better, much more stable and functional. So wait for that. All right, well, there's lots of news. Most of the stories are kind of small, so I'll just pound through them. The Washington Post is having a strike. 700 or more people. And it was one of the writers, I think, Vanessa Larson. She posted on X that she's so proud to be among 700 or more Washington Post colleagues walking out for 24 hours on Thursday. And she asks people to support our walkout by not reading the Washington Post on Thursday. Well, I can do better than that. I will support you. Not just Thursday. I will support you for the rest of my life by not reading the Washington Post. That's right. That intelligence based, intelligence driven, fake news, racist publication that still employs Phil Bump. Phil Bump is to the Washington Post what President Gay is to Harvard. An embarrassment to the institution. Although I don't know which is more embarrassing. Is Phil Bump more insulted by being associated with the Washington Post, or is the Washington Post more damaged by having him on the staff? Hmm, could work both ways. All right. Starbucks has lost a lot of value, I guess, in their stock because of boycotts based on some political tweets supporting the Palestinians or something. So I don't even know what Starbucks did, but somehow Starbucks is getting injured by whatever is happening in Gaza. Kind of crazy. Poor Starbucks. Boris Johnson is, I guess they're having some kind of a Covid inquiry in the UK to find out what really happened and who knew what and all that stuff. And former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has to explain why 5,000 of his WhatsApp messages from the 2020 plus period disappeared. And Boris says he's not so sure. Some kind of technical thing. Maybe something about the app. I don't know, maybe it was uninstalled or when it got reinstalled. Maybe something like technology and the app and something. And then the something happened, maybe a glitch and maybe the data disappeared. Something like that. Now, when I look at Boris Johnson and I look at his haircut, I say to myself, there's a man who never loses anything. I don't know. I think that's hilarious. I look at his haircut and I say, there's a man who never loses anything. Like his comb, for example, or his sense of fashion and style, for another example. All right, I'm done with that. But I would like to see a list. Maybe we could come up with it here in the comments. Tell me all the things that the UK government and the American government have lost. That was important data that the public needed to see. Let's see. Got your Epstein stuff. All things Epstein from his video cameras. Then there's the video of his. The video cameras of his death. Those are. Those are missing because the cameras weren't on. Let's say you've got Hillary's emails. They just sort of went missing and got destroyed by hammers and whatnot. You got the January 6th. The entire January 6th testimonies, all mysteriously missing. What else is missing? Yeah, there's no video of Chauvin being attacked in prison, at least that we've seen. Yeah. Jimmy Hoffa still missing. And what about. What about the 2020 election? Are there any. Any machines that don't have the data that they were supposed to store? Yeah, a lot of election data is missing. We haven't seen the UAP videos, but I'm sure they exist. But they must be missing. Yeah, the Epstein jail video. Yeah. Seems like there's just a lot of things missing. Just a lot of things missing. Anyway, here's a trend you should watch. So China has a company that's using AI to build indoor vertical gardens. Now, why is this a big deal? Well, indoor gardens, you know, greenhouses have been around forever, but they haven't quite replaced outdoor gardening for basic economic reasons. But you think that someday they would. Because your indoor gardening is going to be better on water. Much easier on water. It's going to be better on keeping the insects out. Much better. It's going to be potentially better at managing light if you do it right. And. But the one problem they had was still Space. And of course you got labor, but robots and AI could kind of solve that for you. And also building vertically, so they'll build. So instead of putting everything on the ground where you run out of space, they can just build shelves and keep going up to the ceiling. Now, if you have shelves to the ceiling, you've got twice as much work problem, right? Because you got to get somebody up there to look around and adjust things. But if you had a robot, a robot with a couple arms and some AI, the robot would not only know how much light and water and when to plant and how to get rid of any weeds, if there were any. And the other benefit is you wouldn't need insecticide, so you'd have less. Less chemicals. Fewer chemicals. So basically, indoor garden should be the way that we go. If you can get it, just get the economics down, you know, some. Some little extra. Every house you build would have its own garden. Imagine a room in your house which just has a robot like a Roomba that's just working all day and all night, just making sure everything's good in there. And it has AI So it can actually look at your plant and know what's wrong. You can just look at it and say, it looks like it needs a little water. I think that AI plus vertical shelves is right at the edge, right at the edge of where it's going to make more sense to be indoors, I think. And then maybe you add little solar panels to drive the robot and stuff. But I think once your labor goes down to practically zero and you can use the space better, and then the AI makes sure that your crop is way better than it would have been, it's going to be a big deal. Indoor gardens, mark my words. Kim Jong Un had an event. I guess he was talking about the women in North Korea not having enough babies. And he actually wept. He actually cried in public. Kim Jong Un did. Because they weren't having enough babies. Now, I don't know that just telling people to have more babies is going to work when people are starving. I would think that starving and living in a repressive regime should have the natural effect of making people want to have fewer babies. So I don't know how he's going to solve that. But even Kim Jong Un is probably seeing that they're in a death spiral because at their current rate, they will not have enough young people. Big problem for everybody. Well, speaking of countries have that problem, China's got that problem. But beyond that, Moody's just cut China's credit outlook to negative on rising debt risk. So I don't know if I've mentioned this, but China is unsafe for business. I don't know if their data situations could be worse than the United States, but I feel like there's going to be some kind of thing happening in the future that I can't even imagine in which debt will go away. Did you hear Warren Buffett's solution for solving our debt problem? He says he can solve it tomorrow. All you do is pass a law that says if you're a member of Congress and you don't keep our debt below 3% GDP, that you automatically are unqualified to run for office. You can't run for reelection if the debt is above a certain percentage of the gdp. Now, that's easy to say, but of course nobody's going to pass a bill like that. But even if we had one, do you think it would work? Probably not, right? Probably not. All right. Our dumbest vice president is reportedly, according to the Wall Street Journal, is taking on a bigger role in advising the White House the Israel Hamas war. So here are some of the insightful things that our dumbest vice president is recommending now. See if anybody ever thought of these things before. These are so insightful. Apparently she's pushing officials to articulate more empathy for Palestinians. Well, nobody thought of that before, huh? Empathy for non combatants who are dying in a war. I've never heard of that before. Okay, that might be a good idea, Kamala. Also the most obvious idea in the history of obvious ideas. But does she have something better than that? Does she have something better than the most obvious idea in the history of obvious ideas? Yes. They should focus on post conflict Gaza plan, so they should spend more time talking about rebuilding Gaza. Who told you that? I did. It's the same advice I've given, but