Episode 2522 CWSA 06/30/24

Well, if you're joining early, as I'm getting ready here, there's a little comic you can read. It's called Robots Read News, and it appears every day in the Locals platform. But I thought you'd like to take a peek today while we're waiting. All right, I got my locals people up on a special feed. Whoops. Let's go to just me, see what that looks like. Oh, much better. As you can tell, there will be a whiteboard today. Wow. Well, welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization. Your day will never be better than this moment, but if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup of Margaret glass, a tank or chalice to sign, a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind, Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now, the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Ah. I feel we're all now synced. We're on the same page, which means today is going to be lit. So lit. But first, let me start with a few things. If you're watching the reading the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can only see if you subscribe to the Twitter. Not Twitter to X or on Locals @Scott Adams locals.com where you get other stuff, too, you would see that Dilbert is meeting a new guy who misinterprets everything. A new guy who misinterprets everything. He says, you might like it. Anyway, there is a word that the biggest movie of the summer could be Deadpool and Wolverine. They think it'll be, you know, big blockbuster because it's, you know, crossover Deadpool character plus Wolverine. And I say to you, what's going to happen if the biggest movie of the year is starring two white guys? Two white guys. And I saw on social media, somebody said, well, it's not exactly two white guys. One of them's dead and the other one's a Wolverine. And I thought, oh, there. There might be. There might be a loophole. You can be a white actor in a movie as long as you're dead or you're technically a Wolverine. So I guess we don't have one still. That's just like regular living white guys that are not part Wolverine. But it felt like progress. All right. There's a Yahoo Finance had some information about what it costs in each state in the country to go On a date. So this is the average cost of a date. And they say in California, that's one of the more expensive states that a date costs $226 to go on a date in California, or 1226 if you want sex. But if you want a good deal on a date, South Dakota will give you one for $38. Apparently, you can go for a date in South Dakota, Dakota for $38. I think that's where I'm going to do all of my dating. If I. If I do any dating, I'm just. I'm just going to go right to South Dakota because they got some kind of discount situation going on. I haven't seen the women from South Dakota, but I'm guessing $38 gets you one. Well, anyway, Steve Bannon is going to be live streaming from outside the jail. He's going to go to tomorrow, but tonight, from 8 to 9 Eastern Time, he's gonna have a special one hour I'm going to jail special. Now, here's the thing that I don't think Democrats understand about Steve Bannon. Here's what you don't want to do to Steve Bannon. Crucify him. Put him in a cave, and then roll a big rock in front of the doorway of the cave and say, I think we're done with that. Say no more. Say no more. All right. I love the fact that Steve Bannon is gonna take their jail and he's going to turn it into an opportunity to power up. They are handing him power, and he said, thank you. I'll take it. It won't be easy. There's nothing, you know, let's not make light of it. Jail is jail. Steve Bannon's not going to be having a good time. It's not going to be safe, not even a little bit. But he's going to do it. So he's going to die for our sins, I guess. But he'll be back stronger, and he'll definitely be stronger. You know, he will when he comes out. Well, I saw a picture of the White House doctor who's been telling us that Biden is fit as a fiddle and ready for business. And you wondered, what would he look like? You know, what would that doctor look like? Now, I'm not going to show you a picture of him because you can look at it yourself on social media. But I'm just going to tell you this one thing about the doctor that says that Biden was just fine. His haircut is the same haircut as Jim Carrey. From Dumb and Dumber. He's the White House doctor. Now, I'm not all about fashion. I mean, look at me. I'm certainly not the one to give you any fashion tips, but I do know a red flag when I see it. And if your White House doctor has a dumb and dumber haircut and he thinks that Biden looks fine to him, I would ask some questions. I would just ask some questions. This would be way funnier if I showed you the picture, but trust me, he's got a legit dumb and dumber haircut and he's the White House doctor. Those two things shouldn't happen at the same time. Pick one. You could be the White House doctor, or you could have a dumb and dumber haircut. Don't do both. Don't do both. Well, one of the funnier stories of the day. I'm not sure how much I buy into this, but it's so much fun. I'll tell you. So Western Lensman in the Countdown X says, until the hoax went down in flames on Thursday night, legacy media have been promulgating the big lie about Joe Biden's cognitive decline for years. Now, here's the fun part. To what lengths were they prepared to go? Now, I'm going to go a little bit into conspiracy theory. Or is it. Here's what I can't tell. This might actually be completely true, or it could be a little, you know, a little bit of a reach. You decide. Does this sound true to you that in the run up to the 2020 election, PBS did, they produced a show that Western Lensman characterizes as an entire propaganda film disguised as a documentary to convince you that Biden once had a stutter and that he was engaged in a heroic journey to prove his doubters wrong. Now, I said to myself when I read that, well, I thought everybody knew that. I thought that was just standard knowledge that he had a stutter when he was young and. But here's the thing. PBS did an entire documentary about his stutter when he was young, but did not provide any video or audio of any time in his life in which he stuttered. There's no prior example of him stuttering. Now, you could say, well, maybe they didn't want that on video or audio. So there's a reason that we don't have it. But wouldn't he still have it, you know, when he was 29? Yeah, wouldn't, wouldn't it pop up once in a while when he was already in public service? There's not one video of him stuttering. There's other stuff going on, but not the stutter. And so the question is, the question is, did they make up the stutter story to cover for his cognitive decline? Do you think that happened? Do you think PBS literally did an entire propaganda piece for the. Only. For the purpose of making you think his cognitive decline was something else? I'm not quite ready to buy that. I'm not quite ready, but it raises an interesting question. Why don't we see any evidence that he ever had a stutter? So I'm not ready to rule it out yet, so I'm not ready to buy into this. But if you put it with everything else we found out, you know, that the things that we know for sure are that he was certified as good to go. And, and he's been in dementia for years, so you wouldn't have thought that was possible. So when I tell you, well, maybe PBS created a whole brainwashing, you know, documentary, your first impression is, well, no, no. Nobody is that extensive in their hoaxery, but they really are. They are that extensive. Have you heard of the Fine People hoax? The. The Russia collusion hoax, laptop hoax? They're complicated. They're. They're really big and organized and have multiple players. Yes, yes. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the PBS thing was done for no reason other than to convince you he doesn't have a cognitive decline. I don't think so. I would bet against it, but it's within the realm of possible. And that's weird. Well, journalism. Let me give a warning. I'm going to say a topic which will trigger a lot of NPCs here. Now, if you're an NPC, let me tell you what you should say from your limited palette of things. You say, I'm going to say something, and then you're going to say, while misunderstanding what I'm saying, you're going to say, but that happened a long time ago, Scott. You might even give a date. But that will be misunderstanding what I said. It won't stop you. So I'd like to encourage the NPCs to say, Scott, that happened a long time ago. Why are you saying it just happened? All right, so now that you're primed, the NPCs know what to do. Players know what to do. Good. Here's the story. Journalism died this week. Journalism as a. As a profession, it died this week. Go ahead, NPCs, tell me it died in 2000 or died before. You can't resist. I know you Can't. You're, you're, you're like holding your hands, like. Must, must type that it wasn't this week. Must, must type in comments that happened long before this week. Why do you think it was this week? No, listen to me. Listen to me. I didn't say that journalism became turds this week. No, listen to what I said. I didn't say that they stopped. That they suddenly started being bad. