Episode 1777 Scott Adams - Did Elon Musk Prove We Live In A Simulation? Starting To Look That Way
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Hints we're in a simulation - USA Today fires reporter who fabricated stories - Hit list of influencers who questioned 2020 election - Richard Vigilante on Reagan economics - President Trump as the new Rush Limbaugh? - J6 propaganda appears to be working ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to possibly the best experience you've ever had. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm so excited for you today. You're going to experience something so, so wonderful today that I wish I were you. I mean, if I could trade places and be listening to what I'…
View segment →e or a stein, a canteen, jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite beverage. You know I love coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. Oh, this is going to be a good one. The dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything good, with a little bit of oxyto…
View segment →se you're keeping track of your anecdotes. All right, now here's a thought for you. You know I'm always jabbering on about how we live in a simulation and this reality is a bunch of bits created by some other civilization or intelligence. And how could you tell if it's true? It's sort of annoying,…
View segment →irmations, for example, without knowing any scientific reason why that should make any difference whatsoever. But maybe it's a way you can program the simulation. Maybe you can author your own future because we live in a fairly subjective reality, no matter what you think. So wouldn't you say that…
View segment →ers that had been cobbled together over the years, in fact the commentators said it was the worst team the Warriors had ever won with. It was the worst performing team because people were injured, etc. And yet Steve Kerr got winning performances out of every combination of players he put together. E…
View segment →itimate gray, you really don't know if it's legal or not, what do you do? Do you do the thing that you think is the right thing and then try to make the legal part work? Or do you say it's a gray area, so even though I think one thing is the right thing to do, I'm not going to do it because I don't…
View segment →upreme Court. And so they would basically be taking control back. That's a better way to say it. The court would be taking its power and credibility back by just saying we don't have to do anything that the public requires us to do. We're just going to rule. Now the other interpretation is much les…
View segment →he conservatives on the court from saying we only want to make a ruling that helps us politically? Suppose the conservatives said, you know, the only thing that would stop Republicans from sweeping is a Supreme Court ruling killing Roe and then making everybody go to the elections. Think about that…
View segment →hat would you do? It looks like a hit list, doesn't it? It looks like the list of people that you should go after. You should troll harder. You know, you try to make their life uncomfortable because these are the bad people. I believe I just got put on a bad people list. Because what would be the p…
View segment →of all on the hook. Like I don't feel that I don't have responsibility for this. I feel like I do. I feel like I do. Now you know my philosophy which is in two occasions I've preferred being a stepdad than a biological dad. Now why did I willingly take on these stepdad functions? Because in both ca…
View segment →g the problem which is Reagan-ish improvements in the investment outlook or the investment situation? Have we ever been in the situation with those two things lining up at the same time? I don't know for sure but in terms of risk reward it might be the best investment opportunity of all time maybe.…
View segment →I've stopped looking at the, oh I've gone extra long. So I think I'll go do something else because you probably need to too. And may I say this was the finest live stream of all time. I think you all enjoyed it a little bit extra if you play it at 1.25 or 1.75 speed. My understanding is I'm even bet…
View segment →Good morning, everybody, and welcome to possibly the best experience you've ever had. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm so excited for you today. You're going to experience something so, so wonderful today that I wish I were you. I mean, if I could trade places and be listening to what I'm going to be telling you today, wow, I would do it in a heartbeat. You are so lucky compared to me. But all you need to join me and others in a plane of happiness that's hard to describe is a cup or a mug. Yeah, or a mug. Get your mug. You probably have a few if you know what I mean, and I'm not talking about things you read. I know my audience.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice or a stein, a canteen, jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite beverage. You know I love coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. Oh, this is going to be a good one. The dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything good, with a little bit of oxytocin on the side.
Good morning. Thank you very much. Thanks for noticing. No, an update on my long COVID. So I could say with a high degree of certainty that I have no detectable long COVID, in case you wonder, in case you're keeping track of your anecdotes.
All right, now here's a thought for you. You know I'm always jabbering on about how we live in a simulation and this reality is a bunch of bits created by some other civilization or intelligence. And how could you tell if it's true? It's sort of annoying, isn't it? Because if we're in a simulation, presumably the simulation could be programmed to make it impossible for you to know you're in a simulation. I mean, all it would take is one line of code, right? If you discover you're in a simulation, immediately reinterpret it as not a simulation. That's it. One line of code. And every time we discovered our true reality, we would instantly forget it and reinterpret it in some other way. So it would be very easy for the creators, if we were a simulation, just hypothetically, to keep us from knowing it. Literally one line of code. That's it. I just wrote it. And so that's how easy it would be.
