Episode 2409 CWSA 03/10/24

On 5G today because my Internet is down yet again. Should be able to get it fixed later today. I've got an appointment with my Internet provider. I'm hoping it's nothing personal, but we're coming in a little early. This is the pre show. I normally do this just for the local subscribers, but today we're all together using the Rumble Studio, and I'm seeing all the locals comments. All right, I'll give you an idea what the delay is. So I'm seeing Flagstaff. Greetings from Barry. I'll tell you, the next comment I get will be, oh, no, I was behind. I'm seeing Owen. Good morning. Happy Daylight Savings time. All right, so far I am seeing only comments from locals. It looks like you've been prioritized Audio. There's always at least one person saying, where's your audio? All right, I'm assuming you could hear me fine. Right? Most of you. Let me grab my notes. Get serious. I sure wish these comments would roll on their own. Good audio. That's what I thought. And I already lost 5G. The 5G already just went out, so almost. There's very little chance we're going to get through this because one of the things I found is that when my regular Internet goes out, my 5G almost always goes down at the same time. It's never useful as a backup. Completely. Yeah. Damn it. So what kind of picture are you seeing? I'm transmitting at low fidelity. Go to Starbucks. Yeah, that's not going to happen. X doesn't load the previous comments when you load the page. Yep. Yep. The comment we will not allow today. There are two comments that are not allowed today. One, will M. Will Michelle Obama run for president? No. And two, I should get Starlink. I know. You just don't need to say it. I'm well aware of the options. Oh, I just realized that when I see the comments on the Rumble Studio, I don't see your photos, so I don't see any memes. I'm going to try something which I haven't tried before, to see if I can join the show as a guest, see your comments. Oh, this might work. All right, we're going to see if this crashes the whole system. We'll go live with the show at the top of the hour. This is the pre show. If anybody's coming in from one of the platforms besides locals. And this is what the locals people generally get. All right, let's see what happens if I have two. So I'll be signed on to locals twice if this works. I think it's not going to work, but we'll see. Oh, this could be interesting. It's probably going to crash. The Rumble Studio is trying. I don't have enough of an Internet connection to pull this off. Right now. We're coming to you through the Rumble Studio, so I don't have an option of segmenting who's in here. You're either all in or nobody's in. It's a problem with my Internet provider. They're coming out this afternoon. Yeah, the Internet provider found the problem on their own, and they alerted me to it, so they coming out to fix it. It's unstable on the Internet side. Turns out there might not be anything wrong with my equipment after. Is everybody as sleepy as I am? You had the best salmon of your life last night. Now, that's the good news I like to hear. Whoa, something's happening. Well, I just started seeing your comments on my separate device. That's interesting, but it's also. It's not showing me the images. Oh. It's showing me myself. I appear to be live on two platforms. Which one of me do you see? Do you have. Do you have two? So let me tell you what I'm seeing. We'll go live in two minutes. Two minutes. We'll go live. I'm seeing myself on two different systems. So tell me which camera. Oh, my goodness. Okay. I thought I was watching the. Watching myself in the other feed, but I'm actually seeing myself delayed. There we go. All right, so it looks like I'm seeing. Oh, there. I'm seeing images. Look at that. So there might be a workaround here that I can. I can see your images this way. All right, we may have solved the problem here. May have solved the problem because I can see the locals. Comments separately now on a separate device, but I'm working on LTE. I don't even have 5G, so I have no idea how long this feed is going to stay up. Probably not long. All right, so. Well, here we go. It's time. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adamson. It's the best thing that ever happened to you. And if you'd like to enjoy this experience at levels that nobody can even understand. Oh, I'm going to have to turn off this monitor. I'm watching two monitors, and I'm delayed on one. Do you know how hard it is to talk when you're watching yourself do something that you're not actually doing? I'm talking. And I'm watching myself and the other monitor doing the paper tap thing. Anyway, that's not ideal, but if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker Chelsea Stein, a canteen jerk or flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go. Pretty good. Pretty good. So how many of you are exhausted from losing that hour of sleep last night? I am. I am totally exhausted. Yep, that didn't work out at all for me. So we'll see if we can limp through this. The update on my Internet connection is the Internet providers coming out this afternoon. They detected a problem in their network, so it might not be on my end. If you're reading Dilbert Reborn, or if you're a subscriber either on the Locals platform scottadams.locals.com or on the X profile, then you would know that Dilber's company is having trouble because China stole their source code. I don't want to give away too much, but when China stole the source code of Dilbert's company, it didn't go well for China. That's a little preview. You may have noticed I lost my blue check mark on X because I. I think I knew this, but I forgot I changed my profile picture and they take your. They take your blue jack away. Now, it's supposedly supposed to come back after they verify you or something, but it's been days. I don't know if it's coming back or not. I'm not even sure if I'm monetized anymore. It's like the worst thing they should. If I could make one suggestion before. You are allowed to change your profile before, then it should tell you you can lose your check mark. Not after. No, not after. Because I wouldn't have changed if I know. If I know that. Lose my check mark. I don't even know if it's coming back. Well, did you know that you know, Biden made a bunch of money available to move American chip production over to the usa, but that's not working out at all. Guess why? Turns out nobody wants to manufacture chips when you need a skilled workforce and you also have DEI requirements, people are deciding, oh, we can't do this in America because we can't do those two things. We can't get enough skilled employees if we also have to serve a different master of, you know, hitting. Getting some requirements for dei. So there are companies that could be building American chip production in America that are looking for other countries. So we have people who are perfectly willing and able to build chip manufacturing in America and we burden them with such ridiculous requirements that they're like, no, thanks, I think we'll go to a third world country. We'll be safer. Well, there's a brand new building material that can warm you when it's cold and you cooler when it's warm. Reminds me of that old thermos joke. You know, you put hot water in