Episode 2325 CWSA 12/17/23 The Third Act, Trying To Deprogram Democrats, Fusion Breakthrough, More

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And wow, you're lucky. You're lucky to be here because we're going to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even imagine with their little human brains. And all you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass, a tankard cells or stein. I canteen. Jogor 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. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen right now. Go. Oh, it is sipulated. Savor it. All right, how about some science news? So there's a new AI that can read your brain and turn it into text on the screen. That's right. So they did a test where they put little sensors on somebody's head, and they said, read. Read these selections. And as the person was reading the selection, the AI was typing it. Now, you say to yourself, that's not special. We've always had voice recognition, except it wasn't using voice recognition. The voice recognition part was not part of the test. They were testing if it could directly tell the word you were thinking because you were reading it, and it could do it. Now, you've heard before that there have been other ways to, you know, create an image of what you're thinking and stuff, but this is the time they've taken it all the way to the word level with without being intrusive, like putting a chip in your head. If they had a chip in your head, you could understand it, but they can now read your actual thoughts in words. Your actual thoughts in words. Now, the article that I read didn't have anything about the this point, but how do you not use that for a lie detector? Are we on the edge of creating an actual lie detector that works? Because if you didn't know this, the lie detectors that we've had for decades, they don't pass any kind of scientific rigor, meaning that if the lie detector said you lied, it doesn't mean you did. And if it said you told the truth, it doesn't really mean you did. I don't know if you know this, but the main way that you use a lie detector is to scare people into telling the truth, because they think the lie detector is working. So you can use that false understanding to kind of pressure them into telling you the truth. So the way you do that would be really? Really. So you say you weren't there. Uh huh huh. Well, getting some interesting readings on the lie detector. So let me ask the question again. Yeah, so you see where that's going, right? So the person thinks, oh my God, oh my God, it knows I'm lying, so I better change it to, you know, tell the truth and try to make that work somehow. So that that's how lie detectors work. They work by not working, but making people think they did. And that's the reason lie detectors are not acceptable in court, because they're too unreliable. Well, up the road from me, the town next to me, Lawrence Livermore lab, they've now triggered four out of six attempts. They have created fusion that created more energy than it took to turn it on. Four out of six times. Now, here's a little backstory. I think it was maybe five or six years ago, I had a brief talk with Sam Altman, who, you know, of course now is famous for being the head of ChatGPT. But he was, it's not the only thing he's involved in. He's a general investor. And one of the things he told me, and this is several years ago, is if fusion had already been solved in terms of the science, what had not been solved is the engineering. How do you actually build the thing? And his take was that once it goes from is it scientifically possible to well, we don't know how to do it, but we think we might be able to figure it out with engineering, that once you've reached that engineering phase, it's guaranteed. And I never really thought of it that way, but I have to, I actually adopt that opinion that once you've reached the engineering stage, it's about tweaking and testing and adjusting and, you know, moving toward it. But if they've achieved four out of six attempts where they've created more than they consumed in energy, I think they're knocking on the door. So I think fusion is certainly within the next 10 years, might take longer to build a working fusion reactor, but I feel like we're at least 10 years away now. Remember everybody used to say, oh, Scott, that's what they said about the flying car. But where's my flying car? Well, do you have Instagram? Because they're advertising lots of flying cars. If you want a flying car, they're for sale. You can actually buy your flying car. Now the flying cars are not going to be street legal so much. And then also flying, they're more like just flying, but it's basically a flying car. For all practical purposes. So, yes, fusion, like the flying car, may take longer than we wanted, but it looks like it's going to come. There's a study that says narcissists may engage in feminist activism more than other people do. You know, a category of science. I'm going to put this in. This is in the category of science. You could just ask me. You could have saved a lot of time and money. Just ask me next time. Hey, Scott, do you think that narcissists are attracted to the types of activities where they can celebrate their superiority over other people? Well, I don't know. What's the definition of narcissism? Well, a quick definition would be people who like to celebrate their superiority over other people. And that's what feminism does, right? Yes. Okay, I'm going to go with more. Narcissists are attracted to that because it's exactly in their sweet spot. Of course. Of course. So you didn't have to do that study. Could have saved you some time. Jeff Bezos agrees with Elon Musk that the population of humans should be, you know, in the trillions. And we'd be better off and we'd have more, more geniuses if we had trillions of people, which is true. The more geniuses you have, the better off you are. So that's two brilliant billionaires who think we need more people, not fewer. Are you convinced? How many of you on this live stream are convinced that it's a true statement? We need more people, not fewer. It's pretty basic economics. Yeah, it's basic economics. Too few people is way bigger problem than not than too many in our current environment. Not in every case. So yeah, I think that's. It's turning into common knowledge. But I think it's more commonly known on the right where people are in favor of having lots of