But could they take away all the hints? And I would say no, I don't think they could remove all of the hints. They could just remove the solid proofs, you know, the math and the physics part. But one of the things you would expect to see, see if this makes sense to you, one of the things you'd expect to see is that the people who believe they live in a simulation would have better outcomes than people who didn't. Do you think that's fair? That if you believed you lived in a simulation, you could perhaps navigate it more effectively because you'd have a better understanding of what you're dealing with. So you might use affirmations, for example, without knowing any scientific reason why that should make any difference whatsoever. But maybe it's a way you can program the simulation. Maybe you can author your own future because we live in a fairly subjective reality, no matter what you think.
So wouldn't you say that if somebody had publicly stated that they believed in the simulation, you'd expect them to have an unusual effect on the world and to be unusually successful in whatever ways we wanted to define that? Fair enough. Just keep that frame in mind as I go through the stories today. That's going to be the meta arc over the smaller stories. People who believe we live in a simulation, do they have more impact on the world?
Yesterday I was watching what turned out to be the finals of the NBA basketball, Warriors versus the Celtics, and the Warriors came out on top. But you don't have to be a sports fan to appreciate this element of the story. Would you agree that there are sort of two things that determine the winner when you get to the NBA finals? Because by the time two teams get to the finals, they're really good, and those are two teams that on any given day one could beat the other. So generally speaking, that's a true statement.
Now, often it's said that the difference is size. So when you get to the finals, there's just so much physicality and bumping into each other that the biggest team that's willing to bump the hardest has a big advantage. So size is a big thing, and the Celtics had a bit of size and youth, I believe, over the Warriors, who were seasoned and a little bit injured this year and a little bit older. So the physicality argument said the Celtics were going to win. And at least in one of the early games or two, it looked like that was going to be the story. Just bigger was better. There's just nothing you can do about it. Bigger is better, especially if you're going to put your full energy into it.
Bigger is often not better if you're on the practice court. This is something that Don Nelson discovered. The smaller players would beat the bigger players in practice games. But when he got to the finals, the big players would play harder and that was it. They would just shut down everything. So the Celtics should have won if size were the only factor. But you also have talent and superstars and people who can change the game. You know, you've got Steph Curry on the Warriors, and he can basically just change the nature of any game like a Michael Jordan could have. So that's another factor.
But the other biggest factor is the psychology of the two teams. And here I think that Steve Kerr, because I've been watching him for a long time, is kind of a genius on the psychology. And here's just some of the things that I see him do. One of them is that he supports the team, especially the superstars. So you would see if, like, Draymond Green, who's one of the more vocal and best players in the NBA, he got real mad and demanded that the coach show a replay, which they have only a few rights to do, so you don't want to use up your replay rights. But he demanded the coach do it. And watching the way Kerr responded to Green was really interesting because the moment that Green demanded it, Kerr said yes. And I don't think he necessarily would have. It doesn't look like that would have been his independent decision. But the way Kerr manages Green's psychology is sort of amazing.
Because you can imagine Green is a tough character because he's always arguing with the refs. He's a really big personality on the field. But Green is the one who manages the team's psychology. So there's this trickle-down. When you're on the court, you can see Green really being the one whose energy changes everybody else's energy. If he's having a good game, he just makes them have a good game, right? He gets the ball to the hot person. I mean, he's really just, you watch him in real time, just completely controlling the psychology of his own players. And then they control the psychology of the game, and then they win. And you can see the trickle-down. It's Kerr to Green to the team. It's not Steph Curry. Steph Curry is just the best player. But Green is the one who manages the psychology on the field, you know. And then having the best player is a big part of it, of course.
So there was, okay, you're way ahead of me on this story. This story has a wrinkle that's coming up. Last night on the Warriors bench, now they're playing an away game, right? So they're in their enemy opponent's building in Boston. And on their bench they have a visitor. Steve Kerr, the guy who I think is just one of the best managers of psychology I've ever seen, has as his one visitor on the bench Tony Robbins.
Tony Robbins. Now if you don't know how funny that is, let me give you some background. Tony Robbins has been famous for doing his personal growth, personal improvement seminars and books and stuff for decades. And the reason that he's so famous and he can do this for decades is because it works. That's it. Now you expect somebody like that to have some kind of scandal take you down. I think he's had some minor ones that he's managed to brush aside. But he's really good, and the things that he says are based on the same things I've studied. So he's an expert on persuasion, and he also has a direct line back to the top hypnotists, literally hypnotists of history. So he was actually mentored by one of the most famous hypnotists. And I don't think he necessarily uses that word, but it's one of the things he's added to his talent stack, you know, beyond the energy he brings and all of his own ideas and stuff. But he's got a talent stack that includes hypnosis.
