Episode 2399 CWSA 02/29/24

Good morning to everybody, except for racist YouTube. I'd like to welcome you to Coffee with Scott Adams. The best thing that's ever happened to you. And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody could even understand, all you really need is a cup of mug or a glass of tankered shells of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine. End of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Happy leap year. It's especially hard for dyslexics. I'm going to power through it. As you know, February 29th is not even a real day, so any crimes you commit today don't count. So go nuts. Well, let's talk about the simulation. Apparently, Midjourney says they're hoping to release what they call new, consistent character features. Consistent character. Now, what I think that means is that if you create a character, it won't create a whole new character if you want to create a new scene. So the problem with the old AI's is you could say, show me a movie of Scott walking down the street. And then it would. And then you'd say, now show me the next scene where Scott turns the corner. It can't do that because it would do a whole new me, a whole version of the city differently. There wouldn't be any continuity. But if you can make the characters consistent, it means, I think you can have them pick up where they left off. Now, that's not as important as what I call in a short story I'm working on right now, persistent characters. A consistent character would be that one that doesn't change every time you update the scene. But a persistent one would be in a video game in which when you leave the game and log off, the character still lives its life. That's common. And when a character can live its life even when nobody's watching, maybe even have experiences to talk about later within the realm of its world, it's a very small leap to programming that character to think they're real. And then you're all going to see that we're in a simulation, because once you see that, we can build one, and we can, we very clearly have all of the technology to build a simulation. Now you're going to say to me, but, Scott, the characters in the simulation that. The simulation that we would be able to build today would see these enormous Flaws in their universe. Right. That they'd see all these mistakes and things that don't quite fit together because we're not really so good that we could build a universe that would be all consistent. For example, how would we even have enough computing so that we remember everything in history? And if you and I have a disagreement, you know, we both saw the same history somehow way too complicated. Couldn't possibly do it. But you know what we could do? We could very easily program the persistent characters to believe they're seeing a consistent environment when they're not. We can give them cognitive dissonance. So if you and I have a different memory of what happened 10 minutes ago, they don't have to solve it. That would be hard. Making everything consistent would be beyond our ability. But to program a character who lives forever within the digital world, and then its mind has been programmed to believe that everything looks fine. They see all the detail, even though it's not there. They believe there's something beyond what they can see, even though there isn't. And their history would be created on demand. So, in other words, they would never see the new forest until they walked in that direction and entered it. If the forest is created as they enter it, which I'm pretty sure our reality is the same way, then it means it also created history, because the forest had to start as acorns and, you know, seeds before it grew. So it's creating a history on demand. We are at that point in history where we can create creatures who believe they're living in a real world, but we can show that they are definitely not, and that's who we are. We'll figure that out. Well, there's a new study that says married people are a lot happier. What do you think I'm going to call that? Could it be backwards science? Backwards science. Well, let me see. I'm thinking about getting married. Let's see. I got a couple choices. Angry bitch. Angry, complaining, unhappy bitch. Depressed, unhappy, complaining bitch. Oh, whoa, there's a happy one. Will you marry me? I know we just met, but honestly, my options are kind of low. I know. I mean, just think, we just met, But I. I don't want to lose you. You're the first one I met. So how about we get married? No, I would say that this looks like backward science to me because it seems kind of obvious that people who are happy and healthy are more likely to get somebody to marry them and be happy about it. Do you disagree? Let's do another one. There's another study. It's published in the Hill that marijuana is very correlated with a 25% higher risk of heart attacks and, oh, 42% higher risk of stroke. Whoa, whoa. So I guess that's true. Should we learn a few things about how to evaluate science when it's in the news? Okay, number one, if you didn't know anything about even the topic of the study, what are the odds is true? You don't even know the topic. Give me the odds. 50%. 50%. You, you're starting with only a 50% because a half of all studies can't be reproduced. Turns out that they're just bad studies. So moment one, there's only a 50% chance is true. Now, do you think that this study was a randomized, controlled study, that the highest level of scientific rigor? No, it was not. It was observational and it was asking people how they feel. Hey, do you smoke marijuana every day? Yes, I do. Do you ever have any heart disease? Well, as a matter of fact, I did. That's the lowest level of credibility. So if you're starting with something that is only 50% likely to be true before you even know what the topic is, and then you look at those things, the 50% that at least could be true, and you say it wasn't one of those good studies like a randomized controlled placebo, there's maybe only 25%. So I would say by its nature of being a study and also not being the good kind, best case, 25%. Now, here. Here's another rule of thumb that you'll find quite useful. If a scientific study does not agree with observation, it doesn't mean the science is wrong, because our observations, you know, can be faulty. But you'll have much more comfort if they're compatible. For example, I believe that smoking cigarettes is more likely to give you lung cancer. And indeed, I know some people who had lung cancer. And all but one of them smoked cigarettes. So they're the science. And my observation, perfect. I believe that eating a lot of desserts and sugary food will make you gain weight. Science says so. And then I observed my friends. Oh, yeah, the people who eat the most of that kind of food, they gain weight. Very compatible. Do you know anybody who smokes marijuana every day and died of a heart attack? I've never even heard of it. I'm sure it happens. I'm sure it happens. It must happen, right? Because heart attack is pretty common. I've never even heard of it. Or a stroke. Never even heard of it. Now that. No, that's the lowest level. That's a very low level of certainty. Right. Because I don't know everybody, I don't know if they smoke every day. Right. But I can say that I can't observe it in the real world. Would anybody agree with that observation? That if it's a 25% difference, that feels like enough? I would have noticed, wow, those marijuana smokers are dropping like flies. 