your thermos and it stays hot. You put cold water in your thermos and it stays cold. How does it know? It's an old joke. I don't know who said it first, but apparently there's a material that knows how to absorb when it wants to make the building warmer and it knows how to automatically reflect when it needs to keep it cooler. And it's automated. It's not, not automated. It's just built into the material so you don't have to, you know, have any electronics or anything. It just does it. So that's pretty cool. Something coming out of Chinese research and in Wuhan. What? It's from the Wuhan University of Technology. Well, nothing bad has ever come out of Wuhan, so I think we're fine about that. All right. There's a new study that I'm going to tell you in advance before I tell you the content. It is the most accurate, credible, completely reliable study I've ever seen in my life. You know how to interpret that, right? It agrees with my. It agrees with what I wanted to hear. And that's what I call science. And the study says that, quote, another unexpected benefit from consuming cannabis, especially when it's recreational, is that participants who only use cannabis recreationally has significantly lower risk of subjective cognitive decline, as much as 96% less recommended risk compared to non users. Did you hear the 96 part? 96% less risk of, of being impaired if you smoke marijuana regularly. So this is all part of my plan to run for president when I'm 90 years old. Because let me tell you, I haven't done any double blind, placebo, controlled, randomized, controlled trials. But I feel like I'm getting smarter every day. Yeah, I feel like that's happening. All right, there's an update on McConnell's, Mitch McConnell's sister in law who tragically drove her Tesla into a lake and drowned. Remember, we all had some conspiracy theories about it must have been murder. Somehow they got her. Turns out, we know fairly substantially with credibility that it wasn't murder, it was an accident. But worse than you imagined because apparently she was able to make a cell phone call from her submerged car. Now, if that's the only thing you know about this story, it's about as horrible as anything I could even imagine. So I guess they didn't have divers when the emergency crews got there. They couldn't get around, she couldn't open the door. They didn't have anything that would tow around. And so I guess it was one woman who dove in and tried to do something, but that was impossible. So. But the. I don't want to call it good news. It's definitely not good news, but it's news that it was, was just an accident. One of the worst ones I've ever heard in my life, honestly. So she drove her car into a lake. Well, speaking of Lakin Lakin rally, she's still in the news because, you know, she was tragically murdered by an undocumented, some say illegal, immigrant. And the, the issue is that Biden had referred to the killer as illegal, but had to walk it back because all the Democrats said you can't call that murder illegal. You must say undocumented. And, you know, personal point of privilege. I'd like to make the news more about me because that's what is missing. A lot of the news would be stories that don't involve me and I feel that's just wrong. So I'd like to make this about me somehow. And I'd like to say that if I ever get murdered by somebody who came from another country, I hope they're undocumented because I feel that wouldn't hurt as much as an illegal. Am I wrong about that? If you get murdered by an undocumented person, I don't think it hurts as much. So that's what I'm hoping for. Setting my sights low. Well, as Balaji Srinivasan was pointing out, that the New York Times bestseller list. Did you know that's always been fake? How many of you were aware of that? That the New York Times bestseller list is not based on who sells the most books. Did you know that it's editorial. They get to decide what's on the list and what's not. I first learned that when I had the number one best selling book in the country, but not according to the New York Times best selling list. Now, keep in Mind that if you're an author and you're working with a big publisher, they have access to the actual sales reports, they know what book is number one. The publishers do. And then they look at the New York Times as different. Now, as a publisher. No, I'm sorry, as a, as an author, I've known that for 25 years, something like that. And that was one of my first wake up calls that nothing is real. Just nothing is real. If the New York Times bestseller list is not really based on who's selling the most books, do you think the news is real? Do you think anything in that newspaper is real? Well, what could be easier than just saying who sold the most books? It doesn't get much easier than that. It's automated. Every, everybody's looking at the same data. You know, I think it only is from the big companies, but that tells you who sells the most. That is the book selling data is only from the larger booksellers. It's not from every bookseller, but that gets 85% of them. All right, but although the New York Times bestseller list is fake, one thing we can feel good about, and I think you'd all join me in this, is at least the climate models are real. Yeah. Just when you're feeling like, oh, is everything made up and fake, at least those climate models are completely real. Yeah, everything else is fake. Moving on. There's a Oscar nominated film called the Holdovers that I never heard of because I don't watch movies anymore because they're all garbage. Is apparently the, the writer of the script is accused of plagiarism. So the claim is that there was some script that never got made into a movie that lot of people saw and the person who wrote this movie saw it and they know there's some information that they know the writer sought. And so it's an Oscar nominated film, but it might be plagiarized. That's the claim. Wow. If you can't trust the Oscars, who can you trust? So I guess I can't trust the New York Times bestseller list and I can't really trust that the Oscar nominated film is not plagiarized, but at least climate models are real. We still have that. We still have that, people. We still have that. All right. Trump continues to be the president who swears better than any president has ever sweared, at least in public. At his rally, he said, and I quote, everything Joe Biden touches turns to shit. Everything. Now, here's a lesson in cursing. Cursing is generally a bad idea. And it's especially bad when women do it. Now you're going to say to me, what, that's kind of sexist. I'm just saying that when women curse, there's a substantial number of men who go, pass. Now, I'm not one of them. I don't mind when women curse at all. But it's a bad play if you're, if you're single, there's a pretty substantial percentage of men who have a problem with it. I don't know what the percentage is. Might be 20%, something like that, but I don't, I don't think it works the same for men. I don't think women are judging men the same way. I could be wrong, but Trump really knows how to use it as just the right accent. If he swore more than he does, it would be too much and it would just be gross. If he never swore, we wouldn't get this cool story. He swears exactly the right amount and exactly