babies. And on the left, they still think it's, I don't know, some kind of evil. Well, Kanye is back using X. I guess he was already approved for X but hadn't been using it too recently. He's got some kind of $200 foldable sock boots that is, I guess his first new product since Adidas canceled them. I don't know about his timing though. You know, I assume this has been in the works for a while, building this product. And now when he decides to go public again after his long disappearance, and of course the knock on him is that he was anti Semitic. Let me ask you this. Was this the right time for an accused anti Semite to resurface I think I might have waited another few months. Like I suppose he could have done it on October 7th. You know, really make a, really make a statement. But this is not exactly a perfect combination of the way people are feeling with his launch of his new product. So, yeah, not ideal, but he's back. We'll see if that lasts. Well, let's talk about that Senate staffer who had some gay sex in the so called Senate hearing room. And apparently the senator parted ways with him and he released the staffer. But NBC News reported it this way. Their headline said Senator Bart Ben Cardin's office has parted ways with a staffer who conservative news outlets alleged was shown in a leaked video having sex in the Senate hearing room. Yeah, because it was only the conservatives who were talking about that story. And alleged, alleged. He's already admitted it. The alleged staffer has completely admitted it happened. He's not even fighting on any kind of factual basis. He's already put out a statement about it. Yeah, it's alleged by all those right wing people, I guess. Well, in a totally unrelated story, there's some farmers in Great Britain who couldn't figure out why their cows were all alarmed. They seemed to be stressed out and they found there was a young man who had been climbing into the fenced area with the cows and having sex with the cows. And they caught him, I was going to say red handed, but I don't think his hand was involved. His pants were down. So they may have caught him red something but not handed. And apparently he was banging a lot of the cows. So he was a cow banger. And you know what's really unfair? Yeah. You have sex with one cow for the rest of your life, you're going to be a cow. Seems unfair, but in his case, apparently he was, he was herding the cows. He was hurting the cows. He was hurting them. That's all I got. Come on. If you don't like your cow sex jokes with puns, you came to the wrong place. He was herding them. Yeah, it was an utter disaster. Yeah, I'm probably going to milk this for all it's worth. All right. But he got caught. You know, that's. Let me tell you something, that is not the kind of thing I want to see anywhere in my cow field. Am I right? You don't want to look into your cow field and see someone banging a cow. That sort of thing belongs somewhere else. You can take that somewhere else. The Senate hearing room, for example. Apparently anything goes in there. So take your cow there Here's a little alarming news from Hawaii. Now, it's in the news, but I also knew about this personally. So you might know that a lot of people own property in Maui that they rent out to other vacationers when they're not using it. And the governor of Maui, Maui is telling those people that they're going to take their property and they're going to put residents in it who are homeless because the Lahaina fire. That's right. If your business, your livelihood, was renting your property in Maui, the government's just going to take it and put the permanent residence in there, and you won't be able to rent it out. Now, they do say that they'll compensate, but I don't think they're going to compensate at the vacationer level. Probably something closer to like a normal rent in the area, which would be much lower than a vacationer would pay. So that's a real thing. There are people who thought that they had an income from renting these things and they took several months off because nobody was going for a while. And now they can rent them again because Maui's open and the governor is saying that they're going to force them. They're going to force them to give up their businesses and put it in the government's hands for as long as the government wants to do it. Now, that's pure communism, isn't it? How is that legal? I get that it's an emergency, you know, I understand it, but how is it legal? I don't understand it. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, she signed an order. She had threatened to do this, but now she signed an order deploying the National Guard to the state's border because of all the immigration problems. Now, what's notable is that she's a Democrat, so even the Democrats are very aware of that. Something isn't working, so they're gonna have to do something. Well, here's what I call the third act Update. I call the third act the possibility. Now, this is just for fun. Just for fun, right? The possibility that Trump's story will follow a movie arc, meaning that he's already. He hit the third act with, which is January 6th. Not only did he lose the election, at least officially, but he also was so damaged by the allegations of January 6 that he was an insurrectionist, he'd never be able to run again. He'd be lucky to stay out of jail. He still is. Still would be lucky to stay out of jail. So that's the third act. It can't get much Worse than that, you lost the election and they might put you in jail. That's pretty bad. But here are three things that are brewing. They're all brewing now. I've told you about these. So these are just updates because the third act is tantalizing, because you can see it coming. If you watch a movie and your hero is in the worst possible situation and it's half an hour before the end of the movie, you know, you look at your watch and go, oh, that's the third act. Then you can always tell the third act because there's just time for it, you know, and it's about ready to happen. And it's about ready to happen. If it's going to happen now, I think it's too soon. So it looks like it's just the cat's on the roof, you know, it's like slowly building up. But here are the things that might happen. I'm not predicting they will, but there is a predictive framework called the third act that does predict it. So Rasmussen gives us updates all the time. The Rasmussen account on X. And there's a report that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has notified their Secretary of State, Brad Raffenberger, that there are over 17,000 invalid votes. And I understand that on Monday there's some kind of meeting or hearing about them and that those 17,000 votes might be thrown away. Now, that's far more than the number of votes needed to reverse the outcome of that election. So do you think it'll happen? Remember, remember the rule? The rule never changes. 