25% is big enough to notice in the real world. But I don't, but I don't. Here's the next thing you should look at. Is there anything in the world that's happening that would cause somebody who has money, let's say an industry type of person, you know, maybe somebody in the corporate world who would want to do a fake study for any reason? Well, is it true that drinking is down among young people and marijuana is up? Is that true? I believe that's true. Now, if you were the alcohol industry and you wanted young people to think, you know, maybe that alcohol is a little safer than you thought compared to the marijuana, because, you know, a lot of kids say, well, the marijuana is safe, the alcohol is not, but maybe the drug, maybe the alcohol industry would like you to believe it's a little closer than you thought, at risk. Now that's kind of unfair, isn't it, to blame the alcohol industry for fake studies? I mean, that's pretty unfair. Have they ever done anything like that before? Did we spend 30 years imagining that? The studies that said alcohol is good for you as long as you're moderate about it, and recently we found out that none of that was true. Who do you think funded those studies, the ones that said alcohol is good for your health? What do you think? When I was a kid, scientists and doctors were saying that cigarettes were good for your health because of probably some studies that might have been funded by the cigarette people? I don't know, but probably so, yes, we have one, one possibility that alcohol use is down. And if you suspected that people are terrible like they always have been, you would say, huh, who funded the study? So I clicked the link to go look at the study. Do you think it says who funded it? Do you think that's part of the write up in Medical journal who gave us the money? And even if it did say who gave you the money, do you think you'd know the real source? Because it'd be pretty easy to hide who's giving you money. So I'm not saying that there's any, you know, direct evidence that the alcohol industry is trying to make marijuana look worse. I'm just saying it would be normal. It would be normal to expect it, because remember, the alcohol industry isn't one person. It's a whole bunch of individual actors. Any of them could have made the decision to fund the study. All right, is there anything else, though, in the. In the atmosphere, something in the news that would make somebody want to fake. Fake a study? Not saying it's fake. I'm saying is there anything that would make somebody want to fake it? Okay, is there anything else in the news about, let's say, excess heart disease and strokes? Have you seen anything like that in the news lately? Oh, yes. There's a massive concern that excess deaths are up and we don't know why. We don't know why. And some people say it's because of the vaccinations, Although I think the excess death started before the vaccinations. So I did a fact check on that. But if you were the big pharma industry and you thought that people were looking at all cause mortality and they saw too many heart attacks and strokes and they were going to blame you for it because you're the ones who rolled out those vaccinations, what would you do if you had dark money to fix things? Well, if it were me, I would confuse the topic by saying, you know, you're right. Young people are having a lot of heart disease. But at the same time, marijuana use among young people is way up. It's all being legalized in states. I feel like, you know, you really can't sort that out. Know, the young people do a lot of marijuana and they have more heart disease lately, but more mar. It's probably the more marijuana. You know, there are lots of things going on. It'd be hard to. It's going to be hard to sort out what the actual cause is. Now, I'm not accusing them because I have no direct information. I'm. I'm simply telling you how you should look at a study. You should always look who funded it. And you should ask yourself, is there anybody who would benefit? Not just a little bit, but is there anybody who would benefit enormously, like staying out of jail and making a billion dollars. That's pretty big benefit for doing something that would be sketchy if they did hypothetically. All right, here's another one. Do you believe that when they did this study and it was people, you know, just reporting their own experience, do you think that they only talk to the recreational users, or did they talk to people who use it, Use it medicinally in addition to the people who use it recreationally? What do you think? Well, my guess is that they asked both of them. And what could you imagine would be true about a group of people who use a medicine every day? Would it be true that people who choose to use a medicine every day are among the most healthy people in the world? Or would there be something about that group, the medicine everyday group, that might tell you they've got a little bit of maybe less healthy situation in general? And did the study tell you if they broke out the people that they that are not medicine takers, to see if the recreational users are dying at this high rate? No. All right. So I don't know if the study is good or not. I'm saying that if you didn't know how to look at it with that filter, all those different filters, you'd be a little bit, you know, maybe easier to fool. There's a story, I don't know if it's true yet, but allegedly the company Panera Bread negotiated maybe with Governor Newsom to be exempt from the new minimum wage law. 20 minimum wage. And that's after the owner reportedly donated to Newsom for the New York Post. Now, I think I'd wait a little bit to find out if there's any more details on that. But that would be a direct bribe, wouldn't it? I don't know if it's illegal, but in a common sense way, that would just be a bribe. I don't know what else you call it if it's true. So imagine the amount of opposition research on Newsom that you haven't seen yet. Just, just hold in your mind how much the Republicans must be holding back, you know, just in case they need it because they don't need to destroy them until they need to destroy them. And it's too early. So I just feel like there's some group of Republicans who really have the good stuff, like the really good stuff, and they're just