Now one of the things that hypnotists learn, just part of being a hypnotist, is that reality is completely subjective, almost like you live in a simulation, almost like you live in the simulation. And I think that's one of the reasons that I think this is a simulation. Because if you study hypnosis, one of the things you learn is that people make decisions first and then they decide why they made the decision second. And you can't even be a hypnotist until you understand that. That's like a basic understanding that everybody sees the world backwards or upside down or inside out, whichever it is. As soon as you see it the way it is, you can manage it more effectively.
If I believe that people thought about things and then made decisions, I would treat people differently. I would write differently. I would express myself differently. I would do everything differently. But I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it. And once you learn it, it's hard to unlearn. People make decisions first for reasons they don't understand, and then they say it's because it will save money in the long run. But that's sort of after the fact. Now that's not every single decision. There's some that the objective parts of the decision are just hard-coded and everybody would make the same decision. But for a lot of the important things like what job do you have, who do you marry, do you have kids, all of those things are completely irrational decisions that we rationalize after the fact. Mostly we're just acting on our mating instincts and trying to act like we didn't. In fact, that's the best explanation of human beings. Everything we do is some expression of our mating instinct, and then we're trying to make it look like that's not what we're doing. And part of that is convincing ourselves that's not what we're doing. That's not what I'm doing. I dressed really well today, you know why? Because I like how it makes me feel.
Whenever I hear somebody say that, the way they're dressing, women say this more than men, but I'm dressing for myself. I dress for the way I feel, to make myself feel good. I always think that's someone who doesn't understand the basic nature of reality, that we're all just expressing our mating instincts and some people are aware of it and some are not.
Now imagine if the only thing that was different about you is that you knew that and nobody else did. Imagine being born into a world in which you alone understood that everybody was acting on their mating instinct. They just weren't aware of it, but you knew it. You would be like the one-eyed king in the land of the blind. You'd have almost a superpower of understanding what people are going to do and why they did it. And other people would be like, how did you know that was going to happen? Like how did you know this person was interested in this person? And I'd be like, well, look how they dressed today. I'm done. That was the mating instinct. They knew they were going to see this person one-on-one. And so it would look like you had magic powers if you just understood that the world is backwards from the way you're taught it is.
So Tony Robbins understanding that world and knowing that we live in a backwards world and therefore understanding which tools to use to improve a backwards world, if you're following the chain here, is hugely successful. Tony Robbins is really, really, really successful personally, but also has been credited by all kinds of leaders for helping them. So imagine how much Tony Robbins probably helped the Warriors in their psychological game. Because the Warriors came out and were psychologically impenetrable. Because they got behind early. I mean, they just started getting slaughtered in their away game for the first quarter. And then they didn't do anything except come back hard and win. They came back so hard they just stomped the Celtics.
So the older, beaten-up team with the players that had been cobbled together over the years, in fact the commentators said it was the worst team the Warriors had ever won with. It was the worst performing team because people were injured, etc. And yet Steve Kerr got winning performances out of every combination of players he put together. Every time Steve Kerr put a combination together, with or without Curry, the best player in the game, he still won. Do you know why? Because he got the psychology right. I think that was the main thing he kept getting right. And he had Green on the team. That helps, right?
Somebody says yeah, plus luck. There's always luck. So here's my point about Tony Robbins. Imagine you're the Celtics and you get out on the court and you're thinking, all right, we got this. We're feeling good. We got this. All we have to do is play harder and be smarter because we got the size. So if we can match them in psychology, we already have the size and the youth. We're going to win it all. And then they look over and sitting next to Steve Kerr on the bench is the most powerful hypnotist in the history of civilization. This would be sort of like you got in a math league competition and you saw on the other team was Paul Dirac. Now this is a very obscure reference that maybe five percent of you got. Paul Dirac. D-I-R-A-C. Anybody? Okay, mathematical genius.
So imagine if you go for a pickup game of basketball and Michael Jordan's on the other side. Like that is what Steve Kerr did to the Celtics. What Steve Kerr did to the Celtics was so effective it should be banned. What Steve Kerr did to the Celtics in that critical game was so devastatingly mentally effective that you should have been able to call the result of the game as soon as you saw him sitting on the bench. As soon as I saw him I was like, oh no he didn't. Did Steve Kerr really put Tony frickin' Robbins next to him on the bench? Because if you're the Celtics, you're just going to give up. Remember, there's two variables: size and psychology. And Steve Kerr basically said, all right, we got you on the psychology, so you better work on the size thing a little bit more because we're going to pulverize you on the psychology. And then what did he do? He pulverized them on the psychology. You could see the Celtics just look defeated about halfway through. They looked like they just didn't have anything left. It was awesome.