it's also the same advice that Israel would give you. It's the same advice everybody would give you, which is if you don't describe where you're going, it's harder to get people to want to go there. So she's right. But these are the most obvious things that you could ever advise. And I kind of didn't really need it for any of this. Well, in other news, the X platform is moving ahead to become a payment processing app in addition to being everything else. And they've got licenses now for processing payments in a dozen US States, but they probably have to get most of the states or all of them before they can go live. But that's happening to me. That's a really big deal because, you know, if you got a gazillion people on the app, and let me ask how many of you, in the course of a week, in a normal week, how many of you would send money on some digital app, whether it's Venmo or Google Pay or Cash app, how many of you, how many of you use any kind of a digital app at least once a week? And Zelle? Yeah, Zell's one. A lot of yeses, few no's. I don't know how you avoid it. I feel like I use it almost every day for one thing or another. Yeah, well, so I think putting the payment thing into X is going to be a big deal because you're already there. All right, so Nvidia, which makes these advanced chips which do, among other things, they're the perfect chip for AI. But the United States is trying to keep Nvidia from shipping their best chips to China because we don't want China to be as good as we are at AI. Could be dangerous. But Nvidia is arguing that they can tweak these chips so that they're, you know, degraded in some way and not as good as ours. But we'll see about that, I guess. China has been as much as 20% of Nvidia's revenue. But keep an eye on that. Do you think you can really keep China out of the AI game by making sure that their chips are not as good as ours? I don't know. I feel like it's going to drive China to have their own chip manufacturing. But why wouldn't they have it already? What would prevent China from having their own chip industry? Is it the equipment you need to build the industry that they would have to build up? All kinds of. Because I guess it's the same problem in the United States, right? The United States doesn't have the chip industry it used to have, and it's hard to make it because, you know, I guess maybe, maybe it's trademarks and copyrights and patents. I don't know. I don't know. I just don't know what prevents any major industrialized country from making their own chips. I'd love to know what's so hard about that, that only Taiwan can do it. So we need to know more about that. An expert who you should listen to, Bruce Schneer. He's one of these cyber security expert types and he's got an editorial slate in which he says that the era of AI is going to be an era of massive spying. Now what he means by that is that in the old days, if you had a reason to spy on one person, let's say you had a reason to suspect them, you could get a warrant and then you could legally spy on that one person's communications. But if you have AI, you have the option of sort of just watching everybody and having the AI summarize what they're saying and putting it into some important context as to whether they might be a terrorist or a criminal. And then what are you going to do about it? Would it be, first of all, would it be legal for AI to look through everybody's communications? And it's not a human, right, so it's not a human looking through communications, but if it finds something, then maybe it would flag it for the humans. Is that fair? Well, don't we do that already? You're talking about the current situation. You know, banks have been doing that for, I don't know, 40 years. Banks have always run software that doesn't accuse a specific, anybody of anything, but it looks at all their transactions and it looks for anything that has a, a pattern that suggests fraud, because there's patterns. When it sees a pattern, it surfaces it. For the humans, we've been doing that forever. I guess that's legal. It's legal for the banks to do it. I feel like there will be certainly loopholes where AI can do it. If I haven't told you this before, stop doing anything illegal. If I have to tell you that you're definitely going to get caught. Anything that you're doing illegal today that you have a digital footprint for, you're definitely going to get caught. Maybe this year, next year, in four years, but you're definitely going to get caught. If there's any signs of a crime in your life, you're going to get caught. So you should immediately adjust all of your illegal activities to get rid of them. One of the predictions I made in the late 90s is that technology would eliminate crime, that technology would eliminate crime. And there are several ways I said that would happen. Number one was there would be cheap cameras everywhere. Remember in the 90s, I said the economics of little video cameras would go down so much. There would just be a camera everywhere. And sure enough, there's pretty much a camera everywhere. So there's still crime. But the odds of getting away with lots of different types of crimes is going way down now. What if AI can find every financial crime? Imagine AI looking for insider trading. It could find it every time. It's not that easy to find insider Trading with normal mechanisms. But imagine AI could find the brother in law's cousin of the person who had the insider information. I'll bet we can't do that now because the normal way you would get away with insider trading is you'd have somebody else do it. The dumb way to do it is to be a person in the company that has the insider information and then trade in that a day before the announcement. You're going to get caught. Because the systems do look for that. They look for unusual trades right before big news events. But if you would simply talk to your cousin in person and said to your cousin, hey, you know your brother in law that nobody will ever connect me to because it's too many jumps. Tell him to buy a little bit of this. And by the way, I might be asking that brother in law's cousin for a favor someday so you can work things out. So there's a system of benefit that just never shows up on paper. But AI could find it because I know who your cousin is and they know your cousin's friend made a trade. And suddenly this hiding stuff doesn't work. Now remember Hunter Biden had all these shell corporations. Now that worked because nobody was looking for it. As soon as they were looking for it, they could start to unwind it all. But if you weren't looking for it, you weren't going to discover it. But could AI look for it? Could AI have enough access to enough databases in other countries, et cetera, that it could find all the illicit corporate structures and also figure out how they connect to each other and just draw up the crime? Maybe. Maybe I think we're reaching that point. I suggested where, you know, we might be dumb enough to let all the criminals out. That's a different story. But we'll have the ability to basically catch any crime. I don't know how you get away with anything. All right, but mass spying, yeah, that's definitely coming. Taylor Swift is the Person of the Year on Time magazine. Now, did you ever think that Time magazine was making their choices based on objective criteria? Let me explain how the media works. Time magazine makes their decision. Who is the person of the year. Not because it's necessarily the best choice or what the customers would think. Sometimes it's just marketing for the magazine. Sometimes they're just being provocative and they know it. So that you will say to yourself, my God, how could they say that? I'm going to have to read their argument when you buy the magazine. So you should see it as marketing first. But Time magazine Might have a political bias as well. And I would ask, do you think there's any political meaning given that this is a presidential political year coming up, that having Taylor Swift on the COVID would, would that be any kind of a political message in addition to just being good marketing for Time? Well, maybe. Here's a post by Jack Bosobic, says the the Taylor Swift girl boss psyop. Hmm, Is it a girl boss psyop has been fully activated. From her hand selected vaccine shill boyfriend to her