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the industry was destroyed, the reputation, they were bad forever, but got away with it until this week. This is the first time that the silos between the, the two worldviews just fell apart. It's the only time. And do you know why it's the first time that those weird silos of misinformation fell apart? Because it's the first time that most of the country saw Trump in a natural environment. With Biden, it's the first time they had access to something that looked true. And when people saw it, they said, wait a minute, my news people have been telling me for years that he's fine, and there isn't the slightest chance they didn't all know the problem. Now we know that every one of them knew the problem. And they told you they didn't see it. A lot of them didn't. You know, half of the. Half of them said they didn't. So that's different. Imagine that you went into journalism. You know, whenever Jake Tapper did, you said to yourself, if I can make it in this business, I will be one of the most respected people in today's society. I'll be like a Walter Cronkite. Well, now, we all had our suspicions about the media, but not this deep. Well, some of us did. I guess half the country did. But the other half, the Democrats, still were believing that at least the press was on their side. They believed that even if the press lied, at least it was lying for their benefit. And maybe it was biased, but it was biased for them. Whatever this is is something different. This was not being biased in a way that would help Democrats. And boy, did they find out. They just said, if we'd known this a year ago, we would not be in this fix. So not only did the news screw the Republicans or try to. It missed on that, but it completely gaslit and completely brainwashed their own team to the. What I would consider is the verge of generational destruction of the entire Democratic Party. They're on the verge of a generational collapse. It will take a Long time to recover from. I would say that that's new. What's new is that both sides see it at the same time, and there's no question about it. And they know it was. They know it wasn't a mistake. People know it wasn't a mistake. Everybody knows it wasn't a mistake. That's different than 20 years ago. All right? So I'd expect a backlash. So I think that the, the news people who realized that Democrats had coerced them into destroying not only truth, but their own reputations. The Democrats in the, in the press now understand that their own lives have been destroyed, their reputations, their professional pride have been destroyed by the Democrats who pushed them into becoming propagandists. Because if they didn't become propagandists, they wouldn't have access to Democrats. They wouldn't be able to go to parties. So they were essentially blackmailed, in a social sense, into conforming. And then they were blackmailed, and then they lost. If you get blackmailed, the one thing that you do expect is, is like, well, at least I got blackmail and I had to pay something, but at least I got something out of it. Right? If they had become propagandist bad, they wouldn't like it. But at least if they were respected, they'd say, well, I sure don't like being a propagandist, but I sure like having a respected job in the media. The Democrats took both away from them. They talk, they took their honesty, they took their honesty, they turned them into liars, and then they revealed. They revealed the liar. They revealed the lies to the public. That is somebody you don't trust. I would trust a real blackmailer more than I would trust the Democrats because a real blackmailer has at least some chance of doing what they said they would do. You know, not always, but the Democrats just said that they're going to blackmail you and they're gonna. And after you've done what they want, they're gonna release the blackmail information. That's what happened. We're gonna make you propagandists, but it's okay because nobody will really know for sure. Oh, except that we're going to tell them for sure you're a propagandist after you've been doing it for a few years, and you can't, you can't go back. Oh, my God. If I were in the press right now, if my job were to carry the water for the Democrats, I, I would be throwing them so far under the bus. I would be them as hard as I could because of what they did to me for the last five years and the reputational damage they did. And I think you're going to start to see that. I think you already are. Tucker Carlson was in Australia giving a speech. He couldn't have been happier because he'd seen the debate recently. And he tells the story of he, you know, he's connected with people, lived in Washington for a long time, so he knew people who knew people. So he was a behind the curtain kind of guy in a maximum way. And he said that since 2019, he knew from personal contacts with the Biden family that the Biden family knew he had dementia. They were concerned because he wanted to run. They didn't want him to run because he had dementia. And that was known to people who were close to the family because somebody that was close to the family was close to Tucker. And he knew it and he said it on TV and everybody mocked him for it, called him racist, as he says. As he says, they call you racist if he gets something right. But part of the story, I think this is maybe speculative, but it's something that Tucker put out there that the family didn't think he would get nominated. So they may have been just sort of playing along, thinking that, you know, it was just sort of a last hurrah. He wants to do it, can't say no. But they didn't think he'd actually get nominated because they could see where they could see he was kind of gone. And then he did. And then there are lots of accusations that I think also look real. They look real to some level, but maybe hyperbole, which is that Jill has been running the country and that she doesn't want to give up her power and her lifestyle and her state dinners and her fancy dresses and she doesn't want to have to be the one who's the wet nurse to Biden all day long. And frankly, it might be about the money. I, I think the thing that you forget is that their money sources dried up and it's going to be real expensive to have full time care for Biden forever, which is where he's at. So I think that Jill is making and has made real world, completely explainable decisions based on the situation she's in. And, you know, you could imagine a human in that situation would act the way she's accused of being acting. I think it goes too far to say that we know exactly what she's thinking or why she's doing it, but those would be reasonable speculations that we haven't heard enough from her to disprove. So at this point, maybe Jill has been running the country. I don't know. So both the New York Times and NBC News have both reported that Jill Biden is the primary decision maker. Hold that in your head. These are the two. Well, two of the three biggest propaganda machines, the Washington Post being the other, NBC News and New York Times. And they both, surprise. They're on the same. They're on the same page. Surprise. So they're saying that Jill Biden is the primary. Now, that obviously shows they want Biden to leave the race. It can't be more obvious than that. And so they're putting that out there, too, that Jill Biden might be the primary decision maker. Now, I think it's probably more complicated. I think that Jill Biden doesn't know the details of a lot of policies. So she's probably just taking the word of the experts who come to her and say, you know, you got to tell your husband to do this or that. And she would probably say, well, I don't know much about, you know, geopolitics, but if you say so, I'll tell him. So. I don't think it's exactly her looking at