Well, Senator Tom Cotton is saying that the attorney general should resign because there have been, I didn't know this, but reportedly 50 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches in recent weeks, purportedly carried out by some shadowy domestic violence group called Jane's Revenge. So they're targeting conservatives. And once again Tom Cotton shows us he's one of the effective people in Congress, in the Senate. So I always like the fact that he picks things which I always think are the obvious things that should be done. But why isn't anybody else doing them? I don't know. There's a certain genius to be able to do the obvious things. The free money, you know, the thing that just needs to be done and why isn't somebody else doing this? So yeah, I think this is a pretty valid thing to say there. If conservatives and Republicans are being hunted, hashtag hunted, do you remember anybody who made a prediction that if Biden won the election that Republicans would be hunted? Anybody? Anybody who believes in the simulation? Somebody you can think of? Yes, me. I was widely mocked for that. But there might be at least one more story today on that topic.
So to their credit, and I'm going to keep giving them credit for this, CNN had another what I would consider very balanced segment in which John Berman was pushing Jennifer Granholm, the energy secretary, on the consistency of the following things that the Biden administration wants. So at the same time that the Biden administration is demanding the energy companies make massive investments so that energy prices will go down, he's also telling them he wants them to be out of business in their traditional energy business. So he's asking them to make massive investments for the future at the same time telling them, but of course in the future we want to put you out of business. So make a massive investment for the future we want to disappear. And watching CNN's John Berman push her on that inconsistency was actually, first of all, refreshing. So that was straight reporting, straight approach by CNN, which I think should be complimented. And she didn't really have what I would consider a sufficient answer for that.
Now her answer was that the future of these companies should be divesting into greener energy, which I think is a fair thing to say. But it doesn't quite explain the inconsistency because they were all going to do that anyway. Companies invest in other things because they think it's a good investment or not. So that's all that's going to happen there. If they think it's a good investment, they'll do it. If they don't, they won't. So I don't think anything's going to change about how those companies invest in other stuff. But why would you make massive investments in these traditional energy sources that the Biden administration wants to crush in the future?
Well, here's the most damning stuff about Trump from January 6. Because I keep waiting for the January 6 hearings to come up with the goods against Trump specifically. And I love watching how dots are connected that are not actually connections. So making a connection that's not really a connection. And so if you read some of the coverage fast and you don't really parse the words, you could think it means something it doesn't mean. I'll give you an example. So this I think was from CNN. According to testimony from people around the then-president and elsewhere in Trump's political machine, all right, so they're saying that people close to Trump, they were told Eastman's plan to have Pence declare that he had won, declare that Trump had won, or accept other electors was illegal. See, this is getting complicated. Yet Trump tried to go ahead with it anyway.
All right, so here, let me simplify this. So Trump's attorney Eastman had a plan, and people told Trump that Eastman's plan, who is a lawyer, was illegal. So there were apparently lawyers who disagreed with lawyers. Now if you're Trump, does that mean that you knew it was illegal? So the report, the factual reporting, is that he had his most important lawyer, I guess his closest lawyer maybe, or one of the closest lawyers, recommend it. But then other lawyers said it's illegal. So did Trump know it was illegal? Well, if the lawyers didn't know, if the lawyers didn't know it was illegal, how is he supposed to know?
Now if all of the lawyers had agreed, then I would say the story is yeah, Trump knew that was illegal. But if there was even one lawyer that was close to him and was a credible lawyer saying no, I think this is legal, then Trump did not know it was illegal. He knew it was gray. Or maybe. So if the reporting was Trump knew it was a gray area, I would say that's completely probably supported by the facts. Because if you can find one lawyer who says it's a good idea and at least one who says it's a bad idea, then you say okay, it's a gray area. So what does a leader do when there's a gray area about what's legal? You tell me. If there's a gray area, like a legitimate gray, you really don't know if it's legal or not, what do you do? Do you do the thing that you think is the right thing and then try to make the legal part work? Or do you say it's a gray area, so even though I think one thing is the right thing to do, I'm not going to do it because I don't want to take a chance in this gray area situation? What would a leader do in that situation? Well, it depends on the leader probably.
If you have a low appetite for risk, you'd probably say all right, I'll just accept it and move on because you have a low appetite for risk. Suppose you have a high appetite for risk and you spent your entire career in ambiguous legal situations. Can you think of anybody who has spent more time in ambiguous legal jeopardy than Trump over his entire career? How much ambiguous legal jeopardy has that man endured in his entire life? More than anybody in the world maybe. Maybe if there was some kind of competition of who has endured and survived the most ambiguous legal jeopardy situations, I think it would be Trump all the way. I think he has decades of doing this consistently and at least not being taken down by it.