dink lifestyle, D I n K is dual income, no kids, dual income, no kids lifestyle to her upcoming 2024 voter operation for Democrats on abortion rights. It's all coming. Yeah, it does look a little bit like she's being, let's say, groomed by the media to be a good, you know, powerful political spokesperson for young people. Now, do you think that Taylor Swift could cause young people to vote her way because she's Taylor Swift? Do you think she can move votes? What do you think? Yes. Yes, you can. Absolutely. Yeah. No, you know, maybe not completely by herself, but it would only take a few of your heroes to be on the same side before you say, hey, that's the, that's the third hero of mine that's on the same side. I guess I'm on that side too. Yes, yes, she could move the dial. She is that powerful. So that might have a political component to it, either intentionally or not. So if you're watching the situation in Ireland and saying to yourself, hey, that the tech censorship issues that are happening in Ireland right now, that doesn't affect us. And if you're saying, oh, there are complaints against the immigration issue there, that doesn't affect us, well, apparently there's a bill that's being considered in Ireland that would require corporations to show that they had taken all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid having bad content, basically hate speech, I guess. So like most things, it's the side effect that you worry about. It's not what it says on the surface, it's what's going to happen after that. What's going to happen after that. Michael Shellenberger is sounding the alarm is if one country succeeds in getting the big platforms to censor who they want them to censor, otherwise lose their ability to operate in that country, then the other countries are going to do it right away and they will exert control over their social medias as Ireland did. If Ireland succeeds, this would be the end of free speech, basically. Because if the governments can exercise this power, you don't need all the governments to do it. You just need enough governments to say you have to censor before it just becomes easy for everybody to do it. All the governments to do it. So yeah, that's a big deal. And Conor McGregor, famous UFC fighter, is actually kind of serious about running for president and could actually, in my opinion, his popularity is, you know, Taylor Swift, like he could actually win. Could actually win. All right, here's another factoid. Reid Hoffman, one of the biggest donors to Democrats, reportedly gave a quarter billion dollars to a Nikki Haley super pac. So you ask yourself, why would the biggest, or one of the biggest, he might be the biggest now that their other biggest donors are having some troubles. But Reid Hoffman, why would he give money to Republican if he's one of the biggest Democrats donors? And Vivek posted. Well, this makes sense. Yeah, because have you noticed that Nikki Haley is sort of overperforming? She seems like she's doing better than I expected. Well, maybe she's got more money, that might help. And why would Reid Hoffman fund her? Is it because it's an anything but Trump? So if he can get an, get an anti Trumper elected, not an anti Trumper, but anybody but Trump, that's good. But if he could get a Democrat elected, that's even better. Or is he just creating trouble in the Republican Party? Is it just to sow chaos in the Republicans? I don't know. Quarter billion dollars. Here's what I can tell you about Reid Hoffman. So not only was he founder of LinkedIn and a big billionaire, but he's one of the pioneers of social media in general. And specifically what he pioneered was the understanding of human behavior and addiction. How to get somebody to really, really like going back to the platform and how to get a network effect working, etc. Now he's one of the so called PayPal mafia. The people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and David Sachs and Reid Hoffman. So they were all part of that PayPal original startup. Here's the thing I always say about that group, the one thing that that group has in common to a scary degree is the understanding of human psychology. And I would argue that they know that better than any small group of people you've ever seen. Consistently, their understanding of how people operate, like how the brain works is really the secret to all their success. You know, what, what makes a service viral? What makes you impossible to leave a service? It's all that stuff, you know, the Elon Musk making his first Tesla, you know, super fast, just so people would be excited by it. The, the ludicrous mode in the current Tesla's completely unnecessary. Completely unnecessary. It just makes it irresistible to a certain kind of buyer. So, yeah, Reid Hoffman is more than just a big donor. He is probably one of their biggest persuasion experts. So if you see a persuasion play coming out of the Democrats, probably Reid Hoffman thought it was a good idea. Because if he thought it was a bad idea, he's probably influential enough to stop it and he's probably smart enough to suggest good ideas. So if you're looking for who are the. Sometimes people ask me this. If Robert Cialdini is not involved in politics this time, I think he was looking to retire from that. If he's not, who on the side of the Democrats is their persuasion expert? And I would look at Reid Hoffman as not just a rich guy given money and not just a brilliant entrepreneur, but he might be their persuasion expert. He might be the one. So I'm keeping a persuasion eye on him. By the way, I like Reid Hoffman. I've met him and he's a great guy. Had a very good, very good personal interaction. He was very kind to me. He has different political preferences, but I don't fault him for that. So, yeah, he's a good guy. Anyway, Facebook and Meta getting some heat for having too much sexual content for young people. So some kind of a civil lawsuit being filed in New Mexico. And doesn't it just boggle your mind that the X platform was singled out for their advertisement being too close to content that people don't like? And none of it was true. It was way more true on the platform that backs the Democrats. Way more true. But of course the truth doesn't matter. It's a political season, so the truth doesn't matter. All right. In California, a new law has gone into effect on January 1st. So California retailers will be fined for not having gender neutral toy section for kids. You'll actually be fined if your toys are for boys and or girls. Or I guess if it just looks obvious it's for boys or for girls. Now aren't there a lot of toys that are just naturally gender neutral? I thought that was already the case. Aren't most things gender neutral? Maybe not most for kids, but this looks like just begging for lawsuits for no good reason. And what would that look like anyway? How if you label that, how would you label it? Would it be toys for boys, toys for girls and toys for undecided, or toys for non binary? Like, how would you even call it out? Toys, non gender Toys or something. I feel like everything is just designed to make it harder to be in business without getting sued. Non tuckable swimsuits, I don't know, I don't know what they do, but that looks like a ridiculous overreach by government. So apparently Hunter Biden has something that the news is calling his sugar brother. Sugar brother. Somebody who gives him money. We don't know what this guy's getting in return, we can only imagine. But apparently hunter has received $4.9 million from one Hollywood lawyer, Kevin Morris, in a three year period. Now, I don't know about your friends. I've never had a friend who would give me $5 million for basically nothing in return. But boy do I wish I did. I wish I had a friend like that. But when I say for nothing in return, that's, that's unfair because some of it is that he bought Hunter's artwork. So I'm sorry, I probably, I should correct myself. I exaggerated. It's not that he gave $5 million for nothing. Some amount of. It was loans. According to Hunter, there were loans. Could somebody get me a copy of the loan agreement? Or I'm just going to guess. I'll bet you when he's asked for the loan agreements, he's going to say they're missing, possibly lost. Lost or missing. Anybody want to take the other side of that? Bet that