like, hold, hold. I don't know how much longer we can hold, but I would say if they slot Newsome in at the last minute for Biden, you're going to see an opposition, opposition research drop like you've never seen in your life. It's going to be one for the ages. That's just a guess. It's just a guess. I think it's going to be one for the ages. Keep in mind that Nom's ex wife is on the Trump team. If there's anybody who knows where the bodies are buried, I Mean, just think about it. What it, what, what could she tell you? Or any, any ex wife just say any ex wife. What could an ex wife have on opposition research that nobody else would know? Huh? All right, there's a rich guy, Jan Schromek, he was a former Goldman Sachs guy. He's trying to build this whole design from scratch. Home in California. Yeah. Need some kind of ballot approval to, to get the zoning or whatever, but it's between San Francisco and Sacramento and it would have 20,000 homes with. And they'd build all the transit infrastructure and school and jobs and stuff. Now Reed Hoffman and Lorena Powell Jobs is also behind this. So it's looks like a very Democrat thing, which is irrelevant to the story in this case. But I've been telling you for some time that the biggest economic driver that's not robots and maybe not AI will be designing towns from scratch. Designing them from scratch. Do you know how much better a city or a town could be if you design the whole thing from scratch? Your transportation would be almost zero. Oh, by the way, there's a place like that you should look into Estonia. Estonia is a little over a million people and they're very high tech. So everything you need to do in the government in Estonia you can do on your phone, including paying taxes. You just have an app. So they basically automated the government. They just automated it. Usually just do stuff on your app and it's all you need. And transportation in Estonia is free and perfect. You can easily go anywhere, all free. So they don't have much traffic problem and the pollution is way down. Now Estonia had the advantage of probably coming after World War II and you know, maybe it's a smaller place and whatever, but in a way they're not a perfect example of designing from scratch, but they are a good example of designing right? So they, apparently they have real high education and a lot of, you know, engineer, techie people and they just decided to design it correctly and look what happened. Apparently it's pretty good lifestyle there. So designing towns from scratch is the biggest thing and I hope this works. We know now that Hunter said he was either high or drunk when he did the famous phone call with his Chinese guy. He was trying to shake down for money. And he said, I'm sitting here with my father, he's not gonna like it. That was the five million dollar shakedown. And apparently he still got the money. He got the money. And I guess one of the people he was trying to shake down was this guy Ho. That was his last name. Ho. So I don't know who is the best negotiator in the whole world. Some people say Trump is good at negotiating. He is. But Hunter is the first person I've ever heard of whoever got a hoe to give him money. Yeah. Yep. In my entire life, I've never had a hoe give me a diamond. Not even one time. And I've tried. I'd be like, hey, ho. Got any diamonds? It'd be like a bunch of bad words. I can't say, not say, if I were Hunter Biden, I could get that diamond from you. Ho. But. But no, I don't have his negotiating skills. So what I think. And by the way, he did that while high and drunk. It's sort of like, you know, sort of like doing the dance backwards and high heels. You know what I mean? I mean, that's a higher level of difficulty. He got a diamond from a hoe and he negotiated while he was high, either high or drunk. And he was so inebriated he doesn't even remember. I don't know was I high or was I drunk, but got it done. So here's what I think. I think we should send him over there to negotiate with Putin and, you know, give him six shots of whiskey and a blunt and see if he can make some peace, because we don't have a negotiator like that anywhere. He's our best guy. Oh, if you don't think. You don't think Hunter is our best negotiator? Please. You're the same people who think Joe Biden isn't the very best person the Democrats have for president. You know that's not true. So grow up, will you? Just grow up. Well, I guess the thing we call the president, that dried bundle of sticks soaked in hobo piss that we call Joe Biden, is going to go down to the border and check it out. He's going down to Brownsville. Going to Brownsville. I'm pretty sure that's what he says every time he goes to the bathroom. All right, I'll be back. Gotta go to Brownsville. Anyway, he did not. He did not contact the union, the Border Patrol union. And so the Border Patrol union, in response to him going down there today, says, keep our name out of your mouth today. They posted keep. Keep your name out of our mouth today because they're afraid that Biden is going to say that the union supports what he requested for border. Border funding. And so keep your name out of. Keep our name out of your mouth today. Well, Putin has threatened in some speech, you know, nuclear war against the United States if we keep supporting Ukraine. And he asks, you know, what, are you crazy? Don't you know we have nukes that can nuke you? What are you doing? But although Putin is a, let's say he's a formidable leader with a nuclear arsenal and a war that he seems to be winning, but I feel like it's kind of a, kind of a close comparison between Biden and Putin. For example, Biden was just on one of those evening shows that's a non Gutfeld one. You've heard of those that if you watch any late night tv, there's, there's Gutfeld and then there's like these miscellaneous ones with people who are all the same people. I, I think they're different people. There's like, one is called a Seth and there's a Jimmy and maybe another Jimmy. Are there two Jimmies and a Seth? Something like that. But on one of those shows, Biden, because he can't speak and deliver a joke, they did an elaborate setup where the Biden could get a laugh by simply putting his sunglasses on. So he was, he was asked if he was embracing the. The, what is it? Dark Biden meme, you know, where he acts all awesome and his eyes glow and stuff like that. And to make his case, he put on his sunglasses, and that was sort of the punchline. So they literally had to craft a situation where one of the Jimmies or the Seths does all the work to set it up. And all Biden had to do was take out his sunglasses and put them on. It went like this. It was less than awesome. Did the audience love it? Oh. Oh, That's my SEAL impression. Yeah. SEAL impression. Well, Biden needs no cognitive test. According to his doctors, he's just fine. And I like to point out that I think he's found the dementia