What would you do if you spent your entire career not being defeated by ambiguous legal situations? You do what you know he's done. You'd use your gut and you just go for it. That seems to be his method. He uses his gut and then he just goes for it. And it probably has worked more than it's not worked his whole career, which is why he's Trump and you're not. So it's hard to get in anybody's head. But it's not irrational if you have disagreeing lawyers and an entire background of your hunches, or let's say your instinct as he might call it. If you've had good luck with your instinct forever in these ambiguous situations and you feel strongly, you'd probably just go for it. And that doesn't to me sound like evil. You know, you could spin it as he was doing anything to keep him in power. But let me ask you this. Do the Democrats believe that if it had been Trump's second term and he just ran two terms, well, or let me ask you a different way. Do Democrats believe that if Trump got reelected for another four years and it was constitutionally impossible for him to run for another term, does anybody believe he would try to stay? And I think the answer is yes. I think Democrats believe he would try to work some kind of dictator trick to stay in office after a second term. I don't think there's one Republican that would support that. I mean, okay, there's always one. You can get a crazy person to support anything. But it's not like there are many people in the MAGA who would say let's get rid of that two-term thing. No matter how much you like Trump, you still say there are people with Trump's policy preferences who are not a thousand years old. So I think people would just naturally gravitate to a younger Republican anyway.
We don't know what Trump was thinking. But the way they write it was in indirect sentences. So something, somebody was told something. We don't know who did it and we don't say somebody told him. We say somebody was told. When I see indirect writing like that, the "was told," that feels like somebody's in weasel mode while they're writing the sentence. Because direct sentences help you with clarity and indirect sentences, which is one of the most obvious things that a good editor would change, you know, it's kind of a tell that somebody's trying to not be clear.
USA Today deleted a bunch of articles by one of their writers and I guess fired her because apparently some of the quotes were fabricated. The existence of some individuals quoted could not be independently verified. In addition, some stories had quotes in them that had been credited to others. So basically they fired their own reporter for having lots of stories that were partially made up.
Now Mike Cernovich, who's one of the highest value Twitter followers you can have, if you're not following Cernovich, why not? You need to. He points out that USA Today is a fact-check partner for Facebook and maybe even Twitter. So the fact-check partner for Facebook and maybe even Twitter, I'm not sure, we don't know if it's Twitter, but we don't. Had to fire one of their own reporters for making up news, like a lot of it, a lot of it apparently. And Elon Musk, who apparently follows Cernovich's account, just replied with one word: "Wow."
Now why is Elon Musk in the news four times a day? So here's the first one. So you know as he's trying to buy Twitter and he's watching the quality of their fact-checkers disintegrate, at least their reputation disintegrate in the public, and he's just "wow." So you know he's watching that, which is interesting to me. Now if you believed you lived in a simulation like Elon Musk did, wouldn't you be surprised if he were not the richest person in the world? Or let me say it another way. Shouldn't we expect that at some point, if we live in a simulation, that all of the richest people in the world are people who believe in the simulation? Because they would be the ones who played the game the best and knew how to win. Maybe. So there's Musk, richest guy, and also coincidentally believes we live in the simulation. Huh.
Jack Posobiec is foreshadowing something interesting. He's tweeting today, what if Roe will not be overturned? And if it came from someone else you'd say okay, there's somebody just speculating some stuff on Twitter, means nothing. But Jack Posobiec has a long history of having good sources. And so when someone who has good sources says maybe the Supreme Court won't overturn Roe, or maybe not in the way that has been reported. So somebody asked him what he knows that other people don't know. And I think he responded, nothing good. Now it's a little bit cryptic, isn't it? So I don't know if there could be yet another leak from the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that indicate there are two leaks from the Supreme Court?
Now here's the interesting play here. Number one, may I ask, was I the first person who said you know I wouldn't trust that first draft? Now other people have said it of course, but I think you heard me first say don't necessarily assume that the first draft is what anything that you're going to see. They could be just testing the argument out. What if that's true?
Now the other thing is this. If you're the Supreme Court, what is more important to you, the integrity of the Supreme Court or this decision? What is more important to you if you're the Supreme Court, the integrity of the Supreme Court or this decision? I think it's the integrity of the Supreme Court. And if they went in that direction, I wouldn't say it's crazy. And I could imagine them pulling back the ruling and not ruling at all because there was a leak. Would that upend everything? Imagine it. Imagine how baller that would be. Imagine if the Supreme Court said, because, and maybe they would never say this out loud, which I would also agree would be a good idea, never comment on it, never comment on it, never go to their graves, take it to their graves with no comment. Imagine the Supreme Court getting together and saying here's the deal. This abortion thing, very important, very important issue, but not even close to the importance of what happened with that leak. And so here's what I would ask of you on both sides of the issue. Let us once and for all make it impossible for anybody to benefit from a leak from the Supreme Court. Let's make it impossible to benefit from a leak and don't release the ruling and just say if there's a leak, there's no ruling.