the loan documents, they definitely existed, but I don't know, it might be in my WhatsApp messaging that reset itself somehow. Kind of an app, kind of a bug. I uninstalled an app and now my files are all gone. Yeah, I think something like that, something like that's going to happen. So I guess Hunter does use this trick of saying something's a loan and then avoiding taxes. You realize, of course, that at some point if you said something's a loan and you don't ever pay it back, at some point you still have to call that income, don't you, if you never pay it back? Actually, I don't know the answer to that question. If anybody's an IRS expert, let's say you legitimately received a loan and you actually had paperwork for it and then you just didn't pay it back, does it ever count as income? If it's obvious? Once it becomes obvious there's no intention to ever pay it back and maybe you have the money, maybe that's the key. You have the money. It's clearly, clearly true you have the money to pay it back, but you just don't. Does it become Income at that point, or does it become just bad news for the person who gave you the loan? From a banking perspective, if somebody defaulted, it wouldn't be income. If you simply defaulted because you couldn't afford it, that doesn't become income. That's just a defaulted loan. But if it's clear you never had documents, 10 years have gone by, you've never made an interest payment, you've made no attempt to pay it back, wouldn't the IRS reclassify that as a loan eventually? Oh, somebody says if you default on a credit card, it counts as income. Oh, I'm seeing opinions that people are saying that it does count as income. Interesting. Could have gone either way. I didn't know how that was going to go. All right, well, these are comments on social media, so talk to your accountant before you take my tax advice or anybody else's. So what do you think of this? Is there any reason that this one Hollywood lawyer would be giving millions of dollars to one person who, by the way, they were not childhood friends? This guy started giving Hunter millions within, you know, a few years of meeting him. Now, that's a friend. All right. FBI Director Ray was testifying in Congress, and Senator Mike Lee went after him hard about the alleged changes in the processes to keep Americans safe from illegal FISA stuff, I guess. And the trouble is that the FBI can't, I guess they can't be too specific about what they changed. It's sort of a trust us, we changed everything, and now it's good. So Michael Lee just went off on him. And it's really good because, you know, sometimes you say to yourself, oh, these are just, you know, all the politicians are just trying to do their moment, so it becomes a viral thing so it looks like they're doing their job honestly. Mike Lee looked like a human being who was really mad. It didn't. To me, it didn't come off as, you know, grandstanding. He just came off as a pissed off human being, which is why I recommend it. I wouldn't recommend somebody gives their little speech in Congress because they're just trying to be a star. But he didn't look like that. I mean, that's just the way. I'm not reading his mind. I'm just saying that that was the impression I got. He looked sincere, like a human who is being abused just like the rest of us. And he was talking just like you would if you could have talked freely. It's like, Jesus, you don't even let us see it. We have no reason to Believe you're different. I mean, he just went off on them. It was interesting to see. All right, well, Bill Ackman, famous investor Bill Ackman, has been going super hard on the presidents of the colleges that have allowed the anti semitic stuff to happen. And so here's a post for him today. He says, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment? Now he's talking about the fact that three presidents of three colleges, Harvard, University, of Penn and mit, were hauled in by congress to explain why they weren't either all quitting or being fired or removed by the boards for allowing what most observers are saying looks anti Semitic, which is they're allowing the anti Jewish voices to intimidate the Jewish students in a bullying, clearly threatening way that should not exist in any campus today. So Bill Ackman's going after him. And I guess the three presidents all answered the question of does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your college's code of conduct? All three female presidents of those colleges said, it depends on the context. Oh, my God. It depends on the context. Now here's my take. It does depend on the context. So technically, of course, everything depends on context. But what doesn't? Is there something that doesn't depend on context? Of course it does. Let's say the context was somebody was giving a speech about what you should never do in public. Well, that context would matter because it would mean that what they said was the opposite of what they thought was true. Context matters. But in the real world, is there ever going to be a context where this matters? I mean, really, is there ever going to be a context that makes this okay? Ever? And would this ever be okay in any context if any other ethnic group were involved? No, of course not. Well, maybe white people in general or white men, but any other group. No, It'd be inappropriate. So there's continued calls for those three college professors or college presidents to be fired by their boards. Will it happen? I doubt it. I don't think any of them will be fired, do you? Nope. No way. All right. There's a study that the. I think it was the end wokeness account on X. It's a great account to follow. Finds a lot of good stuff. So there was a national election studies in 2021. National election studies was the name of the study. And in 2021, they looked at racial groups and how they rated each other and how they rated themselves. So they asked separately. They asked black, Asian American, Hispanic Americans, and white People in America, how do you rate your own group? How awesome do you think you are? And then how do you rate the other three groups? Well, the findings of this study, assuming the study's right, we don't know. But the study seemed to indicate that white people, on average, of course, we're not talking about every person. These are just averages that they tended to rate themselves, other white people, as well as Hispanic, black and Asian Americans as about the same. So white people said, white people, we're average. How's everybody else? About the same. So nobody was special, nobody was disavowed, nobody was put on a pedestal. Just everybody's about the same. So basically, white people have been buying into the melting pot. You know, everybody's the same, we're all equal kind of narrative. How'd the other groups do? No so good. Turns out that the other groups think that they're pretty awesome, but white people suck, so. Bet you didn't see that coming. Or did you? Now, I gave some advice here. If you believe that this study is accurate and you believe that white people generally are not biased against other people on average, but that other groups might have a very low opinion of you if you're white, don't do anything about it. That's my advice. Don't mention it in public. Don't bring up that there's a study that suggests maybe there's a way to act that would keep you safer if you were white, because you will be very canceled if you point that out. So what you should do? The only ethical thing, as I've been told. I didn't know this at first, but I've learned this. The only moral and ethical thing to do if you're a white person is to continue associating with people who have a low opinion of you. Goes to do otherwise would be racist. So that's your advice. Okay. Vivek posted today. Truth number one. January 6th now looks more and more like entrapment. Well, that's pretty direct. So a major candidate for president who is not Trump is saying directly that January 6th looks more like entrapment. Why? Well, there are now more videos coming out. They show multiple instances of police calmly removing barriers to let the crowd into the Capitol grounds. Calmly and repeatedly removing barriers that are working. This is the key point. The barriers were working. The people were on the other side of it, and they were sort of