95%, at least, that's the minimum. 95% of all election rigging claims will turn out to be false, as they have been so far. Closer to 100%. Right. At least of the significant ones that would change the election. But it's out there and apparently it's enter the official domain. It's not just people talking about it, it's people in government talking about it and seriously having to make decisions. So on Monday, it's entirely possible there'll be some news about the election. I doubt it, but maybe. Well, at the same time, remember that alleged locked closet that supposedly has a bunch of fake ballots in it, and if people can see it, it might reverse the election. We don't know why. But now, for hundreds of days, I believe the judge has failed to rule one way or another on whether we can have access. We, the public, can have access to the room. There's no reason for it. And the judge is breaking the law, I think, or at least breaking A standard by going more than 90 days without even responding one way or the other. So there's a really, really obvious ignoring of the legal process which suggests guilt. Would you agree the the fact that there's a judge that could simply just say, we'll just open the door. Just open the door and have them check. Seems like the simplest thing. You just want to see what's in there and it's public information and you want to audit just to make sure. Sure. Open the door, see what's in there. But no answer. There's not a no, there's not a yes. Just act like it doesn't exist. Well, that suggests that there's a problem and the judge suspects there's a problem. So that's two separate things that could change the, you know, your understanding of the 2020 election. Think about the timing. It's happening in the run up to the election. So now we're now within a year of the election and you've got two things brewing that could make Trump right. Very interesting. Again, if you said gun to your head, you've got to make a bet on it, Scott, will either of these things pan out? I would bet against them. I'd bet against them. Probably won't pan out just like everything else. But it's really fun that they're out there. Here's another thing from Rasmussen. They did a poll and 10% of the people they talked to said that they admitted they had a friend or coworker or acquaintance who admitted to them that they cast a mail in ballot in a state other than their own state. 10% of the people questioned in this general poll of the public, 10% of them said they personally knew somebody who had cheated in the election by voting in a state where they didn't live. Now, Rasmussen did the math and said, well, if there are 160 million voters ish. And 10% of them know somebody who did something illegal, that would be 16 million people. Did they do the math right? 10% of the people said they knew somebody who said they cheated. 10% just knew somebody. And so they multiplied 10% times the number of voters and found out there could be 16 million wrong votes. No, that is not the right math. I don't think you can do the right math on this. You don't have enough information. But at the very least you should acknowledge that if there is one person who says they know somebody who cheated, that one person may have talked to a number of people. So there might be one cheater and ten of their Friends know about it. Right. But it's only one cheater. It's not 10 people. 10 people just know about it. So you don't count the 10 people. You count the one person that 10 people know about. Now, it's probably not 10. Might be five or three or something. But it's not. It's not. It's not 16 million. It's probably. If you were really to do the math, if you could probably be 10% of that, that's still 1.6 million people. Right. It doesn't. It doesn't make the point any less valid. 1.6 million would be plenty to change the election because things were so close in the battleground states. So, again, a poll of that type is not conclusive of anything, but you've got three really solidly brewing things that suggest the third act is coming. We'll see. We'll see. All right. There's an obesity report. Gallup did a survey. 38% of American adults were obese in 2023, up from 32% in 2019. That's a pretty big gain. And of course, almost certainly it was the pandemic. Apparently, people are eating worse after the pandemic, and they're cooking less at home. Probably a doordash. People got used to doordash, I think, or eating out. And wow. Say it's up 8 percentage points. Oh, that's better. At least they don't say it's up 8%. It's up. And then people between 45 and 64 had the highest obesity rate at 44%. Does that sound right to you? 44%. That sounds low to me. Kind of low. There. There are places in this country where you won't even see anybody in that age who's not obese. Like, you could stand on the street and there wouldn't be anybody at that age. There would be people who are not obese, but they would be under 45. There just wouldn't be anybody in some places. Yeah. Well, I continue to be fascinated about Tucker Carlson's take on the aliens. Now, he does have more information than the rest of us because he's talked to more people in person and probably heard things that have not been aired. So keep in mind, he knows more than we do about this question of whether aliens have been to Earth. But let me say it again. There's no chance aliens have been determined. There's really no chance that that's true, in my opinion. No chance. Now, could I be wrong? Yes. Yes. But let me ask you this. Humans have been around for 200,000 years, and you've been around for maybe well under 100 years. What are the odds that you're alive when aliens visited the Earth? 