the right way, like, because it turns into a quotable, you know, moment. And here I am talking about it. So persuasion wise, Trump is on target with that. There will be more stories about Trump coming up. I have a theory that there is no complicated political story that ever matters to voters. People like me and many of you watching this, don't you think that we're kind of weird? Like, how many people could describe the, you know, the steel document and where that all went? And, you know, was Manifred really doing anything that could be called collusion or was he doing his own thing? You know, what's up with the lawfare with Trump? What's up with Biden's Ukraine stuff and Hunter Biden? I feel maybe 5% of the country could even describe what those things are. I mean, they sort of generally know who it's good for and who it's bad for, but they don't really know. And I've got a feeling that if you don't really understand, doesn't change your vote. You could be aware it's out there. And if somebody asked you say, oh, that's bad. But I don't think it changes your vote if it's complicated. So I think that's why. That's one of the reasons, not the only reason. I think it's one of the reasons the lawfare doesn't work against Trump is that we can't really hold it in our heads. There are too many cases, too many details. I don't know, is he winning this week? Is he losing? Do I care? Are there any Victims, I'm not really sure. So it does really change my vote. Likewise, all the Hunter, Biden, Ukraine, Chinese money, lost diamonds stuff. It all sounds pretty bad, but, you know, I follow this stuff every day or try to, and I'm not sure I could do a great job of explaining it all. You know, I could get the highlights, lost diamonds, selling influence, but I'm not sure I could get, you know, most of the nuance of it. So, so that's going to be my, my theme is that just keep in mind that the more complexity to a story, the less compelling it is, no matter how bad it is. Let me say that again because that's an important point. No matter how bad the story should be because of what we know about it, it just doesn't affect people because they can't handle that level of complexity enough to make it, make it an operating part of their decision making. So let's talk about TikTok. As you know, there was a bipartisan 50 to 0 vote to ban it and of committee. Now the committee doesn't get to decide. The whole Congress gets to decide. And you might say to yourself, wait a minute, if it's bipartisan and it's 50 people and it's 50 to zero, that that's very predictive that it's going to get banned, wouldn't you say? In a normal world. In a normal world, that would be very predictive. In our world, not so much. So surprisingly, Trump, who used to be in favor of the ban when he was president and even tried to get it banned, is now in favor of it staying unbanned. And Vivek is also, he's said this before, but he uses it to use it during his campaign. And he says free speech, you know, let it stand. And Rand Paul, Rand Paul also said, yes, keep TikTok. Kind of surprised some of you probably. Did any of those names surprise you? You thought what? I, I thought they'd be for the band, but no, Rand says freedom of speech. And Thomas Massie also. Now, what are those four people have in common besides being Republicans? What do they all have in common? Well, there's some of the smartest people in politics, right? I mean, that, that the thing that jumps out is like, oh, that's a little list of the smartest people in politics right there. And they're all on the same side. So they're on the same side of keeping it. But here's the interesting thing. When they talk about it, they talk about it like they don't understand the topic. Now how do you reconcile that? When I say they don't understand the topic, they'll say things like First Amendment, freedom of speech. But they have to know that doesn't apply to a Chinese propaganda company. Of course they do. And they talk about data security, but they don't talk about the persuasion risk, which is the biggest one by far. I mean, not even close. So why would so such smart people, when they talk about it, talk about it in such a weak way? They. That's nonsensical, frankly. Well, if you follow the news, you might know that there's a Republican rich guy billionaire who funds a lot of the Dem. A lot of the Republicans. His last name is Yass Y A S S and he's some billionaire who owns a East American guy who owns 15% of Bite Dance, which owns TikTok. So I would imagine 15% of TikTok would be worth, I don't know, 100 billion, 200 billion something in that age. So he's got, you know, and, and his money is locked up because the Chinese government disallowed ByteDance from doing an IPO. Now, if they'd gone public, that'd be a liquidity event. Eventually it. He'd be able to sell a stake. Maybe not right away, but eventually. But there's no liquidity event, so he's kind of trapped until there is one. Unless he could sell it privately, I suppose. And then the other thing we know is that said billionaire met with Trump and looks like they're getting along. They didn't. They didn't get along until recently and now they're getting along. And it looks like Trump will be benefiting from some funding from this big funder, other people who are reportedly funded by the same entity. The, I guess he owns the entity called. What's it called? It's called Congress. I'm sorry, it's called the Club of Growth. So the billionaire seems to be associated with, I guess it's a pac. So it funds an entity which funds a bunch of Republicans. And Kellyanne Conway is reportedly lobbying Congress to keep TikTok, and she's doing it on behalf of the Club of Growth. So she would be a key advisor to Trump and is working for the billionaire who owns some of Tik Tok now. And there's a report that that Club of Growth also helps fund Rand Paul. I'd heard also that Vivek and Thomas Massie probably get some benefit from that funding as well. So. So what do you think happened here? What, what it looks like is that Trump wanted to ban it and maybe, maybe some of the others did at some point as well. There's no evidence of that, but they would be sort of in trouble if they did because they've got funding. Now what makes this interesting is that the reason that Trump might be a little bit more interested in funding than normal is because the lawfare from the Democrats squeezed his cash flow so, so aggressively. So it kind of put Trump in a situation where money would be more important than it normally would just because the timing and having to come up with huge amounts of cash for his bonds and stuff like that. But let me give you an idea of what the argument looks like. So here's, here's what Rand Paul said on the X platform. He said if Congress bans TikTok, they will be acting just like the Chinese Communists who have also banned TikTok. Why not just defend the First Amendment? Dan Crenshaw, who I'm guessing either never got money from that billionaire or doesn't plan to get any, says this in response to Rand Paul. Now keep in mind, yeah, these are two people are in the Republican world and they're not in the same team. So Crenshaw says to anyone defending Tick Tock, he said, you're not defending the First Amendment. Our First Amendment doesn't apply to the Chinese