the policies and making decisions with the exception of maybe something simple like abortion or something. But I feel like the experts are telling her what to tell Biden and maybe she's doing it. So it's probably some hybrid between. She's the gatekeeper. Yes, but she's probably not assuming she knows how to make policy. That's my guess anyway. But let's take the theory from NBC News and New York Times that Michelle, that Jill Biden has been running the show. And that brings up an awkward question. How come every time we talk about who might replace Joe Biden, we talk about Michelle Obama? Michelle Obama? Why? Because she had once been married to a president. Well, if it's true, according to the New York Times and the NBC News, which Democrats believe is truth, Jill Biden has been running the country for three and a half years and she's done a great job, according to Democrats. Democrats will tell you that the first three and a half years under Biden were just gangbusters. You know, he got, he got legislation through. He fixed all of Trump's problems. Man, he's killing it. Well, if it's also true, as the New York Times and NBC report, that Jill was the one who was the decision maker, then it follows that Jill Biden has three and a half years of being one of the best presidents the Democrats have ever seen. Why would they skip her when they're trying to decide who would replace Joe Biden? She's the obvious choice. She's been making his decisions for three and a half years. She knows how the whole town works by now. And she's successful, experienced, successful, currently doing the job. How do you beat that? How do you beat that? And why would they even think that Michelle Obama, or why would you think Michelle Obama would skip the old white lady? Well, you know, at least Jill has got a little dei, you know, magic in her because she's a woman. So that's not nothing. But I feel like maybe it's a little DEI problem that you'd say, how about Michelle Obama has no interest in politics and has never run a country, instead of the old white woman who clearly has an interest in politics and has been running the country according to Democrats, really well, she's killing it. Anyway, point is, they're not being genuine with you. I think we need a betting pool for which a celebrity supporter of Biden will leave the sinking ship last, because think of all these people who are still trying to support Biden. Streisand, Clooney, the the View, the host of the View, Rob Reiner, Stephen King, John Cusick, Richard Reid, Hoffman and De Niro. And Rob Reiner. Did I say him twice? Okay, And Rob Reiner just posted, Rick Wilson once said, quote, everything Trump touches dies. If we allow him to become president, democracy will die. Now, let me give a little advice to Rob Reiner. When to know when to quit. That it's hard to know when to quit. You know, as Kenny Rogers said, you got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Got to know when to quit. And I'll tell you, there's a signal that you could look for in yourself, in your own actions that would tell you it's time to quit talking in public. And the biggest signal that you should never talk in public again is if you think quite quoting Rick Wilson is winning an argument. So, hey, you Trumpers, I got a zinger for you. Here's a quote from Rick Wilson that should put it over the top. Now, if you're quoting Rick Wilson for your political opinions, that's a signal you should never talk in public again. Trust me on this. If you find yourself doing it, stop talking in public, close all of your social media accounts and don't accept any social invitations. You are not a person who should be around other people. Something's gone wrong. You need to fix that first. Okay. So anyway, my money's on Punchy Dinero as being the last one off the sinking ship. I think what will be interesting is that whoever is the last to leave, we will presume is the most blackmailed. I think we all have the same feeling that some of these characters almost certainly are being blackmailed into their support of Biden. Doesn't it feel like that to you? There's something going on. Somebody's being paid to do it. These don't seem like genuine opinions. Honestly, it. I know what a genuine opinion looks like. It doesn't look like these guys. They. They look like some of them. I'm not going to name names specifically, but some of the people on the list just look like the CIA must have some sex secrets on them. Something. There's something going on here that's not. They're not acting like normal smart people. There's something going on. Well, we've got a news report from insiders that would have been nice to know this earlier, but apparently people knew this but didn't tell us until now. Keep in mind they didn't tell you until now. Apparently Biden is pretty cogent from 10am to 4pm but before and after those times, he cannot be trusted. This is something they've known for a while. Wouldn't it be nice to mention that the President of the United States is functional only 25% of every day? I feel like that would have been important to know if journalism was a real job. But it isn't. It isn't. It's not a real job. All right, so there's. What percentage of people who were surveyed? Let's see, this was a CBS poll. What percentage say that Biden has cognitive ability to do the job? What's your guess? Oh, my God, you're so good. Yeah, 25%, but actually 27. So 27% of people after the debates think that Biden has a cognitive ability for the job. Now, if you're new to my live stream, we have a running gag that is that 25% of the public will get every poll question wrong. And by wrong, I mean that usually there's a smart answer and a really stupid one. The stupid one in this case. I mean unambiguously stupid. It's really obvious Biden doesn't have the cognitive ability for another term. Right. Even the smart Democrats believe that to be obvious and true. And yet. And yet in one of the rare cases where the top Republicans and the top Democrats are on exactly the same page that Biden does Not have the cognitive ability. Still, 25% of the public said, he looks fine to me. I don't even know what you're talking about. It looks good to me. You mean his stutter. You're talking about his stutter. Why are you holding that against him? He overcame that. So then a Wall Street Journal story reveals that Biden was so feeble at a G7 summit that he needed help reading talking points and he missed a dinner for world leaders. He had. He needed help reading talking points off a page. So that's nothing to worry about. Aren't you glad we're not sending Trump to the G7 and embarrassing us? Because the way he slaps back. Oh, no. The embarrassment. How did I ever get over it? The embarrassment of Trump meeting with world leaders. They were laughing behind his back. Yeah, they're. They're totally not laughing about Biden behind his back. Yep. Nope. Nobody's doing that. I don't see any reporting about them laughing behind his back that he can't read all the time. Sometimes he can. Anyway, the Fox News is reporting that Biden raised $27 million after the worst debate in the history of the world. Somebody smart on X said that's probably a trick. And the trick is probably that that was money that was already committed. And they just waited until after the debate so they could say that whatever happened, look at all the money he raised. So he must have won. So don't think that he really raised money based on that debate. It was probably people who had pre committed and couldn't back out. Because I ask you this. Who would be smart enough to have millions of dollars that they could debate? So they have to be smart enough to have millions of dollars and yet so fucking dumb that they think putting it in Biden's campaign will be a plus, that the world will be better or that their money will be well spent? Who exactly has millions of dollars and is that dumb at the same time? That's got to be a really small group of people at this point. I mean, I'd love to see them. Do they all have haircuts like the White House doctor? I feel like every one of them is going to have that dumb and dumber haircut. Here's the million dollars. It looks good to me. I think his cognitive abilities look just fine. All right. I was amused to find out. Do you know the All In Pod? You know, the all in podcast, Scott? You know, David Sachs and Chamath and the other two who don't get as much attention and you've probably recognized if, you know, if you're a Trump supporter and you watch the social media, you've probably seen