100%. I'm going to say I don't think aliens have visited the Earth. Now, if you take the question to do I think a probe might have landed from another planet, as opposed to a piloted ship with an alien in it? Now, that's a little more likely. Yeah. Who built the pyramid, Scott? Who built the pyramids? Shouting at me in all caps. Well, I should only answer people who write in all caps with shouting answers. I don't know who built up. I don't know who built them. Maybe aliens, maybe human. Maybe human civilization was smarter. I don't know. But if the Earth had been seeded by various probes, it would answer a lot of questions. It would answer a lot of questions, but who knows? I'm going to bet against the aliens. Apparently, the head of the main pack, the political action group that raises money for candidates for DeSantis, guy named Roe, he's quitting. So he's leaving the pack because he cannot, says he cannot in good conscience stay affiliated because some bad things they did, I guess, apparently they're backing some fake statements, and he doesn't want to back that. What is the name of the political action committee that he is quitting? Checking notes. It's called the Never Back Down. Never Back Down. So the head of the Never Back down committee is. Well, he's backing down. He's backing down. So I don't know how else to report that he's sort of backing down now. I guess he had a good reason, but everybody who backs down has a good reason. That's why you do it. All right. Trump once again repeated his successful campaign process of going to a UFC fight and making a big deal. The crowd went wild when he went to the newest fight, and I love the video of him. He goes over and he makes a point to shake hands with Joe Rogan. You know, kind of goes out of his way to lean over people and make sure he shakes hands with Rogan. Now that's good politicking. Do you know how many votes Trump solidifies when somebody sees a video of Joe Rogan smiling and shaking his hand? Now, I feel a little sorry for Joe Rogan because he doesn't try to be that political. You know, he talks about some stuff that's political, but he's not overtly political. I mean, he's much, you know, more broad than that, but he got sucked into being on a viral video, shaking hands with Trump and smiling. Now, he does seem to be, at the moment, reasonably pro Trump, at least in recognizing that there are things Trump did correctly. But I think he got a little sucked into that. I don't know if he loves that. I suspect that when Rogan looks at that video, he's going to say, oh, he got me. Like, he sucked me into doing something that looks like sort of a pocket endorsement without being an endorsement. I don't want, I don't want to accidentally look like he endorsed a candidate. But anyway, so Trump made a big, big, big impact there. It was probably good. But in a rally speech, he once again found a way to lose. It's going to take him some work. Trump is going to have to work hard to make this a close election because if all he does is just go to UFC fights and, you know, go to his court, court cases, he's going to win in a landslide. The only way he could lose is by saying something you shouldn't say in public. So let's see what he said about the immigration quote. They're poisoning the blood of our country. Oh, boy. How do you think that went over? They're poisoning the blood of our country. Wow. Do you imagine that the Democrats said Nazi? That sounds like a Nazi. Yes, they did. Do you think that Trump should have been able to anticipate that, using those phrases? They're poisoning the blood of our country. Do you think he should have known that that was going to be taken the wrong way? Yes, he should. However, I do think that he's leading him into the narrow ravine because I think he knows now that he can mock the dictator thing out of existence because he's already shown that he can do it. I think he's. To me, this looks like a trap. I mean, I feel like he intentionally use language that people are going to interpret as going too far just so he could lead him into the narrow ravine and say, so what do you think I am, Thanos or something? So I call it the Thanos approach that Trump's so bad, as soon as he has all the jewels in his bejeweled glove, he'll snap his glove fingers and half of all the people on earth will die because Hitler's not bad enough, you know? Yeah. I mean, Hitler killed millions, sure, that's bad. But Thanos, well, that's billions. So they should go full thanos, or at least we should when we mock them anyway. That was probably an ill advised choice of words, except that I think it's going to work exactly the way he wants it to. I think it's actually going to work. Even though I wouldn't have done it, I wouldn't have recommended it. I think it's going to work just the same. Well, I did a post on X that appears to be going viral and people are making a lot of comments about it, so I thought I would just read it to you. It's a little lengthy thread, but rather than summarize it, it's easier to read it to you. And here's what I said. I said, dear Democrats, I'm sorry your media has done this to you. I realize you have no mechanism for knowing how brainwashed you are, and as a trained hypnotist, I am genuinely empathetic about it, which is all true. It does look terrible, you know, and I feel sorry for it. And I went on, I said, I mean no disrespect, which is also true, because brainwashing is more powerful than brains. That's why it works. So I see them as victims. I don't see them as my enemies or anything like that. Talking about Democrats. And then I said, one way out of your mental prison is to ask yourself which countries are okay with changing the basic nature of their societies via unchecked immigration? That's a pretty good kill shot. Just ask them what country is okay with changing the nature of their existing society via unchecked immigration? Now, there are lots of countries that have immigration, but how many of them have enough immigration that they know for sure they're changing the entire nature of their country and they're okay with it. Now, you say the Germans, but I say that's the German government. What, what society wants to change itself, not the German people. Are you telling me the German people, by a majority, wanted to no longer be like Germans? They wanted to change and be, let's say, Islamic or something? Doesn't seem likely. You know, I'll give you that there are some governments doing some things, but I don't think the people are largely on the same side there. Certainly if they knew the extent of it. And then I said, if such countries exist, you know, ones that do want to change themselves via unchecked immigration, if such countries exist and unchecked immigration is working out great for them. You might be