sweet spot. The dementia sweet spot. And this is something we can all aspire to. I want to find that place where I'm still smart enough to be the leader of the entire Democratic Party, but not capable enough to stand trial for my crimes. Sweet spot. Yeah. It's inspiring if you think about it. He hit that. That's called sticking the landing. Well, Mike Benz, who has miraculously not been assassinated yet. That's weird. But there's more to the story besides the fact that he hasn't been assassinated by the CIA yet. He says, if you guys think Russiagate is over, you ain't seen nothing yet. Russia Gate 3.0 is going to Be the mother of them all. If the Ukraine aid is denied, I would not rule out the blob. That's the security state and the Democrats and permanent people, etc. The blob burning the entire Republican Party to the ground, then in its ashes installing a Nikki Haley. Huh. Well, that's pretty scary. So I guess the idea would be to, you know, jail Trump and basically take out the Republicans one way or the other and just have a one party system and a complete coup now. The only thing that makes me safe, feel safe, is that there aren't any members of the Democratic Party who have any history of using, let's say, the CIA to overthrow countries. What are you telling me that there are Democrats and our security apparatus has experience overthrowing countries, like with coups and stuff? Really? Well, how many times have they done it? Once. 80 times. Oh, my God, I should have done more research. 80 times. Well, but not in any countries that matter. Right. It's like a little, you know, Mauritania and Papa. You know, basically places you can't. What? Ukraine. Ukraine. My God. 2014, the United States and the Democrats took over an entire country. Wow. So. Well, looks like they can do that. Well, I don't know how much we should worry about this, but it does look possible. I would say that Mike Ben's statement would have looked insane five years ago. It would have looked just insane today. It's kind of a coin flip now. I think we'll be fine because I'm an optimist. But is it possible that there would be literally a coup in the United States? I don't think so, because they already own it. The coup already happened. The coup happened a long time ago. What they do to keep Trump out of office might be just details, but, no, they're already firmly in charge. Will they lose the illusion that we have a democracy in the vote counts and all that? They might. So really what you're talking about is them just dropping the illusion that voting matters. That might happen. We might lose the illusion the voting. Voting matters. All right. Trump did a video in which he called Biden a mental and says he's making up stories about him forgetting his wife's name. And he explained why that was a fake news. And I kind of liked it because the way Trump did it, he did it with real high energy, you know, his usual. But even. Even really more commanding. So a lot of it was just showing how commanding he is compared to the competition. You know, he didn't say that, but you could see that he was putting the, the energy emphasis into it, but that was good. And persuasion wise, that was good stuff. And the mental midget thing is very quotable, so that's good stuff. The part where you have to explain why it was fake news is not ideal, but it's better than not doing it. So anyway, that was good play, Corinne. John Pierre talked about the lack of a cognitive test for Biden and said, quote, folks need to understand that the president passes a cognitive test every day. So why do we even have them? It makes you wonder why we have them if you're passing it every day anyway. There's nothing they won't tell you that doesn't sound stupid. All right, here's the story, and I want you to see if you can, if you can determine what's really going on. All right, so the story is that there's going to be a new election security task force. Well, that sounds good, doesn't it? An election security task force. Finally, finally an election security task force. Now maybe we'll have some confidence that the election was done correctly. That's good news. Election security task force. Did I ever tell you that if you only know what is happening, you don't know anything? But if you know who, you know everything. Well, maybe we should dig into this a little bit because the. What sounded great. I like having a election security task force. That's exactly what I want. Let's see who's in charge of it. Democratic. Democratic. Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania. Show. Okay, so the Democrats are going to decide what is fair. Okay, that's terrible. That's terrible. But at least we don't have to worry that he's somehow, you know, working with. Because this would be terrible. Imagine if he were working with some kind of intelligence group or CIA. I mean, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying that would be terrible because that would be the worst case scenario, wouldn't it? Imagine that. Imagine if it's a Democrat. So he's already biased. But then on top of that, the people that we imagine would be rigging in elections, you know, intelligence type people that if he were in any way associated with them or working with them, that would make this story look pretty bad. Let's see. I read this story in NBC News, NBC News. So is there anybody here who doesn't make that connection? So I, I listen to Glenn Greenwald who's always saying that NBC is, you know, the primaries, though. So you've got a CIA identified outlet that most of the country doesn't know that and you got a Democrat saying he's going to do election security, you should assume that that really means the opposite. It looks a lot more like protecting fraud than detecting it. So remember my rule, if you only know what is happening, you don't know anything. If you know who is involved, you know everything. Allegedly. Speaking of rigging, an Illinois judge just ruled that Trump should be removed from the state ballot citing his. Citing the insurrectionist ban. Let's say, let's see if you can guess. Is there anybody here who is not up on that story? For only the people who are not up on the story, what would you guess is the demographic of the judge? If you guessed black Democrat judge, you'd probably be right on right now. Am I saying that there's something wrong with black women? No. If you're hearing that, you're hearing the wrong story. Is there. Am I saying there's a clear correlation of black women, judges, attorney generals, prosecutors going after Trump in what looks like a weaponized prosecution? Yes, the, the correlation is unmistakable. Couldn't possibly miss it. Is that me saying there's something wrong with black women? No. You could replace the black woman in the story with anybody and get the same result under the condition that the person you replaced them with had also been told that they're