respecting the barrier because there were police there, and the police actually removed the barriers and let them in. Then we've also seen multiple interior security cameras that show that the people look more like tourists. They were just wandering, respectfully staying between the lines and the law enforcement was high fiving and basically just letting them do their thing because they either didn't think they would be violent or they were in on something. We don't know what they were thinking or why they did it. We just know it happened. So do we have. Let's get a. Let me test the temperature of my audience in the comments. Do you think it's a fair statement that January 6th now looks more and more like entrapment? That and we're also not told the number of undercover informants or whatever in the crowd. So we're told that we're not going to be told how many were the entrappers, the alleged entrappers, but let's just call them the undercover people. We're not told that number. The public can't know that number. Now what do I tell you about the government? If this were an individual and an individual said, I have some information I'm not going to tell you, I say unambiguously, well, I don't know what that person did, but innocent until proven guilty. Definitely innocent, innocent, innocent by our system, which is a really good system, until proven guilty. I don't care how guilty it sounds. It can sound guilty, but you got to prove that shit. That's the rule. But not for the government. If the government doesn't tell you something, you can infer their guilt. Totally appropriate. It's logical. It might not be right, but you can infer that they've given you reason to believe they're guilty and you can act on it within the law. As a citizen, you can act on it. So yeah, I agree with Vivek. I would say I didn't start here. I did not start out believing that there were enough FBI informants to make a difference. I didn't start there. I always knew it was an interesting question, but I didn't have the data to firmly say one way or the other. And I didn't assume that just because we knew that maybe one or two doors had been opened or maybe some police officers acted in a certain way, or maybe Ray Epps was still a question mark. I didn't think that that was yet enough to put it together and say, oh, well, maybe it's exactly what it looks like. But in the fullness of time, when we can see the complete catalog of dirty tricks and intelligence ops, we can see the full bag of dirty tricks from the Democrats in general. We can see their desperation to hold on to power. And we can see that they were trying to paint MAGA people as domestic terrorists. If you look at their motivation, they have the motive. They have the motive for the crime. Did they have the time to prepare for it? They had time to prepare because they knew it was coming. Would it be unprecedented? No, it would not. It would be well within the normal behavior. But usually it's something you see America instigating in another country. So it's normal for America to do it to other countries. And we also know now that it's normal and routine for America to take tricks which they've applied only to other countries and apply it domestically. We see this with the censorship, et cetera. It's obvious we've got the motivation, we've got the means, they have the resources. We've got a full umbrella of supporting interests. We've got a full map of all the players so we can see who's connected to who. And it all looks exactly like Vivek says it looks. And now we have an increasing number of anecdotal. Still anecdotal, but little bits of why is this police officer acting this way? Why is this one opening this gate? Why is this one just standing aside? If you put it all together, I'm going to state that at this point, the burden of proof has to be on the government to prove innocence. Right? The burden of proof on the government, when you've done, when there are this many signals, they have to prove it didn't happen. It's not like a citizen, where they'd have to prove it did happen, they have to prove it didn't happen. And at this point, your working assumption, your working assumption, this doesn't mean you're right, but the correct working assumption is that it's exactly what it looks like and it was entrapment. And Vivek sees the same thing you do. That is the correct working assumption. Even if it turns out not to be true, which I would love. I would love that the government could tell you how many operators were there, let you interview them or let the press interview them, let you see any documents that were, you know, part of the decision making. And then maybe there's nothing there. But when you act this guilty, the working assumption has to be guilt. That's exactly what it looks like. All right, Thomas Massie is getting some pushback from a number of people. Charles Schumer, Chuck Schumer. He was reacting to Massey's post. I'll tell you what his post was in a minute, but he said, what did it mean? Well, Massie just says it was anti Semitic. Now I'm going to tell you what Thomas Massie posted and I want you to see how, how anti Semitic it looks to you. All right? So he posted a meme in which the rapper Drake is shown in two pictures and he's putting up a hand like, you know, no more of that, or, you know, don't give me that kind of stop it hand. And one of them says, what did it say? Zionism. So at first he's saying, oh no. He's first saying approvingly yes to Zionism, but then he's looking disapprovingly and then the words say American patriotism. So Massie's post showed what looked like a conflict between what Congress was doing for Zionism versus America. Now here's how I interpreted it and I'll let you tell me how I'm interpreting it. Wrong. I interpreted it that he wants the American Congress to use American money first for things that are primarily America centric and not so much for something that's directly Israel centric and the country of Israel being part of that definition of Zionism. Now if an American politician says we should spend money on our own country instead of another country, even an ally, even a strong ally, even one of our favorite allies, that he would still prefer as our elected representative, that we spend it on American interest more directly. Although I do understand that America has an interest in Israel's well being. But it's a second order effect. The first order is, do you have any money that's more important than how you spend it? Do you have any? And we don't. Massie would say we'd have to borrow that money. So here's what I learned from this. If you use that Z word, Z I, O, N. Apparently there's another interpretation of it that I can't find in a definition. So when I look at the definition of the words in this controversy, I see Massey using the Z word to refer to the nation of Israel and protecting it. Is that racist? It refers to the formation of the nature of the nation of Israel and then protecting that nation. What's the anti Semitic part? What am I missing? Can somebody fill me in? I mean, I honestly don't know. Right. There are plenty of people who are Jewish who don't approve of Zionism, meaning they don't approve of Israel having, you know, I guess, a Jewish state. So there's somebody who disagrees with everything. Right. There's no issue that you don't have disagreement on. So everybody. There's always going to be somebody disagreeing with everything. Does anybody have any idea why the word, the Z word is all. If you don't agree with prioritizing Israel over the United States, are you automatically anti Semitic? Is it because here's my best hypothesis. I'll see if this rings true. There is a second. Well, let's say there's an alternative use of that Z word by people who are unambiguously racist and see it part of a global conspiracy. But that's not the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition is not what the worldwide conspiracy theorists are saying. That's their own definition or their own usage of it. The common usage of it is the formation of Israel and then the support of it as a Jewish state. Isn't it. Isn't that the definition? Right. And I actually looked for the definition because I thought maybe I. Maybe there was an element to the definition I didn't get. But here's my best take. My best take is that of