right. You might be right that the right wingers and Trump are like Heller, because if unchecked immigration turns out to be popular and there are countries that are benefiting from it and they don't mind that their national Character is altered forever. Well, then you're right. Sounds to me if that were true, then the right wingers would be kind of going too far. But you got to give me an example. Give me an example of a country where that's true, where unchecked immigration is making them pretty happy. I don't think you can, which is why it's a good kill shot. And then I go on and say, if no such country exists, consider that you have been the victim of brainwashing, the real kind. And that this type of manipulation is the basic nature of American society and has been for decades. There has been for decades is the persuasive part. Because if I just said, hey, they're fooling you this week, that's easy to dismiss. But if you say you understand that for decades this has been true and you would have to believe that this is the only time it's not true, are you willing to do that? Are you willing to say that for decades it's been very, very true? But hey, how lucky. They just stopped doing it. For some reason it was working totally the way they wanted it to work for decades, but then they just stopped. Why? Why would they stop? What would make you stop doing something that worked for decades? So that's the thing that you want. You need the brainwashed people to think about. They should understand that brainwashing is the norm and always has been. Then I went on and said, next, ask yourself if anyone has ever used a complex model to predict anything about the future, climate or otherwise. You will learn it isn't a thing and never has been. Models do not predict the future. Nothing else does either. Not horoscopes, not tea leaves, not psychics, not magic eight balls, not nothing. No, models don't do it. If you could predict the future with models, people would be doing it all over the place. But it's not a thing. Your real enemies are the brainwashers in charge. I said, not the so called right wing. There is a common enemy. The common enemy is whoever is brainwashing all of us, some more than others. But because I know the left will say, bud, the right is brainwashed. It's not us. I said, the political right can be deluded and wrong too. But it never looks like the result of organized brainwashing, just an attraction to conspiracy theories, too many of which have proven true. So you have to say you know, both sides have something going on. Otherwise nobody takes you seriously. If you can't say, okay, both sides have something going on, but it's a little Different. A little different. All right, so apparently that's going a little bit viral at the moment. So Jonathan Turley is talking about the Hunter Biden situation and says that Hunter made a breathtaking mistake by going to the the Capitol and simply announcing that he wasn't going to talk to the Senate and that the problem with that is that. What is the crime? Oh, that he told his father. So apparently John Karine, John Prier said that President Biden was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say when Hunter said in public that he was going to refuse going in to testify, which would put Hunter in contempt of Congress, you know, just like Bannon was in contempt for the same thing. So we assume that there is at least some risk for Hunter to be found in contempt. But here's the part that's interesting. If he discussed it with his father, Joe Biden might be in trouble because it would look like he colluded with the President to resist Congress and break the law by, well, showing contempt for Congress, basically. So that would be some kind of obstruction of a government process. Would they be obstructing an official government process? Is that. What is that? Isn't that an insurrection if you try to stop a government process? I thought that's the whole reason that Trump is in trouble. So now we know for sure, because it came right from the President's own spokesperson, the Hunter, who tried to thwart a government process. The investigation worked with his father, and his father was aware and therefore could have stopped it because he's President of the United States, probably had to agree with it. Don't you think that Joe Biden had to say yes to it because he couldn't just listen to it and let it happen? Could he? I don't know. To me, it puts Joe Biden in exactly this position of Trump as the person who could have done something different. He was in the job where it's sort of your responsibility to do something in these situations. And there was a alleged obstruction of a government official process. Now, is there a difference between certifying electors and having an investigation? Is one of them a government official government process, but the other one is just something the government's doing? Is there some kind of distinction there? Because it seems to me that whole obstructing the government thing was totally made up. There's not even a law about that. They took an existing law about destroying documents from the Enron era. That's what the law was for. And they over applied it to trying to slow down a government process. So I don't know. If you're going to over apply that law, you better keep over applying it consistently, which would make Joe Biden look like he's in a little bit of trouble. So that's interesting. That's why you should read Jonathan Turley, because he, he's pulling the nuggets out of these stories that I would not have seen. Well, CNN is getting some attention by reporting honestly the obvious, this true story. People are giving CNN credit for not lying. Here's the context. Smirkanish was talking to legal expertise expert Eli Honig on Smokanish's show. And I always tell you this, Smokanish is not like the other CNN hosts. I've told you that a bunch of times. He actually seems to be just interested in what's true. I have been watching him for a long time and he will consistently try to get at the truth and he will ignore the narrative, even if it's the common CNN narrative. So I have full respect for Smirkanish. I've been on his show a few times and I always thought he was a fair broker, but, you know, asked the tough questions because that's his job. But anyway, Eli Honig and Smirkanish seem to agree with each other that the legal stuff against Donald Trump is clearly and obviously political, if only