Now would that give people the ability to stop any ruling by leaking? Maybe. Maybe. But it would certainly be a baller thing to do. Because if the court wanted, let's say the court knew they had a majority for this ruling, if they pulled back because of the leak that would say a lot about the power of the leak and how much of a problem that is. Why would it be baller? Because they would be ignoring the opinion in favor of the integrity of the Supreme Court. And so they would basically be taking control back. That's a better way to say it. The court would be taking its power and credibility back by just saying we don't have to do anything that the public requires us to do. We're just going to rule.
Now the other interpretation is much less favorable. Yeah, they're cowards. Now you beat me to it in the comments. The other interpretation is that they're afraid that the riots that would ensue would be terrible.
Now here's another interpretation. Do you believe that the people on the Supreme Court are not at all independent and it would be more fair to say that they are simply conservatives and liberals and really that's all there is to it, right? With that, every now and then you get a surprise Justice Roberts decision or something. But basically would you say that even though they act as if they're independent, blah blah, they're really just some liberals and some conservatives and that's why we have all the debate? Because if they were really independent you wouldn't have to argue about all the nominations. It's that when you nominate them you know what they're going to rule before you even get the question. So if they're that partisan and it's that obvious to everyone, what would stop the conservatives on the court from saying we only want to make a ruling that helps us politically?
Suppose the conservatives said, you know, the only thing that would stop Republicans from sweeping is a Supreme Court ruling killing Roe and then making everybody go to the elections. Think about that. If the conservatives on the court are really, I'll say corrupt, I think corrupt would be a fair enough word in this case. If they're really just conservatives and they're not even real justices, all they're doing is saying conservatives this is what you get and we're going to rationalize it somehow but we're on your team. We're just going to vote your way every time. So there are some real interesting questions about this. I could easily imagine that the court would pursue their own credibility or even a Republican victory and then hold off the decision until after 2024.
What about that? What if the court said we're going to delay this until after the political season? Oh, here's my prediction. Oh yeah, here's my prediction. The court has, correct me if I'm wrong, they have the flexibility to take any case or not take any case and they have the flexibility to wait as long as they want. Is that true? That they do have the flexibility to wait on any decision as long as they want? Nobody's going to tell them they have to make a decision. Is that true? There's no pressure to do it or lose it, right?
Suppose the Supreme Court says there has to be a response to the leak. There has to be. And because the leak was obviously released for political purposes to influence the midterms and maybe even the presidential election, we at the Supreme Court are going to take away that win and we're going to delay the decision. Actually they don't even have to announce it. They could just not do it. And maybe it would leak that that's a reason. Because that would give them their, are you agreeing with this? Because that would give the Supreme Court everything they want. If you imagine that that is the decision they want, the majority of them, they would still get their decision but they would wait until there was a Republican scenario. Because that would also guarantee that the conservatives get the next nomination in the courts, etc., assuming everybody can survive until 2024.
What do you think of that prediction? Okay, that's what I would do if I were Justice Roberts. So if I were the Supreme Court and even if I wanted that ruling, even if I were a conservative, I would say since the reason for the leak was political, we're going to take that win away from them. But we'll still reserve the right to do it immediately after the election when it has the least political impact. I feel like I would do that. But that would also be the Supreme Court meddling in the election, wouldn't it? So I'm not sure if that would be fixing a meddling or that would be its own meddling. So I guess that would be a problem either way.
Well, speaking of Republicans being hunted, there's a list on the internet now of the people who were the most responsible for sowing doubt about the 2020 election. So researchers combed through 45 million tweets to find the people who are most responsible for doubt about the election. And I'm number 28 on the list. So I'm on a list of people who sowed the most doubt in the whole world about the election.
Now as someone else asked, how did they determine that? Because I accepted the election on the day the results were announced. I congratulated Biden for the win on the day the election was official and I never changed. And I've said every time since then he's the president. So that didn't change. But I've also said that since our election can't be audited and not fully, then you can't know if anything was rigged. But you could know for certain that if it doesn't get, plug those holes, that it will be. We don't know when. Might be this election, might be next, 20 years from now. But if you don't plug the holes, it's a guarantee somebody's going to walk through that open gate. So yeah, of course until we have a fully auditable system, one assumes that you can't fully trust any result.
But I value, just like the Supreme Court conversation, I do value the system over the imperfections and even over the choice. Because when an election is close, you know it's like 48-50 sort of situation. I don't really think the public loses when the 48 wins over the 50 because it's not that much of a difference. It's not like the public is so smart that we can fine-tune those decisions. If it's sort of a half and half, then at least half the country got what they wanted and that's not too bad compared to the other half getting what they wanted, right? It's not the worst thing in the world. And so I still support the system because I don't want this system to fall apart even though you could never know for sure if it gave you 100% accurate results.
But I would say that every day that goes by that we don't have further evidence of the 2000 Mules accusations, the less likely you're ever going to see them. So to me that feels like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and 2000 Mules. I put them all in the same category in just one thin way, not in general but just one specific way, which is every day that goes by that they're not proven to work, well it's probably less likely that they will ever be proven to work.