Communist Party. They use Tick Tock to collect data and can weaponize that into the greatest propaganda machine against Americans we have ever seen. Sorry you're getting complaints from Gen Z, but get over it and do what's right and stop lying. That legislation doesn't ban TikTok. It just says it can't be controlled by our adversaries. Well, let me add a nuance to that. The Chinese Communist Party says that they won't sell it, which is probably a bluff. If they had no choice, they might. But there's not exactly a plan that it would still exist if it were banned. Right. So that would require something that's unlikely to happen, them selling it to an American entity. Now compare these two arguments. Rand Paul, one of the smartest people in the Congress, he says it's a First Amendment issue. And then Dan Crenshaw and by the way, doesn't mention the persuasion risk at all. And then Dan Crenshaw does mention the persuasion risk. So he accurately has identified the top problem and, and says it's the top problem. So now Crenshaw is right on. He's right on the money. And then he says the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda. Now which of those arguments makes perfect sense and which one it doesn't. All right, so I'm leading the witness here, but Crenshaw is 100% and Rand Paul got a zero. He got a zero on an easy question. So how do you explain somebody getting a zero? Like you're just getting everything wrong and so obviously wrong on an easy question when you're one of the smart ones. So as I was posting the other day, something is amiss. Something is amiss. So whatever it is, we thought we knew about the situation. No, I was speculating that it was maybe our, our intelligence people had already penetrated it. So maybe we had some internal benefit we didn't know about. In other words, you know, maybe TikTok has some terrorists on it and, you know, it's better to keep it the way it is and the terrorists don't know that we can see them. You know, I was thinking there may be some argument for keeping it that's security related, that's non obvious, you know, maybe opposite of what it looks like sort of thing. But then I find out that the people who are uncharacteristically acting like they're idiots when we know they're not have a gigantic financial benefit. At least two of the four and the other two are suspected. So it looks like. It's exactly what it looks like. It looks like for money they have picked a position which would be bad for American children. Now the press is making a pretty big deal about it. So we'll see, we'll see if this becomes news. Now remember my theme, my theme was that the public doesn't change their vote because of anything complicated. This is complicated because you would have to understand, you know, the whole tick tock nature, the business model, what would happen if they sold it? Could they sell it? Would the Chinese government sell it? What's really different from, you know, Facebook compared to this, is it really just first amendment? So you'd have to know the constitution, you'd have to know business models. You'd have to be following the story. You'd have to know, you know, how politics works. So let's talk about this from the. I guess I don't have to make a moral or ethical argument about anything. You're all, you're all perfectly capable of doing that, right? So you don't need to know what I think of this. Given that, let me tell you, I conflate in my mind. Tick tock and fentanyl. Now you might not. And, and I don't mean just because sometimes we Say tick tock is digital fentanyl, which it is. The reason I conflate them is that the Chinese Communist Party provides the fentanyl precursors. And you famously, you know that my stepson died from a fentanyl overdose in 2018. So I hold, I have a personal grudge against China. And when I see them sending another form of fentanyl, this case digital fentanyl, I just conflate them. So in my, in my just personal world, you know what I think about it, I don't need, I don't need to detail it, do I? So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to talk about these four individuals going forward, just calling balls and strikes. I'm just going to say when they do something that's, let's say, persuasive and when it's not, and I'll talk about the interesting stories, but I'm not going to endorse anybody for president. You okay with that? From an ethical and moral standpoint, I can't, I can't endorse Trump because of this. Now, let's talk about the strategy of it, though. The political strategy of it might be brilliant. Let's talk about that. Number one, just because it came out of a bipartisan committee 50 to 0, does that mean it was ever going to pass the Congress? Because that matters. If it was never going to pass, then all Trump did was pick up free money. You see what I'm saying? If, if he was sure it wasn't going to pass because it didn't have the votes, and maybe it wouldn't have the votes because this Republican billionaire would make sure it didn't have the votes. So suppose Trump knew it couldn't pass in that situation, if he made a deal that said, all right, I'll, I'll say, I'm for keeping TikTok if you'll fund my campaign. It's just free money because it was going to pass. It, it was going to do what it was going to do no matter what Trump did. Trump doesn't have a vote. He doesn't have a veto being out of office. And you could argue, oh, he could persuade his Republicans. No, he couldn't. No, he couldn't. He, he probably can't. He's not so persuasive. He can just make them vote for something that's against their best interest. So in their best interest would be keeping a big donor on their side. So it could be that Trump is just playing it like a poker game and he's saying, if I'm in favor of the ban, I get no money and I get no ban. You're following me. If he had agreed to continue saying let's ban it, he would get no funding and he also wouldn't get a ban. You get nothing. If he says, all right, inexplicably, I'm going to change my mind, let's keep this TikTok stuff. Then he gets funding, he could become president. And once president in the second term, guess what? He's not beholden to anybody after that. So it's entirely possible that he's Willy Browning this situation. You know, Willie Brown, he was a big San Francisco, well, California politician and he accepted money from some tobacco company for his campaign at the same time that there was a. Some legislation about banning smoking and indoors, I guess. And somebody said, how can you possibly be objective? You know, if you're taking money from the company, you're voting on their product. And Willie Brown famously said, if you can't take money from somebody and then turn around and stab them in the back, you're in the wrong business. Now, that was the moment that I loved Willie Brown. Like, God, that's the most honest thing I've ever heard a politician ever say. And, and indeed, indeed, the law went against the tobacco companies. So not only was it true, he proved it, he took their money and then he screwed them and he did it publicly and right in front of us. Okay, I'm all right with that. So if it turned out that, let's say this billionaire got his liquidity event sometime during the second term of Trump, do you think that Trump might have a change of heart after his