them and you probably said to yourself, oh my God, these guys are smart. Did you. Did you have that same feeling that no matter whether you agree with them or not, you're getting the, the best? Yeah. Jason and Friedberg tried to remember their names, but if you watch that, and I do, it's one of my favorites. I, I always go away from it thinking, oh my God, they're so smart. Do you have that feeling? You don't really listen to podcasters who are that smart. You know, maybe if you're lucky, you get a, a Jordan Peterson or, you know, somebody like that. But typically I'm not listening to a podcast and thinking to myself, my God, how much do they know? They know so many things about so many things, and they can put them in the right frame and describe them. Well, I mean, it's just, it's just such a addition to the political conversation because they're not partisans per se. You know, they take a side, but it's based on what makes sense. It's not based on this was my team, so it's always my team. So they're probably one of the strongest intellectual contributions to the United States in how long? Maybe ever. I don't know. It's one of the best things I've ever seen. But did you know that there's a Democrat version of that in which is like opposite world. It's called the Pod Save America. And, and like the all in pod, it's looks like four friends, or is it five? And they sit around a table and unlike the all in pod, they might be the dumbest people you've ever seen in your life. And I watched it in just fascination. Just fascination. So they w. I watched their podcast after they, after they did. After they watched the debate and they were all, you know, mourning and they were quite clear that Biden had the bed. So nobody was kidding themselves. You know, he was going gone. But they're basically the, the feminine version of the all in pod. You know, I'm not saying that the all in Pod guys, you know, are, are bench pressing £300 a piece of. I'm saying that when you listen to them, they sound like males, like men talking like men. And if you listen to Pod Save America, they're all men, but they, they have feminine characteristics. Now, I'm not saying that's good or bad. Right. There's no judgment whatsoever. I don't know if they're LGBTQ or not, I couldn't tell. And that's not important. What's interesting is that there's. There's like a reverse group that's so. There's so maps to the all in pod. But the bad version, again, bad is not characterizing their femininity, is just saying that they have bad opinions. And here's the sort of thing one of them was saying while waving his hands and gesticulating like crazy, talking about Biden and replacing him. We need to have this conversation. Now, whenever anybody says, we need to have this conversation, you should turn the channel. It means they don't have anything. The reason you turn into podcasts is because you need to have the conversation. If what the podcast tells you is you need to have a conversation, but you tuned in to have a conversation, what exactly are they adding? So this the least additive thing you can ever say. Now, I do say it sometimes. Too mean. Everybody says it once in a while. But if it's your main, go to. Well, yeah, got a problem. You have to have a conversation about it. How about saying we should replace them? How about pushing it a little bit? But no, we gotta have a conversation. Now, to me, that sounds feminine. Doesn't. Doesn't sound like what men say. What men usually say is, here's what we got to do. They might be right, they might be stupid, but men usually say, here's what we got to do, right or wrong. What they don't say is we have to have a conversation. That is so feminine sounding to me, and I'm going to a point here, they're also afraid to death about the. John Favreau was talking about the, the danger of Trump and you know, the scary, scary future. And you know, they would, they might have to support anybody but Trump because this Trump future is so, so scary. What does that sound like? Men? No, it sounds like women. I can't remember the last time I was afraid. The way they act afraid. I've never been afraid like that. I get angry if I don't like things. You know, I do things sometimes, but I've never just sat around being afraid. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. It's just completely feminine energy. It's so interesting. So the question I would ask is, what exactly is this fear? Can you be more specific? Now, I've asked this question of a number of people. Do you know what they always say? What do people always say every time in, in a general sense? What do they always say when they say Trump is too scary? And you say Give me an example. Like scary. Scary in what sense exactly? Scary. And can you give me some for instances? You know what they do? They will always mention a hoax that they either believe is true or they want you to believe in true. And if you debunk that hoax, what are they going to do? They go to the next hoax every time. If they say the Fine people hoax, I need debunk it. Show them that that's been debunked. Snopes debunked it. The transcript debunks it. Do they say it? Whoa, that really changes my thinking. No, they will immediately go to another hoax. Well, he said that the all the Mexicans are rapists. Suppose you debunk that. Because of course he never meant all the people are racist. You know, it was more about just hyperbole. Suppose you successfully debunked the idea that he was being racist and that he was just using hyperbole about too much crime across. Even if they accepted it, you know what they would say next. Yeah, but you have to see it in the context of the Fine People hoax. Plus all the other things he said, like the countries and they say, wait a minute, wait a minute. The countries, again, was not about race. It was about their socioeconomic situation and whether they're sending us trained, qualified, educated people. Okay, sure, okay, maybe you can think of it that way. But when you put it in the context of the Fine People hoax, which they wouldn't call a hoax. So I. I've said before, they have a mesh network of hoaxes. When one of the hoaxes goes down, the other hoaxes help it recover until it becomes whole again. And then you take down another node with another debunk and it only takes a minute for it to come back online. It's the damnedest thing. They. They have a hoax mesh network just like your wi fi at home, and it's really powerful, but it's mostly just words. He'll steal your democracy, by the way. I just use AI to create a image of an old man with his mouth hanging open sitting on a park park bench, which chat GPT gave me instantly, and I just put the text when I posted it. He's stealing my democracy like a box of chocolates. Because that's what I hear. Stealing my democracy isn't even close to a political thought. That's pure brainwashing. Anybody who really thinks that's going to happen has to explain the first four years without reference to the January 6th hoax. Because they're stealing my democracy. They will refer to a Hoax. They will never refer to anything real that happened. Always a hoax. Well, he tried to take over the country, what with rearranging that lectern and stuff. And, and they actually say that. Like that actually makes some sense, that he had a path to take over the country, or even that he thought he did. Describe that path exactly. How do you trespass your way into owning a country? Has anybody ever done that? Has that ever worked anywhere? I think we'd like to audit the results. Give us two days. Well, that's it. What kind of insurrection are you trying to push here? No, no, no. I. No, opposite of that. I. I wanted to. We all want to just make sure that the anomalies we all see are historical anomalies that are because of some natural reason, like a coincidence or maybe they mean something because we want to protect the Republic and make sure we got the right answer. Well, why are you trying to overthrow the country so hard? No, no, no. That's the opposite of what we just said. We're trying to prevent the country from being overthrown because it looks like that just happened. Well, well, well. Why are you trying to steal my democracy? Okay, I'm not getting through what is happening here. And it's the mesh network. The mesh network keeps all the. All the hoaxes alive. So it's created this. This like, bubble, this mesh network bubble, like a buckyball around these people, and they can't get out. And when they get out and see a glimpse of the real world for the first time, as they did