because of the schedule. So they agreed that the prosecutor is rushing to do something that is not typical. Normally the case would take longer than the election, so the election would be over before any outcomes of the trials. Now, if that was the case, I suppose it creates the problem that once you're the president, you know, you got some extra powers to pardon yourself or whatever. So they want to get it done before he's president. So he can't pardon himself, I guess. But both, both these CNN personalities, Smirkanish and Eli Hoenig, they both said, just directly, without really hedging it at all, that it's obviously political. It's obviously political. And they reported it like that's just a fact. It's a fact that it's obvious. So what do you make of that? Sort of surprising, but if it was going to come from anybody, it would come from Smerkonish. Now, I've told you before that the, in my opinion, there are two voices on CNN who have the potential to be objective. You know, they're not going to just buy the narrative. One is Fareed Zakaria and he just came out strongly against the current immigration practices of the country and in favor of tightening the border, just like I thought he would. Because that's the only smart take on it. And then Smurkanisch is looking at the lawfare against President Trump, and he's saying the obvious. This is obviously illegitimate. Basically, that's my word, not his. But that's the sense of it. It's illegitimate because it's political, not. Not a legal process. So Smokanish went to your local high school. Well, I wouldn't judge him from that. All right, so that's interesting. As you know, there are some missiles, a whole bunch of them, coming out of Yemen at ships in the Red Sea. And apparently the United States is now talking about attacking Yemen. Because you know what we need third? War. Yeah. We want to have wars going on in Ukraine, Gaza. How about Yemen? How about Yemen? Now, to be fair, Yemen's asking for it. Apparently, it's the Houthis, not all of Yemen. But there have been dozens of these drone attacks. Apparently, we're pretty good at shooting down drones because we shot down a few dozen of them. But what do you think? Are we going to attack Yemen? Here's what I think. If we attack Yemen, we should just destroy it. Like, I'm so done with calculated attacks. We should either leave them alone or just level it, because, I don't know. I don't want another one of these half wars. But I. I suppose I'd be happier having no war then, because I don't want to level Yemen. It's, you know, primarily innocent people who probably don't know anything about any missiles, so. But I don't see the benefit of doing a strategic attack. I don't think it'll stop. It'll just anger them. Yeah. On the other hand, do you not attack somebody because it will make them matter when they attacked you first? I don't know. I don't know what you do in this situation, but I would certainly look for at least a decapitation strike. I wouldn't go after the. The missiles because you wouldn't be able to hit all the missiles. You're going to have to go after a decapitation strike. And I would tell Yemen, hey, Yemen. If we respond, we're just going to go after your leaders. We're not even going to go after the assets. There's a poll, Harvard Harris polling, the 51% of young Americans support ending Israel and giving it to Hamas. Over half of young people, 18 to 24. So it's just 18 to 24. Over half of them want to give Israel to Hamas. So have I ever told you at what age your brain is done developing. So this is the age 18 to 24. At age 25, your brain is roughly done developing. So when your brain has not been developed, you think Israel should go away. And when your brain is developed, you're more likely to say, everybody's colonized something. Everybody's colonized something. All right, Bill Maher says, and I think this is the only point you need to know, and this is why young people don't understand the situation. How many young people do you think understand that if Israel made peace, they would just be destroyed? Like, they don't really have an option of just standing down. They don't know that. So Bill Maher says all wars end with negotiation. But it's hard to negotiate when the other side's bargaining position is you all die and disappear. The whole two state solution is pure daydreaming, is people who don't know anything about what's happening. If you knew that, the only thing that would make the extremists who were in charge, and the extremists were always in charge, the only thing to make them happy is the end of Israel. There's no two state solution. And I go further than that. Do you know why I have limited empathy for the Gaza situation? As tragic as it is, my actual empathy is much lower than you would expect it to be for the degree of death and destruction that's happening. And the reason is that both sides are getting what they want. I've never seen that before. I've never seen a war where both sides were winning. Here's what I mean. Israel probably needed to get rid of Gaza at some point. So to them it feels like winning because they could get rid of Hamas. So they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop because they're winning. What does Hamas want? Hamas wants to unify the Arab world against Israel. Is it working? Looks like it, yeah. Saudi Arabia is not taking the bait. It looks like there's still going to be the adults in the room, it looks like. But yeah, it's working. I would say public opinion has absolutely turned against Israel. They have destroyed the Holocaust narrative that was the primary asset of Israel. Because now they can say, well, look what you did. Sure, why should we care about the Holocaust when look what you did? Now I know it's not a good comparison. I'm saying that's what they'll say and it will work. So why would Hamas want the fighting to stop when what they wanted really was the most amount of death and destruction of their own people? To get this larger gain, which is that the long run, it makes maybe Israel weaker. So how can I vote to end a war that both sides think they're winning? It feels like I just want to stay out of it. Hey, you guys, you want to fight? So, and the people who talk about the peace deal or a ceasefire, I don't even understand that. Why would you have a ceasefire when neither side wants it and neither side would find a benefit in it? So it's the weirdest situation where both sides want to be in a