friend got his money out? Maybe. So he might get both. He might get the money and he might also ban it. That's a possibility, but it's not going to happen as long as that billionaire's got money in the company. That's my guess. And I think that politically, if Trump looks like the one who. The funny thing is that now Biden wants to ban it. You know, they have to be on opposite sides. Now Biden's strength is the young voters who love them. Some tick tock. So now Biden is opposed to TikTok and Trump is in favor of keeping it. And what is the depth of analysis that the young people will put into this? Allow me to demonstrate. TikTok yes or TikTok no. That's it. That's it. They are not going to be thinking about the geopolitical implications of the Chinese Communist Party influencing United States politics. They're going to be where's my reels? What do they call them? Where's my TikToks? So it could be that Trump wins simply by being looking like he's pro free speech, looking like he's pro TikTok, even though what's really happening is that there's nothing he could do either way about it. So he might as well take the free money and he would certainly be playing to win. You know, one of the things that people say about the Republicans, even Republicans say about it, is why do they play to lose? Have you noticed that? It's like Republicans sometimes will do things maybe out of principle, but they're like, well, this principle is so important, we're going to lose the election. I don't think Trump makes that mistake. One of the things you can hate about him and love about him at the same time is he's playing to win. I think this is a clear example that he does need the money and it would help him win and it's going to be expensive. So, so I'm not going to endorse. I think that's, that's a line I'm not going to cross. I think TikTok is dangerous to the youth. But if it turns out Trump has taken the free money and then he bans it later, I'll change my opinion. All right. Coincidentally, Trump made the 92 billion bond he had to put up in order to challenge the EG and Carol defamation case. Oh well, Trump's got some money now. All right. Trump's also got some legal bills. He tried to sue the Christopher Steele organization, I guess that had pushed the so called Russia collusion hoax and he lost that. So he now he has to pay the legal fees of the other side. And the reason he lost it is that I guess the judge ruled that even though the dossier was a bunch of defamation and bs, they quote, never intended to make the dossier public. Never intended to make it public. That was his only purpose, which we know because of legal proceedings in this country. So this happened in, I guess, England. But now do you think, do you think you've learned enough about how the legal system works? As long as you can shop for a location, you can convict anybody. You can have any civil suit outcome. You just have to pick the right place for the case. There's nothing to do with the evidence, apparently. So evidence doesn't matter. Looks like RFK Jr is possibly going to look at being joining the Libertarian Party, primarily because the Libertarian Party has ballot Access, and I guess most are all the states. And RFK Jr on his own is doing great getting ballot access, but isn't getting them all might be a problem getting them all. So that's a possibility. I like to make a conditional prediction more a statistical prediction. Why are we assuming that the President has to be one of the two people, Trump or Biden, just because they're going to be the party nominees? Probably isn't that, isn't that a dangerous assumption? So I would like to add to the mix that there's at least a 30% chance that neither Trump nor Biden will be president. Biden has an obvious mental health and health risk and even the Democrats might want to keep him out of office if it gets a little bit worse, even more than they want to keep him out now. And Trump has the lawfare risk, plus God knows what opposition research, plus God knows what kind of, I don't know, who knows what kind of hoaxes they're going to pull on them. If you look at the history of hoaxes, the 2016 election was the Russia collusion hoax. The 2020 election was the fine people hoax, and the 2024 election is the January 6th insurrection hoax combined with the dictator for a Day hoax. For three elections in a row, the Democrats have run primarily on a hoax. Now why am I the only person who says that out loud? Shouldn't that be sort of the framing of every newscast from now on? Well, the Democrats who have a unbroken string of hoax related campaigns, here's their new one. Don't you think the fact that if you only run on hoaxes, that ought to be something that the news mentions on a fairly regular basis when you're talking about them? You know, I'm sure John Dillinger has done le. Did legal things as well as his vast, you know, repertoire of crime. So if you're going to talk about John Dillinger, you wouldn't talk about that time he did the legal thing. I feel like it would be completely important that every time John Dillinger comes up that you make sure that the people know you're talking about a major criminal. Right? It seems the same. The Democrat Party is really just a criminal organization. If you run three presidential campaigns on known obvious hoaxes, you are a criminal organization. To imagine that that's just politics. Now, I get that all politicians lie and the fact checks and the hyperbole, but three completely made up hoaxes? No, that's criminal organization. I can't call that politics. All right, so it's entirely possible that RFK Jr will be the last standing major politician. So I would say that RFK jr's chances of being president are almost the same as Trump and, and Biden because Biden has, you know, good chance of not making it to the finish line and the bad people are going to try everything to stop Trump. So even if Trump doesn't, you know, shoot himself in the foot, we don't know how far they're willing to go. So they could be, they could be cranking up the, the lawfare, they could be cheating on the election, they could be planning an assassination. There's almost no limit to what could happen anyway. So I would say that given that the two major candidates have a real tough hurdle to even be there on election day, I think it's a three way race and it doesn't look that way because nobody's going to say they'll vote for RFK Jr. If one of the other candidates is in there that they like. But if you imagine neither of them are there, what's it look like? Let me ask, let me say it again. If you imagine that neither Trump nor Biden make it to the end and then you imagine that RFK Jr. Is on every ticket, but he might be running against somebody else in both cases, he might be running against somebody else. Could he win? If both parties have to do a last minute substitution, who's that going to be? Who's it going to be? I don't know. So maybe they're VP choices, I don't know. So I guess the Haiti is basket case and the jails have been emptied by the criminals themselves. And, and yet a federal judge here has ruled that 30,000 would be asylum seekers from four countries, but Haiti's one of them can enter the US and continue to do it. The government is flying in extra migrants who maybe couldn't get it here on their