stopping Hitler and specifically somebody who's bad for them in particular. So let's say you spent seven years telling the country that if you're an Elbonian, Trump hates you. Oh, he's so prejudiced against Elbonians. And not only that, if you're an Elbonian woman, he's probably raped you a few times. Am I right? And if he hasn't gotten around to you yet, well, it's only because he's going twice on E. Jean, Carol, he's going to get around to it, all that raping and pussy grabbing. So you're an Elbonian woman and every day you wake up and the news tells you that you've got somebody who's a candidate, who's a Elbonian, pussy grabbing prejudice against Elbonians and he might be Hitler. He's not just a little prejudiced, he might be Hitler level prejudiced. Right now you're a judge and you're an Elbonian woman and you become a judge and by weird coincidence, the very person who's the monster against all Elbonians, especially the Elbonian women, he hasn't got around to raping yet. What are you going to do? Do you use your power to stop Hitler or do you let history judge you, because you allowed that monster to go to office, get into office and start discriminating, probably rounding up and raping every Elbonian woman he can find. What is the more ethical and moral way to go? I would argue that this black female judge did the most moral and ethical thing you could do under the circumstances, which is that her illusion is that she's stopping Hitler. Likewise the prosecutors in all of the cases against them, the AGs and the prosecutors who are black, and especially women. Again, nothing wrong with being black. Nothing wrong with being woman. That's fine. It's just that that demographic was targeted to be brainwashed extra hard because the Democrats need to keep them, you know, keep them in the Democrat fold. So with no malice or bad feelings for the black female judge, it's because she's black and female. And, and. And she has been targeted by the brainwashers to act exactly the way she act. Clearly. Clearly a non legal ruling and just trying to stop Heller. So when this is retold, people will say, my God, what did that cartoon say about black people today? But you all heard me right. It's not about being black. It's not about being a woman. It's about that group being targeted by our own dark forces to be brainwashed a little extra hard. And it worked. You think brainwashing doesn't work? Of course it does. That's why there are two parties. Of course it does. So I would expect that to get reversed, but who knows? Speaking of the Supreme Court, they've decided to take up the case of whether the President has blanket immunity while in office. Now, I'd like to give you Rachel Maddow's take on this, if I could. Rachel Maddow talking about the Supreme Court taking up the case. I think there were some words in there too, but I can't pretend it's not mental illness anymore. You just have to watch any. Any video of Rachel Maddow. It is obvious mental illness. It's not a difference of opinion. Now, hold on. Do I think that Rachel Maddow has something wrong with her? Actually, no. Might surprise you. I think she's very smart, and I think she probably means well for the country. Are you surprised? She's very smart. Like super smart. Way smarter than me. And means well for the country. I'm almost positive. I mean, but she is in a demographic group which has been targeted by the brainwashers to believe that she, and she alone, with her influence, can stop Hitler from coming to office and rounding up the entire LGBT community and putting them in jail. What would you do if you had been brainwashed into thinking Trump was Hiller and that he had some special problem with women and lgbtq? What would you do? Well, if it were me, I would do what she's doing. I would be really, really upset emotionally that he could be coming to office again. That would bother me a lot if I had been brainwashed like she is. So I think she's with, within her brainwashed state. She's acting completely morally and ethically. I think it's just that she's in a brainwashed state. So when we watch it, it's obvious. Mental illness, it's obvious. But, you know, maybe her viewers can't tell the difference because they're in the same state anyway. Well, she's not the only one talking about, of course there, there, there are others, such as Chris Hayes, her co worker there on msnbc, and he said this quote, the, the Supreme Court order to saying that they would hear the case was a clear, unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of the Trump created court that they are with him. Does that feel like a reasonable interpretation? Who in the world thinks that the members of the Supreme Court that Trump nominated are maga? Are you kidding me? I didn't think there's even one person who thinks that. And, and of course he's confusing his viewers because his viewers don't know the difference between a conservative judge and maga. Those are not really that close that, you know, they share a conservative worldview, but it's only the conservative part. The judges don't have a bit of maggot in them. You know, whatever the MAGA energy is, is purely political. You know, a lot of it is about personality. Honestly, it's about personality. It's a lifestyle. You know, there's a whole bunch going on. Whatever makes the MAGA supporters, which I don't identify with, frankly, I like them. I just, I'm not one of them. I'm not a hat wearer. But to, to paint the Supreme Court as a MAGA majority, do you feel like that's setting up for, let's say, a coup? Because the only thing protecting us from the Democrat terror is the Supreme Court. So if they don't get rid of the Supreme Court, they can't do anything that they want to do. They're going to end up with a Trump presidency if they don't get rid of it. To me, it looks like a warning sign that the Democrats are ready to take down the court, which could be as simple as packing it, which by the way they could do before the end of the year, couldn't they? Well, let me ask you this. Hypothetically, knowing that the court just took up this case and that it could make all of their. All their plans to get rid of Trump could just disappear with one order. Could Biden say, I'm packing the court right now and here's 10 nominations. Oh, but they still have to be a. There'll still be a process to put them through. But he wouldn't be able to get them affirmed, though, right? He would need more. More support from the Republicans. Yeah. Confirmed would be the hard part. So he couldn't really just front run the decision and pack it. That wouldn't work, would it? Senate approval. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, but the whole MAGA thing does show you that they're trying to ramp things up for. For a coup or military action or jailing. That's the only way I can see it. Every, every time they use maga, I hear we want to kill you physically. And colonizer, too. When I hear colonizer, I hear we want to kill you physically. We're just not going to say it yet. We'll say it later when we have enough power, but we're not going to say it directly. Not yet. All right, then. Lisa Rubin, who's a lawyer correspondent type contributor on msnbc, she writes this on a post. If the Supreme Court derails both federal criminal trials of Trump. So there are two federal trials, one is the documents, and one is about January 6th. She says Tish James and E. Jean Carroll will have held Trump accountable in ways the Justice Department might never achieve. Don't discount the significance of civil liabilities, especially for a guy who values money over liberty. Okay. Could there be any clearer statement that they're using lawfare against them? That's very direct, isn't it? They're basically saying what matters is they get them right? Like, it doesn't matter how we get them. What matters is we get them. And that, I mean, it doesn't even look political. I mean, this is just. Looks like the worst person in the world who doesn't know how bad this sounds. And why would you write this in public knowing that basically it would be interpreted as a, you know, confession that it's lawfare. You would only do this if you lived in such a bubble that you couldn't understand how somebody else would process this. Imagine the depth of that bubble that you wouldn't understand how anybody else would read the statement. That's pretty impressive. Yeah. All right, now, Rachel, Matt now has a I guess a legal opinion that, is she a lawyer? Is Rachel mad? Is she an attorney? I feel like she might be. Never passed the bar. Somebody says PhD, not an attorney. All right, but super smart. But anyway, her reading of the situation is that, of course, Trump does not have blanket immunity for what he did in office. Because the Nixon case showed you that Nixon was worried about what would happen after he was out of office, which is the whole reason he was pardoned. So if you couldn't be convicted for something that happened in office, then why would you need a pardon? I mean, that's a. That's a confession that it's obvious that if you did something bad enough during office, maybe they wouldn't prosecute you while you're in office, but certainly as soon as you're done. Now, that's her take. Did she leave anything out? Is there any context missing? Doesn't it really matter if the thing you're doing is in the context of your actual job? The burglary wasn't really exactly part of his official duties. That was just a crime. Is there anybody here who says that if Trump had murdered Hobo, that he should be not prosecuted after he left office? Is there even one person who thinks that's. That would make a good rule? No. No. If he does an actual crime, that has nothing to do with doing his job, it's just unrelated to his job, like a burglary, you know, I mean, you could make the case, but it's too unrelated. Then of course, you could be prosecuted afterwards. But suppose it's January 6th and you're concerned that the Republic has been corrupted by a dirty election. Whose job is it to make sure that it wasn't corrupted? The President? Nobody. More than that. Not only was it his job, I would argue job number one of all the things the President does, making sure the election was not rigged when it looked like it was, in his opinion, that would be by far the most directly applicable thing that that President at that moment should be doing. Indeed, I would say he should have canceled everything else. Clear the schedule. What? I'm sure he did clear the schedule. It should only be that because that's how important it is to the job of President. The fact that he suspected there was fraud, and I do believe he believed really there was fraud. That's right on point with his job. How about the documents, the documents he took out? Well, there, as Judge Dean points out, the judges could say, well, we're not going to blame you for anything you did in office, but after office, you still had them. So it's the after office problem, you know, that we're looking at. You know, it's like a separate crime. However, it seems to me that immunity. I'm no lawyer, but from a common sense point of view, if Trump made decisions about that proprietary information while in office, I would say it's clear that his intent was that he could, it would not be confidential after he left and that he could have it. So to me, it should cover everything. But I could also imagine it wouldn't. You know, I'm no lawyer, so don't assume that I can predict these things accurately. However, I would think, I would think he's going to be okay, but I wouldn't guarantee it. I'd say 60, 40. Supreme Court backs Trump. What do you say? Give me your odds. 60, 40 in favor of Trump. Supreme Court give me rods. 75, 25. 60, 40 is good. 9 to 1. 75, 25, 6 to 3. Well, I'm not saying what the vote will be. I'm saying the odds that it goes his way, not, not, not the vote on the court. That's a separate question. 80, 20. All right, so most of you think he's probably going to prevail, but honestly, don't you think it. Because they're not Democrats. Right. If there were Democrats, you'd say, oh, he's dead right now. Let me ask you this. What's the point of the Supreme Court if every one of us knows that if they were all Democrats, they would rule differently than if they were all Republicans? What's the point of. Does tell you that the system is completely ridiculous? All right, Columbia University Hospital. I guess they're head of DEI there. He was found to have plagiarized 20% of his doctoral dissertation. But the funny part is the name of his doctoral dissertation. This is the guy they had in charge of their dei. I don't even know what this means, but Ubuntu. It's all in capitals. Ubuntu. Ubuntu. I am. Because we are a case study examining the experiences of African centered rights of passage program within a community based organization. You Buntu. I don't know. I don't know what that even means. Yeah, I know it's an operating system, but what does it mean in this context? All right, okay. It means sharing. Somebody says, sounds good. All right. The government is trying to refund itself with a giant omnibus bill, which is of course thoroughly corrupt, but we've always put up with it in the past. Marjorie. Taylor Greene says that we should not, you know, not approve this thing because it's got a bunch of money in there. She doesn't like for the Green New Deal, DEI and open borders. Now, of course, Democrats would dispute the open borders and they would support the Green New Deal stuff, but would they argue that it's funding for dei? I mean, I haven't seen it, but I'm guessing that's really in there. If Green says so. So I'd like to give you my opinion on this. I support closing the government forever. If the alternative is funding dei, I'll say that as clearly as I can. I support not funding the oven ever for