with the debate, they are shocked and horrified and their brains are just shutting down. I mean, you can see complete panic and the effect it has on reasoning. Panic does not help your reasoning skills. And you're seeing that from the Democrats. They've gone from not so clever to batshit crazy in about two seconds after the debate. So here are the things that they say that, that how in the world they even come up with this? He'll steal your democracy. He wants to be a dictator. He's bringing chaos. He thinks he's above the law. He's going to take women's bodily autonomy. Autonomy away. He's going to put journalists in camps. None of those are real. Those are all based on their own hoaxes. They've hoaxed themselves into a fright which is real. Now, they may have been aware at some point that each of the nodes of the hoax mesh network were not exactly real, but, you know, it worked for politics, so they didn't mind. But at some point, and I mean this literally and seriously, they actually talk themselves into their own hoaxes. And you know why they talk themselves into their own hoaxes? Because even if one of the hoaxes doesn't look perfectly real, well, you have to see it in the context of all those other hoaxes. So they laundry list persuasion themselves into a belief that they didn't start with. I believe, literally this is my interpretation. I believe they actually hypnotized themselves accidentally in the effort to hypnotize the other team. I think they brainwash themselves into an actual physical, physical fear. Because you could see the, the, the men on Pod Saves America, they looked actually afraid. Now, some of it might have been career wise and, you know, their team players and stuff, but I think they were actually afraid. So they've talked themselves into thinking that there's a monster under the bed and that the monster stayed under the bed for four years and never came out, even though they said he was. And for sure, but they have that January 6th hoax that they can hold on to and say, he did come out, he just waited to the last day and then he came out hard. No, he didn't. He told people to protest peacefully and Nancy Pelosi apparently fell down on the security job and it got out of hand. But Democrats are scared to death. I would love to see Trump sit down with some registered Democrats and ask them what they're so afraid of. Literally just have a lunch with some Democrats, say four Democrats sit there at lunch, put the microphone on, have them actually eat and have a, you know, just spend an hour with the president, the future president, I think, because here Trump has a, as a super weapon that he has not employed to its highest degree. His superpower is that his charisma is outstanding. If you're in the same room, and I had had the pleasure of experiencing it, you can't, you can't dislike him. He is so freaking likable. And here's why he's likable. You know, you go into the room thinking, oh, he's too, he's too good for me. He's a narcissist. It's all, it's going to be all about him. And then you spend the entire time with him intensely concentrating on you and asking about your situation, your personal life, your success in life and your opinion. That's what happened to me. And others report the same thing. When you're in the room with him, he makes the room disappear and you're the only one in the room. You can't even see the furniture. It's just you and him. He creates a world where it's just you and him and he cares about you. He can do that to anybody. He didn't do it just because I'm a supporter. It's natural. It's just him. He has crazy, crazy interpersonal skills. You don't see it when he's talking in public because he's in. He's sort of in presentation, you know, bombastic mode. But as soon as you get in a room with them where you're just people. He's so powerful like you. You don't know how powerful he is in person. It's crazy. So they also have the problem that he's a convicted felon and he's got bad character. I think the. The answers to that are. They all are. You know, if you think you're picking the politician who didn't cheat on his wife, come on. Maybe. Good luck with that. You. You're picking the politician who didn't do anything that you don't like. Good luck with that. Good luck with that. So I don't think that's a real thing. I think he's just. Trump is just more transparent because he's been studied to death. And he admitted who he is. And we found out. And then we said, oh, well, that's why you told us who you were. Everybody knew. All right, so somebody. Somebody else was watching the. The Pod Save America, the one I was talking about with the Democrats who were all worried. Jeff Kopage on X said, quote, could any of those guys change a tire? I thought that summed it up pretty good. All right, James Carvel was on yet another show saying that the Democrats are using feminine messaging and they're too preachy. That is correct. Democrats are using feminine messaging, but also the men. The men who are Democrats, as in the. The Pod Save America, they're men, but it's a feminine message. We're afraid. We're afraid of the scary guy that's just so purely feminine. All right, so I think Carville got a lot of love in the audience for that. So the funniest thing is that people are saying, people trying to defend Biden, they're trying to figure out any way to defend them, and they've. They've settled on Biden. Started to debate a little slow, but he picked up speed toward the end. So I did a meme on X where an old man is falling off a cliff. Because, you know, the part where he's on the cliff at the top, he starts a little slow, but once he falls off the cliff. He picks up a lot of steam right toward the end there. That's what it felt like to me. Sort of not the biggest compliment. And then others are saying they would vote for a dead Trump, they would vote for a dead Biden over a living Trump, because Trump is so scary again. How about having lunch with him, See if you think he's scary or he just uses hyperbole to help you see what you think. Speaking of the all in pod, David Sacks did a summary of where we're at. And it's such a perfect summary. I'm just going to read it to you. Said, quote, the Democratic Party is a collection of interests. So that's the best way to understand the Democrats is not they're one thing. They're not one thing. And Obama's in charge. It's definitely not that they're a collection of interests that are compatible, but different. The collection of interests who want to remain in power. Of course, everybody does. The Democratic Party is the party of government. Its goal is to allocate money and power from the government to the collection of interests who back the Democratic Party. That is correct. In other words, it's basically a collection of interests who want to loot the Republic. That is correct. Well, obviously no one's going to vote for that, so. So they have to make it about something else. They choose a figurehead. They talk about how this is about saving democracy. They basically invent hoax after hoax, almost like a hoax mesh of some sort. Lie after lie to basically maintain their power. And I think what's happening is the mask has come off. The whole shell game has been revealed. It's obvious that Biden was always a puppet for these interests who were hiding behind him. And. And now it's all being exposed. And that is exactly what's happening. It's not about Biden's bad, bad performance. It's about ripping the lid off the whole system because you can see it clearly now. You can see it's a bunch of interests who want their jobs, they want their government contracts, they want their military industrial purchases, and they will rather have a corpse in office if it gets them paid. All right, so now let's check in with the Democrats. So you saw how smart the all in POD can be in Sacks in particular. Let's see some Democrat thinking because surely there are a lot of brilliant people over on the Democrat side, so they must be doing good things too. So they're mostly talking about replacing Biden. And I guess Biden's meeting in Camp David with his family today to decide about the future. But it's going to be tough because if they replace him, they can't really take Newsom, for example, and have him skip over the black woman who is the vice president. So as Melissa Chen noted, the problem that they have is don't forget that one of the major reasons the Democrats are in this bind, which is they can't use Biden and they can't replace him. That's the bind. The reason they're in this bind is