own. So we're actually flying them in maybe over 300,000 a year and that, that's now legal and just built into the system. Well, here's what we can conclude. Parents or adults in general, you are on your own for the following topics because your government has basically taken a pass. You are on your own for fentanyl. There's nobody coming to help. Nobody's coming to help. If you have a kid, only you can stop it. Their friends won't stop them from doing fentanyl. The dealers won't stop them. The government won't stop them. Neither government, not Republican, not Democrat. It's not going to happen. So you're on Your own. No way. For the government. And if you have addiction in the family, a kid, if you have a kid who's addicted, I don't know if all of you know this. The government won't do anything. There is no service. You have to have a addict in your house and you can't kick them out. Do you notice, like to have a drug addict in your house that you can't kick out? It's really bad. It's really, really bad. So you're on your own for fentanyl, you're on your own for tick tock, apparently. I don't think there's any chance the band will get passed. You're on your own for the failing schools, so maybe if you can get them homeschooled or something. But you're on your own because the government basically has given up on school and you're on your own for the border crisis. Meaning that you, you, you know, obviously you can't personally board guard the border, but as Bill Amman said, his neighbor. You assume Bill Amman lives in a good neighborhood. He's a billionaire. He just tweeted or posted that his neighbor got burgled. And, oh, I've been, I've been cautioned not to call it burglary. It's an undocumented visitor who has your stuff. It's very different. Very different. So, yeah, you should probably arm yourself. Two of my neighbors houses have been hit by the migrant bands. And when I say my neighbors, I mean really close neighbors. I'm not talking in my zip code. I'm talking. I can hit him with a rock. Two of the men burgled. So, you know, we are of course locally hardening our defenses. So my neighborhood is organized into practically a paramilitary organization. That's true. My neighborhood has only one entry and one exit. You know, there's not a second way to get out. We're going full paramilitary now. We don't talk about weapons because we're connected digitally. So nobody talks about weapons smartly. Right. So no mention of weapons. But our organization for spotting people who don't belong is really tight. I'll tell you, if you park your truck on our street and somebody doesn't recognize it because we don't really have street parking here except visitors, you're going to get, you're going to get surrounded pretty quickly. So my neighborhood has just decided to go, screw the government, screw the police. We're on our own. And I think you're going to see a lot of that. So the government isn't coming to help on any of those things. Fentanyl, TikTok, failing schools or the border crisis. So you better harden your home defense. You know the news, the fire department in New York was some event in which Letitia James, the attorney general, attended as a speaker and she was booed, booed by a number of firefighters. And what will happen as end wokeness reports on X, the firefighters are asked to turn themselves in or risk being hunted down. That's right. More Republicans are being hunted for having a free speech opinion that the attorney general is a horrible, horrible criminal and should be in jail. So you can't have that opinion. Apparently you'll lose your job and you'll be hunted down. So one of my best predictions unfortunately correct that Republicans are being hunted every day. All right, here's my advice for the Republicans. If they want to win everything, if you want to lose everything, just keep doing what you're doing on abortion and ivf. But it would be real easy not to. So let me make a suggestion just in case Republicans want to win everything forever because it's really right there for them to take. Now, I know you're not going to do it and I know from prior conversations that I'm just going to get screamed at in the comments. The Republicans would win everything if they simply say abortion should be decided by women, not just in the moment. You know, that's if it's legal, you know, with their doctor. But what the law should be. Now, I know what you're saying, Scott. It's murder. Everybody has an interest in murder. Yes, you do. And your interest is exactly the same as the women's. There are women Republicans and there are women Democrats and your opinions aren't that different than the women in your party. But if you can just allow the Democrat women who are primarily running the Democrat party to feel that you've at least given them that women should be the primary decision makers about what happens to women's bodies. Now you say to yourself, no, no, we all must be involved because it's murdering children. It's still murdering children. No matter who's talking. It's still the same argument. You don't need to be in it. You're not so special. Your little voice about this topic probably doesn't make any difference to anybody, just like mine does and shouldn't. So if the only thing you're adding is killing the chances of your political party to win, why are you doing it? Do you think that your opinion will change anything? Now you. I'm not saying you shouldn't Vote, you vote any way you want. But when you're talking about it, the only way you can talk about it and be both morally and ethically pure, but also maybe win, is to say, you know, you have an opinion, but you're going to defer to the women in your party because they say the same thing you do, but it's more credible coming from them. So you might say, I'm not going to back down one inch. And you certainly have that right. And I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. So, yeah, let me make this clear. I'm not suggesting what you should do. It probably sounded like that, didn't it? It's not a recommendation. It's not a recommendation because I know you won't do it. I'm just saying that the Republican Party is a millimeter away from winning everything presidency and you know, both sides of Congress and already have a dominant position in the courts. So if the Republicans wanted to win everything and then fix everything, they could fix, there's a way to do it. Just let the women take the lead, the Republican women. And as men say, we're going to support the women, but let them do the speaking and just pipe down, Just pipe down. Because your point of view will be completely better expressed by people who are in a better position to express it. Right? So if you think that you being quiet and taking a, you know, taking a step back and letting women take the lead is. If you think that gets you to a worse place, what's wrong with you? You think women are not good at advocating for what they want? In what world is that a problem? And women are really, really good at advocating for what they want, like really, really, really good. So why do you think you would be damaged in any way just because your own opinion wasn't in the public sphere? You know, So I think you have to worry about. Not worry, but consider whether your need to have an opinion on this topic is based on your best assessment of your risks and your rewards. If you're coming at it purely from a moral standpoint, I do respect it. I completely respect a moral only position. Just know that the trade off is that you don't get to win everything and you could. You're a millimeter away from owning the government, but you've, you've put up an obstacle to yourself that I think is pretty hard to get past. All right, I don't want to hear arguments about men are responsible too, because that's off point. I don't want to hear that men have Good opinions, too, because it has nothing to do with my point. You all have good opinions. That's not the question. It's just, do you want to win? That's it. If you want to win, there's an easy way to do it, and you don't give up anything in the process. All right, here's some numbers I put on. Migrant crime might be useful. 