course Thomas Massie is not using it in a anti Semitic way. Let me just say this. Thomas Massie did it. You think he did an anti Semitic post like this soon after October 7th, an elected member of Congress? You think he did an unambiguous anti Semitic post which he knew he was doing. Really? Yeah, really. Really. Could you actually stand in front of me and tell me you believe that? But here's my best defense of Schumer. All right, so let me steel man this. Is that the right word? So I'm going to take Schumer's point of view and argue it the best I can. It is true that people who are definitely anti Semitic have used the word Zion as a integral part of their anti Semitic larger messaging. Is that true? Can we agree on that? That the people who are unambiguously antisemitic, especially online, use the Z word as part of their antisemitic messaging. So if you are associating with that group in any way, like even by using their wording, well, that's maybe a little suggestive of anti Semitic because you're borrowing their language. I can see that. I can see why somebody would ask you to disavow the post. But that's really different from being anti Semitic. So I don't believe that even Schumer believes that Massey is antisemitic. He's talking about the choice of habit message. Would you agree with that? That even Schumer is not saying he is anti Semitic. He's simply objecting to the messaging, because it's too suggestive of a world in which they use that word too much in the worst way. But here's the thing. Massey's not an idiot. He's just using words the way words are used. So I get. Here's the other thing you need to know. This applies to my situation of my own canceling, but also almost all the other cancelings. It's never about the person who gets canceled. The public and the political players they use stories about public figures to attach their messaging to. So it's never really about the public figure. None of this is about Thomas Massie. It's about the fact that some people want to make sure you know that they're as supportive as they could be of the Jewish community. And they want you to know that they won't tolerate anything that looks even suggestive of being on the other side. So the way to interpret it is, has nothing to do with Thomas Massie, because it legitimately has nothing to do with Thomas Massey. He just used English words the way they're used in the way he likes to use them. Everybody understood exactly what he meant. There was no confusion about what he meant or who he is. But still, fucking assholes can turn it into something because it's easy to do. So. But also, here's the other thing you should be aware of. This is a hot war, right? This is not a theoretical. Israel is at war, and they're right in the thick of it. Here's what I would not ask you to assume. Don't assume that people are being objective observers of anything. There's no objectivity happening here. And if you try some objectivity, you're going to get your ass handed to you. So a lot of the messaging, pro and con of everything, is more about, do you support Israel? So this is the point where any little diversion from the perfect messaging in favor of Israel is going to get a lot of scrutiny. I'm surprised it hasn't happened to me yet. You know, I've said from the start I'm 100% backing Israel, and my reasons are easy. My reasons are easy. It's what any country would do. Any country who had experienced what they did on October 7th would respond same way if they could. You know, if they had, the military might to do it. So having an opinion on it, to me just seemed like a waste of time. It's just going to happen. My opinion isn't going to change anything. So I'm 100% understanding of it and supportive of it, but I don't know that that'll protect me. Because you realize the first second I say something that could be interpreted as off message, the ADL will come after me. Right. You can't be 100% in favor of Israel and still be safe. You're just not safe. And I think Massey is an example of that. He's. Anyway, there's enough about that. All right. As Mike Cernovich has pointed out. I'll just read his post. He said Bill Ackman and the Harvard donors are the leading indicators of 2024. He will never openly support Trump. Talking about Ackman. Not the point. Even Trump haters see a huge mess, meaning the country. Imagine what most Americans are thinking. And then Mike finishes in his usual provocative way, he says that's why the regime is using media apparatchiks to incite assassination. Hyperbole. Is that too far? Is that an exaggeration? Do you think the Democrats have an intentional strategy of getting Trump assassinated? Because it's the only way they can stop an obvious train that's out of control, which is their own train. But they don't want. They don't want Republicans to stop it. They want to, I guess, keep the train going. I agree with this completely. And I'm gonna. I'm gonna add some weight to it. Here's some weight. Rob Reiner says that Trump would be the end of democracy. Rob Reiner? Yeah. Who's the head of an organization that includes some former CIA members on it. Some say without evidence that Rob Reiner might be part of the Deep State blob and not just a person with an opinion. Some say. But if that were true. I don't know that that's true. I know that he acts exactly like he's part of the Deep State. I don't know that it's true. I just know his actions are consistent with it. If it were and he says it's the end of democracy, what does that signal to you? Well, by itself, it would just be political, blah, blah, blah. Right. Because people say stuff like that. But when you say it about Trump and it's in the context of all this other stuff that I'm going to mention, it does feel like a call to assassination. It does. Because if you can tell people that Trump is bad enough, he's enough of a Hitler dictator tyrant, then you can make the case that there's nothing that's out of bounds to stop him. Nothing's out of bounds. So look for this in their messaging. Nothing's out of bounds. They won't say that, but they will say, well, he might murder your children. So, you know, do what you have to do. You know, it's going to look like that. All right, what else? Liz Cheney warns that a vote for Trump quote may mean the last election that you get to vote in. Ah. So Liz Cheney says that you will probably lose your country if you let him win. But what does Joe Biden say? Is there anything scary sounding? He says, we cannot let him win. We cannot let Trump win. That's an interesting way to word it, isn't it? Usually, Usually it's something like, we have to fight to win. If he wins, it'll be a bad country, but if I win, it'll be good. But that phrase, we cannot let him win, does that sound like permission to do anything to keep him from. If you cannot, that seems like it's going beyond preference. Cannot is a decision. See the difference? We don't want him to win. As a preference. Our team would do better. As a preference, he'd do a bad job. As a preference, I'd do a good job. As a preference, he has bad policies. That's a preference. I have good policies. That's a preference. We cannot let him win is a decision. That's not a preference. That is allowing anything. We cannot. Cannot is a really strong. And it feels like. Feels like you meant it. I swear to God. We just have to have the All Caps filter. If I read you the stuff that the All Caps people are saying on YouTube, you would just laugh. It's like, why do you label yourself as a fucking idiot? Like, why would you label yourself. Hi, I'm a fucking idiot. Look at my All Cap statement. Oh, oh, oh. All right. So the Democrat playbook is they're going to go after the following things from the Republican. So here's their attack on the Republicans. They're going to go after the potential for a national abortion ban because Republicans talk about that. Apparently, Trump has wisely refused to engage on that question, which is the right political stance. And as others have pointed out, assuming that Democrats still have some power in Congress, I don't see how there would ever be a national abortion ban, do you? How in the world would Congress change so much that you could get a vote for a national abortion ban? Does that even sound like something that could happen? You know, don't say whether you'd like