war. There's not one side that wants to negotiate and the other one wants to war. They both want to be doing exactly what they're doing, which is why they're doing it. If either side wanted to not do this, it wouldn't be happening. It takes both of them. They both have to be really committed and want this. So anybody who, from the outside, who wants to tell them to stop doing it, why would they? They're both getting what they want. And if we don't understand they're both getting what they want, nothing makes sense. You're just going to be spinning your wheels like, hey, why don't we all get together and talk about this? Let's draw up some lines for what a two stage solution would look like. Forget it. Forget looks to me like a war of extermination. It's just slow motion. And what I mean by that is Israel can't really survive in the long run because they're going to be surrounded by people want to kill them, who will continually increase their ability to do so. So even though you can take Hamas down to zero, you know, they can get pretty close to zero. It'll just come back again, different people, different place, just come back again. So honestly, how could Israel exist for 200 years surrounded by people whose only objective is to destroy them? I don't know how you could ever do it. So the Hamas supportive people have a long term plan of extermination of which this is just a key part of it. So their plan for genocide of the Israelis is going along the way they want. Meanwhile, the Israelis are increasing their territory and getting rid of Hamas. And they're doing exactly what they want, exactly what they want. So it looks to me like Israel is winning in the short run in terms of militarily, and that Hamas absolutely won in the long run. Now, could that change? Well, yes, because it's not yet the long run. There could be other things that change that would yet again reframe the long run. But at the moment you have a situation where Israel is pretty much guaranteed to win the short run, and Hamas has created a situation where they're kind of guaranteed to win in the long run. And I'm going to be honest, Israel should look for another location as a backup plan. I hate to say it, I hate to say it, but if it were me, I'd definitely be looking for a backup plan because the thing they want. Well, two things. Two things. Look at me talking for Israelis like I know what I'm talking about, but I'll do it anyway. I would imagine that there are two major factors. One is that the history of the area, like there's a connection to the history of the land itself. And that's important. Unfortunately, both sides have that same connection to the same land. But on top of that, there's an overarching desire to have a Jewish state that can be safe. And you'll hear people say that if Israel falls that Jews all over the world will feel less safe because it's like a backup plan. Like, you could always go to Israel. If things turn bad in the country you're in, you can just escape, go to Israel. So I actually think that if you want a 200 year plan, you better have a second Israel back as your backup plan. You better have a second Israel lined up somewhere. And you might have to give up that connection to the land. But far more important is survival. And I don't see a survival plan for 200 years. And let me ask you, am I being too negative? Because I can't understand how a tiny piece of land surrounded by so much hate, where the, where the ability of any individual to cause trouble will go up forever. So one person with a biological agent and a drone can take out tel Aviv in 200 years? At the moment, not quite, but in 200 years, an individual will be able to get a nuclear weapon in 200 years. So how could it possibly survive? And if you imagine ways that Israel could survive for 200 years, you have to say, well, Islam will reform or something and they'll stop caring so much. Does it look like that might happen? It could. I mean, 200 years is a long time. Good. But I think that even if Islam and in the Middle east did a major, major reform so that 80% of all the people there were on board with, you know, just moderate, get along with everybody, that would still leave 20% of a growing and large population that wants nothing but to destroy Israel at any price. It feels like that's too many. Like you couldn't you couldn't brainwash or let's say educate the local population even in 200 years to get rid of all of it, you know, all of the negative feelings against Israel. I mean, they've lasted. How long has there been negative feelings against Jews? It's not like it happened last year. Right. There's something going on that lasts thousands of years and I can't imagine it will end in 200 years. So while I'm 100% backing Israel on their October 7 response, and I would do the same thing they're doing, that's why I back them. You know, I can't complain about somebody who would do exactly what I would have done in that situation. Exactly. Like, how am I going to criticize that? So they're in a tough spot. And since I wish wish them the best, I really think maybe secretly you don't want to say it publicly because you'd never want to say it publicly, but secretly there ought to be some people looking for a backup plan because you're going to need one eventually. All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to say today in my most excellent livestream, possibly the best thing you'll ever see. Is there anything that now bad take is an unacceptable response? That's an NPC response. When I hear somebody say bad take, do you know my ears here, my ears here that you are under informed and you don't have an actual argument. Because as easy as saying bad take, you could have said what your objection was. For example, you might have said you can't predict 200 years in the future. To which I'd say, oh, good point. But when you say bad take, what you're signaling is you don't have a take that you don't have an objection. You don't know what's wrong with it. You just don't like it. So you need to separate between. I don't like what you're saying to. I have a reason that you're wrong. Some of you are saying it just to be. Just to be trolls. This needed to start yesterday. Molten salt reactors, you know, I think molten salt reactors got a setback, didn't they? I need somebody to give me a fact check. Wasn't there, was it NuScale was Nu. NuScale was the name of a Gen 4 nuclear reactor that I think Bill Gates was backing and