So the challenge against the 2000 Mules thing is that the cell phone data location stuff wasn't specific enough. You need some photographic evidence of the same person going to the same box has not been produced. Or you need a whistleblower. The allegations of all of these mules is kind of interesting. When if a mule existed, you don't think that mule would find a way to monetize their whistleblowing? Because you could go to a major news platform and say look, disguise my voice, pay me $50,000 and I'll tell you that I was a mule and I dropped off multiple things. But that hasn't happened, has it? There's not one mule who would take $50,000 and a disguised identity to tell that story. Now maybe they'd be afraid of being killed or something. But I don't know how much you get paid to be a mule but it can't be that much. I would think that I'd take the $50,000 if I were a mule and I thought I could get away with it. Because remember these are people who think they can get away with stuff. If you're a mule you've already bought into the idea of breaking the law, right? So if you could have another way to maybe not break the law and make $50,000, that doesn't seem like a big risk.
So every day that you don't see somebody take the $50,000, because easily somebody would give them $50,000, right? You're telling me that there's no conservative who would pay $50,000 to get somebody to hide their identity and say yeah I was a mule, here's how I did it? I don't know. That many mules. So the same argument that says if you don't have a totally secure election system and there have been reports of vulnerabilities, eventually it will be hacked. But for the same sort of math logic, if you have so many alleged mules and you'd have to have a lot of them, right, not one of those people who are a group of people who engage in illegal activity by definition because it's illegal, at least the muelling we're talking about is illegal, not one of those people would accept $50,000 to tell their story because of their own legal jeopardy. Maybe. I don't know. I feel like that's a group that would take the $50,000. I feel like you could get dozens of them to take it because that's good money for a little bit of criminal activity.
Suppose you had a mule who went to the press and said I'll make you a deal. If you the press hire me a lawyer and you go to law enforcement and you ask them to give me a pardon or some kind of dispensation, I will tell my story to you. You'll give me $50,000 and I'll have no legal jeopardy because you help me clear that with your lawyer. There's no mule smart enough to make that deal? Really? I don't know. I feel like that would be just such an obvious deal that they could make that deal. So every day that goes by that we don't have proof there was anything wrong with that election, I say the odds of it are much smaller. Much smaller, right?
All right, so what do you make of the fact that I'm on a list of election doubters? Doesn't that sound like I've been hunted? Literally somebody paid some rich people paid for an entity to pour through my tweets and other people's tweets hunting, hunting for certain people who are associated with opinions that they say are associated with the right. Now I'm not Republican and I'm not conservative but I got on the list. Now have I been hunted? Did they not literally hunt for me? By the data that looks like a hunt to me. What is hunting other than going and looking for your target? Like actually what is the definition of hunting? Let me ask that. There's a definition of hunting and see if it fits. Do you find hunting? All right, the activity of hunting wild animals or game especially for food. Okay, it's not that. Well that's a rather limited definition. So they're not using the, oh it's similar to stalking. All right, well we can do better than that.
So remember I told you that it seems likely that especially before the 2024 election that I will be the subject of a hit piece. I feel like this list is sort of activating the activists. Say okay here's your hit list. And it even included how many people retweeted us so you could know how big our influence was. It was literally a list of who was influential on a topic they don't like. A list of who is most influential on a topic they don't like. Think about that. Suppose conservatives created a list of who on the left was the most influential on a topic they didn't like. How would that feel? How would that feel? Because if you saw that list what would you do? Well if you're a nice person you'd probably just read it and it'd be interesting. But if you're a troll or a terrible person what would you do? It looks like a hit list, doesn't it? It looks like the list of people that you should go after. You should troll harder. You know, you try to make their life uncomfortable because these are the bad people.
I believe I just got put on a bad people list. Because what would be the point of making a list of people who are most influential on a topic you don't like? What would be the other reason for the list? Tell me what would be the other purpose of the list other than to target me personally for some kind of payback or destruction or minimization? Am I right? There's no other purpose. I don't believe there's even an alleged other purpose. I don't believe there's a cover story. I don't believe anybody's saying anything else but here's a list of people who should be disavowed or targeted or something. So I'm on the list now.
But you know if there's one person you don't want to put on the list, like who would it be? Who would be the person that you would least want to piss off in the whole world? Who would you least want to piss off in the whole world? No, not me. Tony Robbins. Tony Robbins. Not me. No I don't know. Maybe Tony Robbins is above anything like revenge because I've never seen anything like that that would suggest he's vengeful. But you wouldn't want to make somebody angry if you thought they controlled the simulation. Now the people who do control the simulation, if there's a simulation and if somebody can control it, they would look exactly like me. But that doesn't mean I do. They would just look exactly like my life. So just think about that.