20% of American women, and that's probably a low number, have experienced an attempted or completed rape. In your experience, isn't that number low? Maybe it's, you know, maybe rape is too specific and it should be, you know, all the sexual attacks. I feel like, I feel like the number of women who have had some kind of sex crime against them would be well over half. Isn't it? Isn't it well over half? Am I so wrong about that? And I'm just saying observationally and anecdotally. Anecdotally, if I were to, you know, just randomly pick 10 women, do you think only two of the 10 I randomly picked would say they'd ever had kind of a sexual attack? I feel like it'd be half. Is your experience different? I'm looking at your comments. I feel half have been had some kind of sex crime against them that they didn't necessarily report. All right, but let's use the lower number. Let's say that the 20% is more of a, you know, definitely that was rape kind of a number, or attempted rape. What happens if you double the number of men in your zip code but not the number of women? Hypothetically, if you just magically doubled the number of men but no extra women, wouldn't it. If, if the number. If the people coming in the extra men had the same rate of rape, which is about 1%. 1% of men admit being rapists, which also sounds low, frankly. It feels like it's higher than 1%, but let's say it's 1%. If you brought in 10 million migrants, and that's probably a low number because, you know, there's a lot that we just can't count because they get away. But let's say that the number who are just men were 10 million. There are women and children, but let's just say the adult men were most of it and 10 million, just for back of the envelope calculations. And you could, you could tweak these as you want, but 1% of 10 million would be a hundred thousand extra rapists. And if a lot of men came into your neighborhood, your rate of rape, could it go from 20% of women to 40% because you doubled the number of men but not the double number of women. Am I doing the math right now? I know it's not as straightforward as that, but is the, is the generally directionally. Do I have the math right? Not technically, but directionally. Does that sound right to you? If you double the number of men, if those men have the same average rate percentage as all the other men who are already here, you know, which is another conversation, then wouldn't it double your odds of rape? How would it not? I mean, how could it not do that? Now, again, you. But you know you're not going to double the number of men in any zip code. So you just. That as well. But you know, I'm not going to get into the, the argument about whether the migrants have a higher rape rate. Right. Because whether that's true or not, you can make the entire argument just by number of men. If you add the number of men, your rape should go up. So I would say 100,000 extra rapists. And a lot of rapists are serial rapists. So of the hundred thousand, that doesn't mean 100,000 extra rapes because, you know, maybe 5% of them are the multiples. They're doing twice as much. So 100,000 rapists might be, you know, 200,000 extra rapes per year. Now, Biden has to justify 200,000 extra rapes for the benefit that we're being kind to the immigrants because we're an immigrant country. And that's not nothing. You know, the reason that so many of us have mixed opinions is that immigration is not only a positive. If you do it right, it's an essential. It's way beyond optional. It's essential. We really couldn't have a country with our birthright unless we had some robust. And, you know, look at the number of immigrants from the past who are now CEOs of major unicorn companies. I mean, we're way better off because of past migration. But the part that you do right. Right. You want to do it right. So here's how. That's how I'd argue it. And if I were, if I were trying to make this case about the danger coming in, I would make sure I used both percentages and numbers. What do I say when people only use percentages? That's how you lie. You leave out the raw number. What do I say when people only use the raw number? That's how you lie because you're leaving out the percentage. So if you're going to use this argument. Don't use one or the other. Don't use just the number and don't use just the percentage. Put them together and then that's a real argument. Now people can reject it. There might be Democrat women who say, you know what, 200,000 extra rapes to protect 10 million extra people who are in a bad way. I'll take that deal. But they need to say it out loud. Just make the case because, you know, we're adults, we get to argue. The real world, the real world is this is the trade off. It's not the only trade off. It's one trade off. So let people say, you know, put the Democrats on the, let's say on the. I don't want to say defensive, but make them, make them explain why this is what they want. Do you, do you think you could get the Democrat women to say, yes, I understand there will be 200,000 extra rapes per year? Probably per year, but I'm okay with that because the benefit is even greater now. That's, that is the balance. You don't get to say that it's all benefit, no cost. You have to say, I understand the costs, I understand the benefits. And I choose this one because I do. If I were to analyze the cost of closing the border completely, I would throw in the fact that it would really screw a lot of companies that depend on that labor. That's a cost is real. It's big. So just make sure you're doing all the costs and all the benefits and then make them defend it. Ted Cruz went ballistic in a me, in a hearing. He went ballistic on Mayorkas. I think it's a current new video, but I guess Ted Cruz was showing the wristbands that the migrants are getting from the cartels. The cartels are so organized that they have wristbands with different colors to indicate, you know, what kind of migrant you are so that the cartels themselves can sort them out on either end. And apparently Mayorkas, if I understood this right, was not aware of the wristband program. And Ted Cruz just went nuts on him for being, well, for being Mayorkas and not even understanding how deep this problem is. Because part of these wristbands. I only saw a summary of the story, but maybe you can give me a confirmation. Was Ted cruising Ted Cruz saying, so this is a question, not a statement. Was Ted Cruz saying that