it had some approvals and it looked like it was going forward and then they had to pull back because something wasn't working. Do I have that right? So that doesn't mean that the molten salt reactors won't be a big thing, but I think the most promising industry doing it had a big setback recently. And I can't remember if it was a regulatory setback or a technical one, but there was. I. Somebody says, no, it's not backed by gates. Are you saying that new scale is not backed by gates, or are you saying that new scale is not molten salt? Which are you saying? I thought it was a regulatory problem, not a technical problem, but I don't. I'm just going off of memory. You have an argument Jews will not relocate. Too much history. That's not it. So the person who said I had a bad take is saying that Jews will not relocate because there's too much history. You don't think that's incorporated in my opinion? Of course it is. So are you telling me that if Israel became a smoldering nuclear hole in the ground, the Jews would still want to go into the irradiated nuclear hole in the ground because of their historical connection to it? That's your point. They wouldn't want to go to someplace safe. They would rather go to the smoldering, smoking, irradiated place where they'll die in a day because nothing matters except going to that piece of land. Safety doesn't matter. Is that your point? See, when I said that, when you said bad take, and I said, bad take is a signal that you don't have a take, and then you came back with, but Jews will want to live there no matter what, that wasn't a take. You know that's not true. You know, it's just a case of how much danger there is. They're not going to live there if it's infinite danger at guaranteed death. You know that. Don't even pretend that. That's your real argument. That's not your real argument. You just said that. Because I caught you having no argument. You just didn't like it. That's what happened. All right, who proposed being a black light into the city? I would love to see Matt Gates bring a black light into the Senate hearing room. You know would be the funny part. Yeah, I'm imagining this in my mind. All right, imagine they turn down the lights and Matt Gaetz sneaks in there with a black light, and they go to the place where the filming was, and the black light picks up the same biologics. But here's the funny part. Then they go around the whole room. They find out the whole thing is just splattered the entire room. Apparently it's been used every night for hundreds of years. All the gay members of the government go in there and just, you know, just knock it out. That would be the funniest show of all. And now the black light in the Senate hearing rooms. And then you take the black light and you go to the Oval Office. Like, you just do the whole Capitol and you find out the whole thing. The whole place is just covered with jizz. Because that's kind of how I see it. It'd be hard to explain Washington unless that's true. All right, so how long did it take from the time that I said the public should not see the Epstein flight logs because there'd be too many innocent people dragged into it? How long did it take before somebody said an X? Well, I guess. You were on that flight, weren't you? That is so npc. No, I've never been on an Epstein flight. I've never met him, but. Oh, my God. You have to do this. You have to avoid the most obvious thing to say in every situation. That was the most obvious thing to say. It's like, well, if your opinion is, we shouldn't have that list, you must be on it. Just so obvious. And I'm not even mad at the accusation because I get accused of so many things that's just irrelevant. But I'm just so offended that your lack of creativity would bring you to that place if you say the most obvious thing. Let's try it. You know, I was thinking of looking for a really good form of exercise. Anybody? Swimming is the best form of exercise. Say the NPCs. Thank you. Yeah, because it's the most obvious thing to say in that situation. Let's do another one. Hey. The science has found a new form of food that comes in packets, and it's like a good protein source. Soil and green is soy and green soil and green is people. Yeah. Don't say the most obvious things, please. Stop it. Stop it. Took a boat to the island. Yeah. All right. At least release the passengers that flew to the island. Brian, you don't seem to be following along too well here. No, it's the people who flew to the island that are the problem. Because people flew to the island, not necessarily for bad things. Probably a lot of people went to the island and didn't know what was going on. All right, Half the population is below average. Sorry, Dean, but you were trying to be clever there and you failed. No, half the population is not below average. Sorry. They might be below the median, but no, they're not below average. I mean, they might be, but that's not what average means. All right, so thank you for joining YouTube. Another banger today. Good for a Sunday. Anyway, go get your shopping done. If you haven't bought my book, Reframe youe Brain, and my other book, the second edition of how to Fail Almost Everything and Still Win Big, well, there are two gifts that you could still get on time that would be absolutely life altering for the readers in your life. If you don't believe me, look at the reviews. These are books that change people's lives fundamentally. They're not books that are just like entertaining to read, but they're also that. So if you know somebody who's going to take a trip on an airplane anytime, they're going to need a book, that's a good one. And if you want to get somebody the Dilbert calendar, that doesn't exist in paper form this year because I got canceled, but you might want to use your credit card to sign somebody up for the Locals platform where they can see the new Dilbert comic as well as separately and in addition, the Dilbert page a day that's on digital form. I'm just doing it online, but you could also do it on X. So on the X platform, just look at my profile. If you want to subscribe, you won't get any politics on that feed. You'll just get the Dilberg comic and the Daily Calendar comic. So if you want to buy somebody the calendar, the Dilberg calendar, you can do it by just buying their subscription on X or on the Locals platform if you like the politics too. All right, that's all for now. YouTube. Thanks for joining. I will see you.