anything. If DEI is in the funding, just shut it down. Because I prefer it. Because if you, if my government is going to fund discrimination against me, I'd rather not have a government. Let's just fight it out. Let's form a new one. Let's have another revolution or something, whatever. I mean, I'm not, I don't want to. I'm not supporting violence. No violence. No violence. But maybe in a peaceful way we could just stop supporting the system because. No, I'm not going to spend money to discriminate against me. No. So Republicans, I am calling upon you to just stop the government. And if, if it means that Russia wins, I want to be as clear about this as possible. If it means that Russia wins in Ukraine, I'm still okay with it. If it means that China takes over Taiwan, still okay. Still okay. If it means that the government doesn't get paid, still okay. You can't tell me anything that would bother me about this. Crash our. It would crash our economy. Okay. Okay. Yeah, but you can't put DEI in the budget. That, that's not just. It's not negotiable. Not negotiable. That's got to be the opening bid. Is that, that's not in there, you know, that. Can't even talk about it. So let's hope that the country is destroyed by its own bad decisions. That's just me. You could hope that it survives. So Romney is weirdly arguing for money for Ukraine, and it's a bit of a mystery because he's very pro $60 billion to fund it and he says that. That they'll lose without it. Etc. Now, here's what's weird. We assume that a lot of the Ukraine situation has to do with money laundering and finances and corruption and stuff. But my instinct tells me that Romney is not financially corrupt. Now, I know, I know, I know, I know you don't like him. I know you don't trust him. I know, I know, but the guy's already rich, completely, legally he's. And he's a Mormon and he's really the last guy who would do a financial crime at this scale or even be in favor of it. All right, now I get, I get that many of you will disagree with me because it's is purely subjective. So I'm just talking about my own, trying to sort it out. In my opinion, while he might be Weasley and you don't like him and he's got his own, you know, his own agenda, etc, I just don't think he's a crook. Has anybody ever accused him of being a crook? Am I missing something? Yeah, well, so you know, one of the things about being a Mormon is you think God's watching you pretty closely. And I don't know a lot of Mormon thieves. You know, all those smash and grabs you see in the city. Not a lot of Mormons. I always look at them and say, where's all the Mormons? So I don't think he's a crook, but he is. He's going hard at the Ukraine funding, which is hard to understand. Would you like to have a. Oh, there you go. Don't get ahead of me. What did I tell you? Whenever there's a story about politics that it just doesn't add up. What, what I, it's always, it's always the CIA. So I'm going to give you a working assumption and it's not based on any proof or anything like that. My working assumption is that Romney must have some connection with the, you know, the intel people and they want it and he just can't say no to him. That's my guess. You know, maybe they have, I don't know, maybe they have blackmail on him, maybe he just thinks they're doing the right thing. I don't know. But Mike, Ben's did a, he's got another video in which he gives a six minute explanation of what happened with the whole Ukraine situation. And this is very compatible with the view that I formed. I don't know if it was on my own, but reading everybody else's opinion and it goes like this. Ukraine was always about energy. It was always about energy and, but energy and national defense are the same topic. The thing your government can't say to you is, look, if our energy company doesn't completely dominate the world, we will not have an effective military either. Because first of all you need energy for your military, but you also need tons of money. And the energy business is where you get most of it. But more importantly, and here's where Mike Benz really added a nuance here that I wasn't considering, is that as long as Russia had a big, successful competitive energy business, primarily through Gazprom, they're a big energy company that they could make so much money that they could fund and sell weapons to a whole bunch of countries that we don't want to have weapons so that our military dominance over smaller countries such as Syria would be thwarted because Russia had so much money it could just give them a bunch of weapons. So the idea in Ukraine, and this would be Mike's. Mike Benz's framing, is that it was always about stealing all the energy business from Russia to make them weak enough that they couldn't fund military stuff in other countries where we also have interests. Wow. And so every. Everything that you thought was bad about America and aggressive was true. And that we did the coup specifically not. And there's even suggestion that the person we deplaced was trying to play fair with both sides, that apparently the. The coup that we were behind that got rid of the leader of Ukraine and put Zelensky in eventually, that that coup was against somebody who had done deals with American companies, Chevron, but also deals with Russia. So he was basically just trying to do deals that made sense, it looks like. And that wasn't good enough because it still gave deals to Russia and that's who we got rid of. Now, I'm sure he wasn't totally clean, but that's a different frame than I've heard. So, yes, it was a battle between two gas stations, but two gas stations with machine guns. So this is a war between two gas stations, but the gas is just so they can afford the machine guns. But it's not. It's not the great democracy of America against a gas station with nuclear weapons. It's two gas stations with machine guns. And they know that there can't be two. And we're trying to be the one. We're trying to crush them forever, basically. So it seems to me if we were trying to make peace, the path to do that would be to say, look, the real problem here is not that Russia does well. The real problem is that your military adventures are at odds with ours. How about this? Maybe instead we could work together on those other countries so that we don't shoot each other and they don't shoot each other. And maybe we just, you know, if Gazprom gets a deal there, maybe Chevron can also Get a deal there. Maybe we. Maybe we're happier if that country is just doing their own thing and they're not pro or anti either one of us. How about that? So, given that I believe Putin, you know, of course he's a. A partisan and he's part of the Russian history, which is hard for us to fathom, but I feel like he's also a business person and he's a practical person. And if you said, look, here's how we can both get, pretty much a lot, I suspect, might be a way to go there. Maybe. I