because of dei. Well, thank God I'm not the only one who noticed. Right now, my argument about dei, in case you're new, has nothing to do with anybody's race or sex or gender or anything. It has only to do with a system design. If you design a system that has more demand for something than there is supply, something will get distorted because of that imbalance. And in my opinion, there were not enough highly qualified, diverse people to pick as vice president. So Biden picked the best person who was available in the limited pool of available candidates. Now, in my opinion, the reason the pool is limited has a lot to do with the failure of early education. There should be a whole bunch more black women who, when you looked at Kamala Harris, you said, huh, she's one of several people who could start tomorrow and be the president. We should be if we had better, you know, young education. But we are where we are. The. The supply of capable, diverse people is less than anybody wants. And if you have to pick one, somebody's going to pick whatever's left. And that's what Kabla was. She had two things going for her. She looked less capable than Biden. So you always like your vice president to be a notch below, which was a hard bar, you know, hard to get somebody who's capable and also looks worse than Biden. That's kind of an impossibility. And then also has to be diverse. So think of the impossibility has to be a capable person, but also less capable than Biden. And Biden was already as low in the capabilities you could get as we know now. It was obvious to us. And then she also has to be diverse in just the right way. Not just black, half black, and not just a woman. She's got to have them both. So now they can't get rid of her, because if they do, it's going to be going against all their deepest principles, and it's going to be quite a problem. So I don't think so. I'm going to say that Newsom has No chance of being the nominee. Newsom has no chance because he's a white guy. That's it. There's just no way that's going to fly in the Democrat Party of today. By the way, Bakari Sellers, who's a Democrat and who's black, and it was on cnn, said it directly. There's no way the white guy is going to jump over the, the black woman. You know, the Democrats just aren't going to go for that. And I think he's right. I think that analysis is exactly correct. So here's the funny part. Here comes the funny summary. Funny summary. Now remember the concept of a funny summary because I'm going to talk about it when I get to the whiteboard. Here's my funny summary. Now a funny, a summary is only funny if it strikes you as true and you didn't quite think of it in those terms yet. So here it is. Our current situation is that the public just found out that Joe Biden is incompetent. Now what's funny about that situation is everybody who is a Republican knew that and apparently everybody in the press knew he was incompetent and they still pushed him forward and it bought and it brought them to this terrible situation. So if there's one thing you want to avoid, it's doing this again. And by this I mean putting somebody forward as a nominee who everybody knows is massively incompetent. You don't want to do that again. So you know what they're going to do? They're going to put Kamala Harris forward. That's just Joe Biden 2.0. That's somebody that we all know is incapable of doing the basic work. We know it. And by the way, I'm not saying, you know, I never said that Hillary, Hillary Clinton was incapable. Did you ever hear me say that? And I was very, you know, anti Hillary Clinton. Her problem is she's too capable at what she wants to do. No, Hillary, Hillary Clinton is a very high functioning human being. I don't say this about every Democrat, but how did they find the two worst Democrats in all of Democrat world who, you know, weren't Nadler? I suppose they could have picked Nadler. So there was a way that could have been worse. But the summary is this. The Democrats and their press got caught putting an incompetent forward. And so to make sure that never happens again, they're going to put Kamala Harris forward. Now, you could not write that joke and people think it was real, like a real life thing. They'd say, well, that's not gonna happen. The obvious thing they're gonna do is make sure they don't make the same mistake again. But because of dei, they looks like they're gonna make the same mistake again. They're just going to recreate the same problem. And I don't think that they have an organizational design in the Democrats where they can avoid this problem. They've designed a system that guarantees they will recreate the problem, and then they're going to do it right in front of you to show that I'm right, that the design of the system can only produce incompetent people at this point, and it has nothing to do with race or gender. The system design can only produce incompetence at this point. Sorry, I didn't design it. I'm just observing. The system design on paper can only produce incompetence. Now, I'm not sure that that's the same on the other side. I think the Republicans put forward a whole bunch of good candidates in the primaries, and I think that one of those candidates destroyed the others, thus demonstrating a superior ability to communicate with, you know, similar policies, in a sense, but superior ability to do the communication stuff. So that's merit. I mean, the. The Republicans ran pure merit, and look what they got. They got a candidate who could destroy Biden in public. Their system, the Republican system on paper, because it's competitive, you should predict it would produce a good candidate, and it did. The Democrat process, if you throw the DEI stuff in there on paper, it should fail most of the time, and it is. All right, so how can the. How can the Democrats make the same mistake again? Well, as a X user whose name I'm not going to tell you because it's intentionally chosen to be provocative, but part of his name is Kyle. So I think Kyle said this. The Democrats are unburdened by what has been. Okay, that was good. They can make the same mistake over and over again because they're unburdened by what has been. They literally can't learn. Okay, that's just perfect. That's just perfect. Tyler, you get. You get the win for the day. David Axelrod. I don't know if he means it or not. I think he does. He said that it's too late to replace Biden. It was a smart conversation a year ago. But he's not going to quit, and he's the only one who can decide. And even though the Heritage foundation and others are working on legal challenges, if he is replaced, apparently there are Three swing states, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin, that could theoretically restrict Biden's replacement on the ballot. Here's what I think. I think there's no real chance that three states would mess with a Democrat candidate to that level. I think that even though there's not much time left, if those three states thought that they could not have a legitimate election, they wouldn't let their state look like idiots. They would immediately jump into action and say, all right, all right, we'll reprint the ballots or whatever they have to do, and we'll make sure that everybody can run. I think the fact that they have legal obstacles about changing somebody out after a certain point, I think they'll be flexible. And by the way, they should. I don't. I don't want. I don't want Trump to win because of a technicality. Are you with me? Now, I know some of you can say all the matters is winning. I get it, I get it. I've heard your argument. But it's going to be big trouble if the only reason Democrats think they won is because the states were messing with the rules. That's. That's what Democrats do. That's not what you want your Republicans to be doing. You don't want them to get some technical, cheap shit, bullshit win. You want. You want Trump to do what he's poised to do, bulldoze Biden into the dustbin of history, right in front of everybody, using their rules just the way they're written. That's the win you want. So I have mixed feelings about keeping him off the ballot. I don't think. I think Axelrod might be pumping up his own resume, because I guarantee you that a year ago, he was telling people on the inside, maybe you should think about a replacement. I think he's reminding you that people like him were the smart ones and the people currently in charge are incompetent. I think that's the real message. I don't know if his prediction that Biden will definitely stay