some of those wristbands were worn by people who were intended to be sexually trafficked? The children? Is. Do I have that right? Because I don't know if I Have that right? I need a confirmation of that. Did he say that some of them, because there were different kinds of wristbands, were some of them literally for sex trafficking? I'm not, I'm not entirely sure if there was, but. Well, I'm seeing. Okay, I'm seeing some yeses. I do think that's what it was now. I think that's the attack vector. That's the strongest attack vector. Well, so Zero Hedge is mocking the jobs reports. You know the old thing where the jobs reports come out and Biden says, my God, it's the best jobs report ever, reelect me. And then a month later it gets lowered and then the month after it gets lowered a little bit again. And then nobody notices the lowering, even though people scream about it. You know, nobody. It's never a news story. And apparently according to Zero Hedge, they do it for everything. You know, jobs, something called jolts. I don't even know what that is. New home sales, housing starts, industrial production, PC and core PC price, consumer price stuff. So apparently all of our data that comes from the government is fake. It's knowingly fake. It's knowingly fake. And a lot of it is like the jobs report. A lot of it is migrants getting jobs and part time jobs that aren't as good and government jobs that we wish we were not increasing the number of. So it's true that our jobs report and all our economic data is fake. And it's true that the New York Times bestseller list is fake. And it's true that the reasons for banning or not wanting to ban TikTok are fake. But you know, it's lucky, thank God our climate models are dependable. Am I right? Because with everything else being fake, you know, it's just so lucky that the climate models are real. No, ladies and gentlemen, I'm being sarcastic. Climate models have one and only one purpose. The purpose of climate model is to launder your assumptions. You do not use a climate model to tell you what's going to happen in the future. Because I'm going to have to do a Biden whisper on this. Permission to do a Biden whisper? All right, I'm going to do a Biden whisper. The reason you use climate models is not because climate models can predict the future, because nothing can. Nothing can predict the future. Why did anybody ever believe that if you could predict the future of the climate, you could predict anything? That's the hardest one. If you could get that one right. Everything else is easy. No, the purpose of climate models is to launder Your assumptions that other people would just say, I don't think that's true. Here's an assumption. Glacier is going to melt, all the polar bears going to die. Your. Your sea level rise, you're all going to be underwater. Well, can you prove it? Well, I can't prove the future. Well, then why would I believe anything you say? Have you seen my climate models? And then they convince you that the models are something like science. The models are not science. Those are just your assumptions that you laundered through this complicated thing so that people think there's some science to it. That's what that is. All right, here's an update on Rafah, the southern city in Gaza that Israel wants to, you know, clean it out and go in there, but they're holding off and trying to get the residents out. I guess the residents are not willing to leave, or enough of them. And there's talk about hostage exchange, but none of that's going to happen. And there's talk about the US Building a pier so that we can drop off lots of food to the Palestinians. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Do you know that the Palestinians are not lacking for food? What they're lacking for is a way to not have it stolen by Hamas. But there's food. So the United States is not solving the right problem. Apparently, we didn't have a lack of food to give them. There was enough food in the area is just that they can't get it in. You know, if the residents would leave the area, then they could all be fed. But, you know, they're. They're sticking with it, I guess, anyway. So Biden has said that if Israel, the military goes into Rafah while those civilians are mostly still there, he says it's a red line. Now, what is a red line is a red line. You're going to do something to Israel. So if they cross that red line, like that's, that's the definition of a red line in politics, right? A red line is if somebody crosses it. Oh, you're in trouble. You're in trouble if you cross that red line. So what's going to happen? Biden says it is a red line, but I'm never going to leave Israel. The defense of Israel is still critical. So there is no red line. Oh, so there is no red line. I'm going to cut off all weapons so they don't have the Iron Dome to protect them. So basically it's a red line, but not one that has any consequences. That. That would be called the Opposite of a red line. That would be like a nothing. All right, Now, I'm not saying, you know, that he should have consequences. I'm just saying he's talking nonsense. He wants to have it both ways. There's a red line, but there's no penalty for crossing the red line. That's like, not a red line. Anyway, part of that story is that Biden said he didn't want to see another 30,000 people killed in Gaza. Do you see the problem with that? Tell me the problem. Biden says he doesn't want to see another 30,000 killed in Gaza. There is a problem with that. Oh, yeah. 30,000 is Hamas's estimate, which Israel will tell you, not so reliable. Which means that Biden has embraced the number that is repeated the most, the Hamas number. Now, Israel can't counter that because they don't produce their own number. So they can't say, no, no, the real number is whatever, because probably the real number is too big as well. Right. If it turned out the real number is 20,000, is that going to fundamentally change how you feel about the situation? You know, the big numbers, we don't register so differently. So the Hamas propaganda has worked. The Hamas propaganda that it was 30,000 so far, which we have no idea how accurate or not that is. Biden has now referred to it as though that's the metric to refer to Hamas wins propaganda victory. So, ladies and gentlemen, amazingly, somehow I completed this using nothing but LTE on my phone. Later this afternoon, my Internet company says they'll come out and fix the problem they say is on their end, and then maybe, maybe we'll have solutions. All right, and that's all I got for today. Is there anything I forgot? A story I forgot to mention? I'm just seeing lots of insults of Biden. Lots of Biden insults. Do you think I should reissue my book Win Bigley for this election season? Because it's all about Trump's persuasion powers, and everything I said seems doubly true now. Yeah, we're all suffering from the daylight savings time issue. All right, I'm just reviewing your comments. It looks like we've covered everything. Another amazing, great show. And we will see you. Maybe I'll see some of you in the man cave tonight. That's for local subscribers. They get extra. But remember, that's when the Internet will be worked on. So I'll do my best, see what we can do. Thanks for joining. I will see you all tomorrow, same place, same time.