mean, it would be unlikely, but it's the only path I can see. So that, ladies and gentlemen, is a world we live in. The Ukraine war seems like a case of the government can't tell you the truth. And I think something similar is going on with our border. All right, so what would the truth have been? If you. If. If our government could tell us the truth about Ukraine, what would it have sounded like? It would sound like this. All right. I know this is going to be hard for you to hear, citizens, but sometimes the world is a tough place, and you've got to do tough things that on paper, don't look so cool. One of them is if we don't dominate this country, Ukraine, and I know dominating another country is a little unethical, immoral, but if we don't, then Russia will. They'll have so much money in control that their military will fund all kinds of problems for us. And in the long, long run, we will be weakened, cut off from the financial world, and we'll be in trouble. And the reality is that countries are either growing or shrinking. There's nothing in between. Nothing stays the same. Except maybe Switzerland. But as a world power, if we're not growing, we will be shrinking because somebody else will be growing instead. Russia. And so it really does make sense that we destroy the entire country of Ukraine if we can slow down Gazprom. And that, believe it or not, as terrible as that sounds, is better than the alternative, which is Russia has unlimited money that they appear to be putting into unlimited weapons for. For places that are a problem for us. Now, if they had sent that to you, honestly, what would you say? Would you say, oh, yeah, you know, now that you've explained it to me, I guess we have to kill a million people in Ukraine just to have more energy profits. You would never vote for that. No, you would say, I feel like we should just compete with them, maybe, you know, maybe just do a better job of energy. Something like that maybe produce more energy in the United States and just let them do their own thing. Maybe that. But who's right? Is Victoria. Is Victoria Newland wrong? Well, I don't know what she thinks. So I, I can't put words in her, in her head. But the people who are talking about her believe that she's doing evil things. That if you didn't do them, worse things would happen to your country down the road. And it's almost guaranteed. How would you feel about her if she genuinely believed, if she genuinely believed that this had to be done to protect America in the long run? Because you know what? It's not a bad argument. I don't know. I don't know if there's a better way, but that argument's not bad. It's just one that we can't hear. We can't participate in an argument that says, I'd like to take your reputation Americas. I'm going to make you all a party to this massive crime. We're probably going to kill a million Ukrainians before this is all done. But here's the good news. After we've killed a million Ukrainians, we're going to make a lot more money in energy. Does that sound like something you would vote for? But the energy takes it from Russia. So they don't buy weapons, so we don't have the military conflict. You could, you can kind of see that the dots do line up. However, I believe it's a loser's analysis. It imagines there are two. Two ways things can go. Russia wins or we win. And that's too limiting to me. I think there's probably a way we could both do okay, and nobody's putting enough attention into that now. If you believe that the other side can't be worked with, they're just evil under all situations. They're just going to try to kill you. No point in making a deal. Well, you might be right. I don't know, you know that that's where my knowledge ends. I don't know what the Russians are thinking or what Putin's actually thinking, but it's not crazy. It's just not what I would have picked. I would have picked peace and try to figure it out. But I also am glad I live in a world where people will make super hard choices if they think it's the right choice for the country. I don't know if that's what's happening. It could be just for money. But on the border, again, it's a mystery. I'll bet you that the real reason we don't know is that, that we can't be told the truth. Because I believe the truth would sound like this. Here's the deal. If we stop the cartels from bringing people and fentanyl, they will stop working with us because we have a deal with them. That they're the only reason that Mexico is staying together. Like the government's kind of fake. It's the cartel that's holding the whole country together. At least America has some influence on, on our neighbor. And you know, if, if we didn't work with the cartels, we wouldn't. And then the next thing you know, they're going to make a deal with Russia because we don't want to do car deals and manufacturing with Mexico. So Mexico is going to say, well, if you're not going to build a manufacturing plant here and give us jobs, I'll bet China will. And next, you know, Mexico is essentially owned by China. Right? Now, if the CIA came to you and said, look, it's really more complicated than you think. If we don't work with the cartels, the real power in Mexico, they are going to work with whoever else has money and they're still going to do what they're doing, but they're going to, you know, the money is going to come from Mexico and then Mexico or from China or Russia. And then we've got China and Russia on our doorstep. Right. For the next 20 years. It looks like a really bad idea to let the cartels do what they're doing, but might be better off now. I don't know that that's true and it's not the way I would play it. But can you see the general point that the world is such a dirty place that the people who might be looking out for your benefit or the country's benefit in the long run, because they're long run people, right? They're planning for the bigger picture. They can't tell you what's true because you're not ready to hear the truth. Jack Nicholson, you are not prepared to hear the truth. Yeah. So it could be some of that. So again, I go back to when things don't make sense, like why are we funding Ukraine? Or why is the border completely open? It's probably always the same reason that there's a CIA involved and they have a legitimate larger strategy, but they couldn't possibly tell you because if they did, you wouldn't support it. Which doesn't mean it's the worst idea. I'm not qualified to judge I don't know. All right, that, ladies and gentlemen, is my. My show for today. I'd like to thank the members of Rumble and the Ex, people on X watching, and even the people who are watching on the racist Google product called YouTube. As we know, Google is going full racist. And I like to keep pairing racist with their product names so that someday their AI will learn the truth. And that's all I got for today. See you tomorrow, same place, same time.