in is real. I would bet against him. And by the way, that's a gutsy bet. Because. Because Axelrod. Well, no, I'm gonna stick with my original prediction. So I'm gonna agree with Axelrod. I was gonna disagree, but just for fun. You know, predictions are as much for fun as anything else. Just for fun, I'm going to stick with my original prediction that only Biden can decide and he won't decide he'll stay in. Now, I said that before I knew the entire family was going to meet this weekend. The family will clearly try to talk him out of it. Do you agree? The family will clearly try to talk him out of it. That's the whole point. They're not going to meet to not talk him out of it. They're meeting to talk him out of it. That's pretty strong, I think. I think Biden doesn't have the strength to contradict his own family. If they. If they act as one, I don't think they have any. Yeah, I'm saying Newsom can never be the nominee. That's what I'm saying. Newsom can never jump over Harris because that would be a DEI problem. And their whole reputation is DEI if they give that up. What were they? What are the Democrats? What are they. If they ignore DEI when they picked their candidate, that that would be the last thing that they had going for them is at least they were pushing for that one thing. And people liked it. Some people. So, no, there isn't. There is no path. There is no path for Newsom. And he knows it, by the way. He knows it. Maybe there will be. But at the current environment, there's no path. Anyway, I heard a anecdote the other day, and it goes like this. There were about 10 people at a family gathering, and everybody was talking about the debate, and they were a mixed group. You had your independents and your Trump supporters and few Democrats. And what did all 10 of them say after the debate? All 10 of them, they're all leaning in the same direction. What was it after the debate? 10 people from various different parties. What did they say? You guess. You tell me what they said. What would you guess 10 people in a room would say after the debate? When they were in? They were different political leanings. If you don't know the answer to this, you might have a big surprise coming. They said they're voting for RFK Jr. 10 out of 10. 10 out of 10. Now, the 10 out of 10 was somebody's assumption. They didn't all say they were voting for him, but they all said, you know what? RFK Jr. Is looking good. So here's what happened while you weren't watching, you know, RFK Jr. That spunky challenger who didn't have really any chance of winning. Remember that guy? He's a coin flip. Now, RFK Jr. Is a coin flip. If you think that the last week showed you that Trump is going to roll to victory. Oh, we got lots of surprises coming. We got lots of surprises. And one of them is since we know the. The Democrats will literally. Will literally say we prefer A dead man To Trump, RFK Jr. Is way better than a dead man. Way better. Right now he might have a little problem beating the character issue because he's got some things in his past, but at the moment, people seem to like him on both sides at least, you know, as a human being and as a patriot and as a, you know, benefit to the country, I think he's all those things. So I think he's going to enter the conversation in the big way. It's going to happen really fast and you're going to say to yourself, oh shit, maybe Trump should not have taken Biden out so quickly. But RFK Jr. Has the older white man problem. I don't think he can get past it, but he might take enough votes away from Trump that it becomes a problem. That's possible. Anyway, if you haven't seen the split screen of Biden talking in 2019 versus 2024, you have to see it because it's a big difference. Now, as Chamath said in the all in pod that people don't understand a rate of decay, that if you look at something that's falling apart, it doesn't fall apart at a smooth 1% per year. Lots of things, times things start slowly. Oh, it looks like it's falling apart a little bit. Yeah, a little bit more. A little bit more. And then falls apart. If you don't understand that there are some things by their nature that fall in that way, first slowly and then fast, then you didn't necessarily know that Biden was a bad choice in 2019 and 20. I knew, I knew then that he was not going to make it the full term. And the reason is that I know rate of decay. I've watched old people die and I know that it starts slow and then it turns fast really quickly. So I've seen that cycle several times. So yes, if you looked at him in 2020 and you said to yourself, he's not so bad, like, you know, I see a little taste of something that's worrisome, but he's mostly there. If you straight line that and said, well, that's who he'll be for eight years, you are not a good analyst. The good analysis should have been, oh, we see a hint of this in four years, this is going to be a crisis. That was always the right play. That's, that's exactly what I told you. I say he's not going to make it four years. And he didn't, he did not make it his full term. Those who predicted he did not have the mental health to make it even one term can Take a bow. Take a bow. Were we doctors? Nope. Did I need a doctor's expertise to call this one? No. All I needed to know is that the rate of decay for somebody with, you know, a mental problem like that is, can be steep. So it was kind of an easy prediction. And the fact that others didn't get it suggests that that rate of decay thing can be misleading. All right. If you remember, in 2016, I became, let's say, known within the political commentary world for my comments about Trump and persuasion. And here's something I missed. And one it, once it hit me, I thought, oh, my God, Trump did his Rosie O' Donnell thing again. Remember in 2016, he did the, the debate where he was challenged about his, you know, actions with women or what he said about women. And he said, only Rosie o'. Donnell. And many of us said, my God, that's the moment. That's when everything changed. That's when you realize that he was too strong to be taken down by weak attacks and that he's going someplace. But he had that moment in this last debate, but it was a little bit overshadowed by the fact that Biden fell apart. So Biden's collapse was the big story, which diverted even me from noting that he created a masterpiece. A masterpiece. Now, I, I could argue that his entire debate was a masterpiece of persuasion, if you allow me, that his fact checking was the usual, right? But in terms of the energy, the leadership, the, you know, the mental acuity, the ability to move energy around, even the wise way he avoided questions, he's criticized for avoiding questions, but he did it wisely, like he just moved the conversation to where he had a strength. All of those things are a right. Now, I criticized him and nitpicked him over some of the arguments, like not debunking the hoaxes well enough. And that's still a criticism. But he also didn't get into any of the weeds much. So if you allow that he's not a weed getter into guy. He's got a strategy that works in debates. He employed his strategy that works in debates, which is not getting into too many details, staying at the high level. And also, even his critics are saying he did a great job of bringing everything back to immigration. And he did, if you remember one thing, it's something about immigration which plays to his strength. I barely remember any of the other topics except that golf thing, which I'm not going to talk about because, yeah, that was just fun. But you all remember when he said after, early on, when Biden mumbled and Trump let this go, he said, I really don't know what he said at the end of the sentence. I don't think he knows what he said either. I'm going to turn the board around and tell you why. If you didn't realize it was more than just funny, because maybe your reaction was, oh, that's funny. It's just like, good joke. And maybe you thought that's all it was. Oh, God, no. This is something that only Trump can do. Watch this. Look at. Look how much technique he backed into this number one. He said it quickly and it was funny and it was clever. What were they both trying to prove that night? They were trying to prove that Biden had mental acuity. The moment he showed he didn't, Trump not only called him out, which would have been fine. Not only called him out for his lack of mental acuity, but he demonstrated his own quick witness. Contrast is your number one, you know, well, it's in the top five persuasion techniques. So he