it or not, but is it possible? It doesn't seem like it, but it's a good political. It's a good political club because to the extent that Democrats Think it could happen? It's a good, It's a good approach. I don't know. They say that Trump will cut climate funding. He probably will. And then they say he'll undercut and attack American democracy. This is coming from some Democrat advisor. All right? And then he's going to punish his political opponents and be a dictator. So Trump does this town hall thing on Hannity. He's asked the question about being a dictator. Do you remember what I told you? I told you that he should mock people for that idea. You should just laugh at him. He did not do that. Instead, he makes it so hard to support him. Instead, he said, I'll only be a dictator for the first day. Come on, come on. Can you give me. Can you give me any little relief here? Can you possibly give me a chance of surviving the next year? I feel like I'm going to get assassinated. Right? If I say two more good things about him and he says one more thing about being a dictator for the first day, I feel like I'm going to get assassinated. Can you try a little harder to keep me alive for the next year? Fuck. Are you kidding me? Don't say you're going to be a dictator. The first day, but only the first day. Only the first day. Now, was he joking? Of course. Of course he was joking. But when it gets re quoted or just quoted, you don't get the joke part. You don't get that he wasn't taking any of it seriously. So, of course, the news today is that he says, yeah, I'm going to be a dictator in the first day. They're literally quoting him as saying, I'm going to be a dictator on day one because he actually said that. But then he said, you know, only day one because, you know, get some stuff done or whatever. And it didn't even make sense. It didn't make sense because he wouldn't have to be a dictator, you know, if he actually has the powers to do the things he wants to do. He doesn't need to be a dictator. Why would he say that? Why? Why? Come on, make it a little bit easier for us, huh? A little bit. All right, Well, I think he'll probably trend in the right direction on that. Yeah, Yeah. I, I think he get. He needs to be funnier in mocking it. He needs, he needs to make sure everybody knows that he thinks you're. You're an idiot for thinking it's. Here would be the way I'd explain it. You want to hear the fastest persuasive Argument for how he will not become a dictator. All right, here it goes. Become a dictator. I've been president for four years. Do you know how hard it is to get anything done? Do you know how many people would have to be involved in any small decision? Even the smallest thing has to be approved by this miles of bureaucracy. Do you know how many of the bureaucracy are Trump supporters? Mostly not. Mostly not. You've got a whole government of people who are against me, who work for me. How in the world am I going to become a dictator when I can't even get an executive order passed that doesn't get reversed in a few months by the next president? How in the world I couldn't even get the National Guard to protect the Capitol on January 6th? How in the world do I become a dictator? Can somebody tell me that plan? Like, if I make a phone call and tell somebody to do some dictator stuff in your world, do they go do it? In my world, it starts this big bureaucratic process which stops everything from happening. I can't even do easy things. I can't even do things you want. Do you know what else I can't get done? I can't build up a wall. And most of you want one. Think about that. Not only can I not take over the country by talking. By talking. I'm not going to become a dictator because I talk myself into it and talk you into it. You would need the entire function and structure and the military to somehow be on the same side of that. I can't even get Congress to do the things that most of the people in the world want to be done. I can't even get easy things done. How in the world am I going to take over the country by posting untruth? He's not even on X. He's not even on social media. He's only on his own social media. How in the world is he gonna take over the country? I mean, to me, that's just funny. And here's why that's persuasive. Because as soon as you say the bureaucracy is so thick that I can't even do things that all of you want me to do, you'd be done, wouldn't you? The moment you hear that, you go, okay, that's kind of true. If you can't even get things done that we want to be done, how in the world could you overthrow the country just because you thought it was a good idea? Yeah, and here's an even better one. You want one that nobody would ever stop talking about you'll never say this, but it would be awesome. Let me explain something to you. Imagine Trump saying this. If I tried to become a dictator, Don Jr. Would kill me. Done. Don Jr. Would murder me. And you know what? Maybe he would. Maybe he would. If he said Ivanka would kill me, I think I'd believe that, too. Because you know what? Ivanka and Don Jr. Are patriots, and they would actually care about their country, probably more than one person, even their father. Now, you could argue about whether that's true or not. Right? But you would never forget it if he ever said something like that. You could never get it out of your head. And people would joke about it. They would joke about forever, oh, Don Junior's going to kill you for this. But I think. And wouldn't it be funny if Don Jr confirmed it? Imagine Trump saying it, and then everybody has to talk to Don Jr. He's like, would you. Would you? That's crazy. Would you? And imagine him saying, absolutely, absolutely. But just imagine that, because it's also, I think, probably true. I think I could kill a family member if they became Hitler. I hate to admit it, but I probably could. All right, here are a few things. Oh, and also, they're going to say, Trump wants revenge. Steve Bannon and probably others will be saying this, that that's a good thing. And, you know, we should maybe keep boosting that message that Trump wants to get revenge, because in this. In this instance, he would be getting revenge against people who had done truly bad things, not just to him, but to the rule of law and to the integrity of the country. I just don't like that word. I don't like that word. Yeah, revenge is not really a good political word. I would like. Now, when Bannon talks about that word, he does define it as holding people accountable and prosecuting criminals. So he's very careful to say, I'm only talking about people who did crimes. I'm not talking about innocent people. We're just talking about literally criminals. But it's a bad look. It's a bad look. I think something more like justice would work better. However, it is the primaries, and, you know, if it were more of a fight in the primary, I'd say use those fighting words. That might get people excited. But I think Trump needs to be already priming toward the general election. Would you agree? Trump's candidacy should already be more toward the middle because he doesn't need to worry too much. Unless he goes to jail or has a health problem. He doesn't have to worry too much about the nomination unless something changes. But is the debate tonight? Oh, thanks for reminding me. There's some news today that I never thought I'd have to say. Now, I want you to sit down to hear this. This might come as a personal shock to some of you, so this will affect you personally. And I just want to say it once, if you weren't aware of this. You died. Yeah, you died. And it's tragedy that you died. Oh, I'm sorry. Not y o u died. No, no, no. His name is James U. Y o o. And he was in that exploding house in Arlington, they say, which answers my question, which is how can you be in a house that completely explodes and survive it? But apparently you died, so you died. Sorry. That's right. And when he knocked on the door, they said, who's there? He said, yeah, you know, you know the rest of it. Okay, here's two things to understand about persuasion. Talking about this slow motion assassination attempt on Trump, which does look exactly like that. So now you see that all the people who are the trained monkeys who say the things they're supposed to say are going to say, he's a dictator and