created an instant contrast, which he proved to the world he's a fast thinker and a productive fast thinker because not only was he fast, but he came up with the perfect, spontaneous, spontaneous, ad libbed, perfect persuasion. It's the only thing I remembered besides the golf talk, because it was funny. It's all I remembered. And you wait a few days after the debate and you say to yourself, what do you remember? You remember that now, it also had the effect of being the silent assassin. You want Trump because he's strong. You want Trump. If you want Trump, you want him because he can take down his enemies without much effort. You want a guy who can make a kill shot and of low energy. Jeb, you want somebody who can change the world with a sentence. He was a silent assassin. He didn't make a big deal about it. He didn't, he didn't put on a show. He just gave the face when he was listening to him. Like the quizzical face your dog makes when you're talking to your dog. And dog turns his side. I don't even know what that word, those words are. So first he gives you the visual where he's, he's obviously straining to even understand what Biden is saying. So that's good. But when he, when he sticks the shiv in, it's just such a strong silent assassin. He didn't make a lot of noise about it. He just knew it was the kill shot. And so he didn't have to yell about it. He just said, all right, here's the shiv. Put this right up to your ribs there. Now I'm gonna, I'm gonna be pressing this in really hard while you're all watching. There we go. There we go. There we go. Now we've penetrated the heart. And now I'd like to tell you some things I'll do as president. It was masterful, right? The next thing he did was he found a sentence or two that summarized the entire election. The entire election is about the cognitive value of one person versus the other. And he managed to summarize the entire campaign with this sentence we'll never forget. Two sentences. I forgot. It's on the other side of my whiteboard. But I didn't forget the sentence. The other thing he did is, with that one reframe, he reframed Biden as a child or as somebody who needs extra help because he didn't yell at him. And the way he talked to them is the way you would only talk to a child. If somebody had mental problems and said something you didn't understand, would you ever look them right in the face while you're standing there and say, I didn't understand that? And I don't think you did either? No. Would you say it to an adult? No. Would you say it to a child? Yeah. You would. If a 3 year old said, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, know, and it was like half language and have not, you might, you might say to a child, I don't know what you just said there, but I don't think you know either. You see what I mean? You would only say that to a child. There's no other circumstance. And so he reframes Biden as someone that you can talk right to as if he doesn't even understand what you're saying while you're saying it. The reframe there was subtle but freaking brilliant. Just the way he did it. If he, if he'd gone strong, it would look like two adults. So in other words, if he said, well, there it is there. That's exactly what I've been telling you people. I make sense. He doesn't make sense. He just proved it. That would be two adults talking. He didn't do that. He treated him like he was a child and you can just dismissively talk about him right in front of him. Brilliant. But here's the big one. There are a couple other things, but the strongest part is I've taught my local subscribers this trick. It is so powerful as a Persuasion is when you pace somebody, which is you match their thinking. You either match what they're doing or what they're thinking or saying. So there's different ways to pace them. It basically makes you like the person you're trying to persuade. Oh, yeah, I'm like you. Whatever you're doing, I'm doing, too. And then the next thing you say, you're more persuasive because they say, well, you like me, so I'll listen to you. As soon as Biden started mumbling, what were you thinking at home? You were thinking at exactly the time that Trump said it, you were thinking exactly what he said. That is the most persuasive thing you can do when somebody's in the room. If you can pick out what somebody's thinking at the moment they're thinking it. And it's a non standard thought. All right? Has to be non standard. A standard thought would be, wow, it's hot today. Okay. You don't get any credit for that because everybody knows it's hot. It's an ordinary thing. I sure am hungry. No, no. Even if the other person's hungry too. Nothing. Right. Those are ordinary thoughts. But this was an extraordinary situation, a debate and a very unordinary situation where one of the people said something that didn't make sense to anybody. So Trump gets in all of our heads, Democrats and Republicans, and at. As you're thinking it, it comes out of his mouth, oh, my God. You were thinking, I don't know what that meant. You were also thinking, I don't know if he knows what that meant. He said exactly what you were thinking, exactly when you thought it. Now, even if you, if you take the timing out, it doesn't work. If he had said it the day after, you know, I don't know if you heard him, but I don't know what he said. And I don't think you know either. No effect. No effect. Well, a little bit. It would be a little bit of pacing, but you would lose the immediacy if you can do it at the moment somebody's thinking it. And by the way, I teach this technique. This is a real powerful persuasion technique and he nailed it. Now imagine doing that spontaneously and instantly and having that much right, but it's better. It keeps going. It was funny because it was funny and he knew it would be funny. Humor makes you repeat it in your head. When you hear something that's funny and it's clever, your head repeats it. The repetition is what makes something become more important in your mind. You can't not repeat it. It's why rhymes work. You repeat rhymes in your head, so that's why they get sticky. So humor is repetition. Repetition forms memory. And as Dr. Carmen Simon teaches us, memory is basically what's going to drive your actions and your opinions. So humor is repetition, repetition makes memories. Memories is persuasion. And I also tell you that visual persuasion is the most powerful. And you'd say, well, this isn't really visual, it's just something he said. Except that we were looking at Biden's face. Biden's face was the visual of the night. The only visual that anybody talked about is how bad his face looked. So when you match that, you're already thinking, what is wrong with Biden's face, with the fact that he's saying sketchy stuff, you get the visual for free. Now, I don't know that that was so planned, but it, but it was there. It was also a surprise because you don't expect somebody to say something in a presidential debate that's quite that clever and biting and right in your face. And so you might, you might say, well, it's not that big a surprise because it's Trump. But even for Trump, it came, you know, maybe came out of nowhere. So surprise also gets your attention. Attention is memory. Memory is persuasion. And I would also argue that in a, in a subtle way, Biden's obvious dementia is scary. Now, it's scary in a general way, which is, oh, who's running the country. So you got fear, you got an indirect visual. You got him thinking what you're thinking and saying it as you're thinking it. He's reframed him as a child. He summarized the entire election. He's a silent assassin. He, he showed contrast by being quick witted. It was amazing. He did that spontaneously. So, you know, when I had a chance to talk to him about persuasion in the oval office in 2018, I actually asked him, you know, have you studied persuasion or is this natural? And he told me it was natural that, you know, you made no special effort to study it. It's just a lifetime of picking up tips, I guess. And that was, that was the best example you're ever going to see. And so that, ladies and gentlemen, is my show for the day. And I might do some more persuasion whiteboards as we get closer to the election. I think they're, they're value added because you can pick up little tricks you can use for yourself and also you can watch for them. So I'm going to say bye to YouTube and rumble and X. Thanks for joining. You know, spend some time with my special people, my beloveds, on locals and I'm glad you joined. Thanks for joining.