he's going to be Hitler and he wants revenge and he's coming after you. He's going to take away your democracy. Your democracy is going to be taken away now. Now, here's the things you need to know, persuasion wise. It is not possible to hypnotize somebody to commit murder. It's been tried, it's been tested. No matter how good you are as a hypnotist, and no matter who the person is you're hypnotizing, you cannot hypnotize them to take a gun and go shoot somebody. If they believe the gun really has real bullets in it, sometimes they'll do it because they think it's just an experiment and a trick and they think the gun doesn't have real bullets. But of course the gun does not have real bullets because it's just a test. So the people who do take the gun and go to shoot somebody, it's not because they're hypnotized. It's because they know nobody would ever give you a loaded gun and tell you to shoot an innocent person. So the tests are. It's hard to test it, but there's no example of anybody who's been hypnotized to do harm to somebody. However, you can brainwash an entire segment of the public into thinking somebody else is Hitler and then you just wait. You end up the same result you just don't know which individual ends up deciding that they need to take matters into their own hands. So you are actually watching, in my professional opinion, a slow motion assassination of President Trump. Attempted. An attempted assassination and it's being led by the Atlantic, the Washington Post, cnn, MSNBC and all the usual suspects. And I do believe that they are aware, as Cernovich calls them, they are aware that they have done such a bad job with the, I'll say, the fabric of American civilization that they can't possibly win in a straight up vote. And if they can't win in a straight up vote, and here's why it's such a problem that Trump is threatening them if they don't win, they think they might go to jail. Do you know why they think they might go to jail? Because they've done crimes in some cases. And then there are people who maybe didn't do crimes, but they're worried that they would get blamed of a crime they didn't do. I wonder if that's ever happened to somebody named Trump. 91 times this year. Yeah. So why would, why do you think Democrats would be concerned about a government arresting them for charges that are. Huh? Huh. I wonder if they've been involved being on the side that is arresting people for bullshit, you know, like January 6 and 91 charges against Trump for so far, nothing. Yeah. So yeah, I can see why they'd be worried that the government would ever come after somebody on Trumptub charges. Now I would not support Trump doing anything like that. I would be very, very much seriously against any Republican president who is doing political prosecutions. I hope I would be wise enough to recognize it though, because the problem is you always think that the other side is a criminal, but whatever they do to your team is a political witch hunt. It's just natural you think that way. I hope I would be wise enough to know if Republicans did that kind of thing to Democrats. I haven't seen it, so I haven't seen a signal for it. But I worry, I worry that I'm not tuned to it, that I would miss it. And that's a big problem because you don't want your side to do that either. So let me assure Democrats, if you need it, that I would be on your side if anything. Trump or any other Republican did look like a purely political prosecution. I could not back that. And I would. And I would also believe that that would be a big enough problem to impeach a president. So if Trump did something that looked like political prosecutions impeachment's on the table. Yeah, it's. You got to be serious about that shit. You can't take that as team play. That can never be team play. That's just got to be the American play. Would a special prosecutor for several areas be a good idea? Maybe it's case by case situation, but maybe. Is it word thinking on the Z issue? Now, I know what you're saying, the word thinking. Are they just trying to use their own definition of the word? And that's definitely what's happening, but I think this is more a case of trying to scapegoat people to boost your own message. So the word thinking is just two people having an argument, but trying to win by changing the definition of words. What's happening with the Zion stuff is being used to identify people that can be boosters of your message, basically. So similar, but different. All right, so the other thing you need to know about persuasion is although you can't hypnotize one person to murder, you can very easily hypnotize a group of people to see somebody as someone who is deserving of murder. And then you wait. And then you wait. So look for that. You should look for more evidence that they're looking for a. What would be the right term for it? Something that's outside of the political process would be. Would you call that an extra political. To mean it's outside of the political process, an extrajudicial. Extrajudicial means you're doing something illegal, right? Yeah. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is more than enough. I think we've done our job here. Do you believe in strategic incompetence? Yes. I mean, all the lost documents and lost files. I don't believe any of that. I believe that they are strategically deleting things and claiming incompetence. Yeah. It's called lying. Yep. Here's a question for you. Do you think that Trump this time would be able to assemble a high quality team, or will he be once again locked down from, you know, the strong traditional players who normally would want to be part of an administration? I have a suspicion he might be able to get high quality people. I'm not positive. It could work the other way. But part of the reason is this. The Republicans have a lot of high quality people who could use jobs. Yeah, no, I'm not one of them. I'm definitely not a high quality person in terms of a government job. But I don't even have to give you names. But just imagine all of the Republicans who would make a good Spokesperson for the administration. They had the communications. Just think of all the insanely good choices that you can make. Just insanely good. I'm going to throw one out for you. Okay. Head of communications in a Trump administration, Greg Gutfeld, Yes or no? No, I don't think he'd ever do. Would be a suicide mission. But would Trump be smart enough to know that if you made the. If you made those stupid press events interesting and you. And you had somebody with a real personality, not somebody who's just going to say, no, I don't know. And I'll look into that. And you've asked a question already. All the bullshit things. What if you had somebody who actually engaged with the audience, had fun with the audience? The audience may even like. Maybe they just like him and he just has fun with it because it's not a useful process. The press events are just not useful. And that's why didn't Trump just get rid of them after a while? He just stopped him, didn't he? Because they're so bullshit. But somebody like, you know, let's say somebody of his capabilities, if you put somebody in who can make a joke of stuff, the joke gets on tv, Right? A boring answer maybe gets on tv, but you forget it anyway. But a real good, funny answer becomes news. So Trump could actually create news by making sure that his spokesperson was funny and said things that were supportive of the president. But also, you couldn't forget now. Yeah, I don't think Greg's going to be the head of communications, but you could come up with, I'll bet you on your own, you could come up with 10 Republican names. That would be just fascinating in that job. Just fascinating. Right, Tyrus. Tyrus would be great. I'm seeing Tyrus being suggested as head of communications in a Republican. He'd be great. He has the full. The full talent stack. So, yeah, I can get behind that. I'd watch it, too. I'd far more likely watch it if Tyrus was giving it because he's a big personality. He's funny. You don't remember Tony Snow who would mock stupid questions? Yeah, I don't, actually. All right, that's all for now. I'm going to go do something else. I'm going to talk a little bit to the good people and locals and I'll say Goodbye now to YouTube. Thanks for joining. You're awesome.