Apparently Russia is handling all the sanctions well and doing fine. Okay, now is the Russia-Ukraine thing the best example of two movies on one screen that you've ever seen? I mean I guess Trump was the most classic example. But we have a situation in which people like me will claim we were right by saying that Russia did not take over Ukraine. So but on the other hand Russia won the war. So it's like two opposites at the same time. Russia tried to attack and conquer Ukraine and I believe they at least, I think they at least wanted it and maybe they thought they had a shot at it. So I think what they did is they probably tried to take the whole country and maybe still will try. Maybe they're still trying. But quite reasonably adjusted their tactics when it was time to do that, consolidated their control over the most valuable parts and then presumably will just keep picking on Ukraine forever and try to get the whole thing.
But people like me can say hey I was right because Ukraine defended itself better than the experts said they would. But then the experts are going to say well we told you Russia could do anything they wanted and what they wanted to do was get this valuable part and they got it. So Russia won. And if they want the rest of it, well they can pick on that later and they'll probably get that too. So is everybody right? Everybody's right. Scott the mind reader of Putin. You know the thing with Putin is you don't have to read his mind because he said publicly pretty clearly that Ukraine should be in Russia's control and blah blah blah, NATO is a risk, blah blah. So I don't think that's a mind-reading example. But I always take seriously those criticisms because it's easy to fall into the mind-reading thing.
Here's a shocking statistic. That 85% of children, teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. And over 70% of all adolescent patients in drug and alcohol treatment originate from homes without fathers. Therefore the problem is not enough fathers. Yes or no? Connect these dots. This will be your data analysis test. If we know that 85% of children and teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes, therefore the fatherless part is the reason, right? What would be something else in common that fatherless homes have? What would be some other big variable? A lack of money. What can you name something where poor people are doing better? I mean there's probably something but in what category do poor people do better? Do they have better health? No. Do they have better happiness? I don't think so. The last thing you would expect is that the poorer you are, the healthier your mental health would be. So are we not talking about, we're talking about fathers but it's really a poverty problem.
Now you might say to yourself if the father stayed that would solve the poverty problem, would it? Are these fathers the fathers with good jobs who the only thing wrong with them is that they didn't stay? No I don't think the only thing wrong with the fathers is they didn't stay. They probably would be an economic drag as much as an economic benefit. So I'm not sure that saying fatherlessness is the problem, that feels like the outcome of the problem.
Do you want to give me another? Do you want to hear the most provocative hypothesis of what the real problem is? Do you want to see me get banned from all social media and lose 15% of my followers in the next 60 seconds? I'm just going to throw out a hypothesis. What if the problem is mothers? I'm not saying it is. I think it's curiously missing from the conversation. Because remember it's a bunch of things we don't understand. So if it's a thing we don't understand with a bunch of variables in it, why can't it be the mothers? If the father doesn't stay, what's one possibility for that? What is one reason that the father wouldn't stay? Name a reason. Well one is that the father's a piece of crap, right? That's what you go to immediately. The father's a deadbeat piece of crap, irresponsible, possibly a rapist. That's what you go to. Why? Because men are awful and women are awesome. Those are the rules. Those are the rules. I'm sorry, Amber Heard an exception. But the rules are the men are trash and women are goddesses and queens. Queens and goddesses. Those two categories. You can only be two things if you're a woman: either a queen or a goddess. A princess, three things. But men are criminals and dirt and rapists and murderers. They're awful. And so if you see a situation where there are two variables involved, one is the mother who is the one who spends most of the time with the child that becomes ruined. So the mother is the one who spends all the time with the child who gets ruined. And the fault of this process not working, the mother spending all of the time raising the child that gets ruined, the reason that the child is ruined by the mother who spends all the time with the child is the father who's not there. So the person who's not there is the one who ruined the child, not the person who's there. No, not the person who's there.
Let me do a little mental experiment for you. Let's imagine a world in which the mothers were doing the leaving and the fathers were always left with children. All right, it's an imaginary world. In the imaginary world where the women all left and the fathers were left to raise the kids and then those kids turned out to be drug addicts and behavioral problem kids, would the analysis be that the problem was the mother left? Or would the analysis be I think the one who's there raising the kid is the one ruining them. And no wonder the mother left because that father couldn't even raise a kid. So how much of a father could he be? So obviously it's the father who's a piece of trash, garbage, who is at least there at the home but they're ruining that kid because they're the one raising it and the kid turned out bad.
Now is that a fair analysis? That the person who raises the kid is mostly to blame if the kid turns out wrong? Or is it the person who wasn't there? Is that who you normally think in a normal situation? Would you blame the person who wasn't there or would you blame the person who was there? And how come you've never asked that question? How come you just automatically accept the interpretation that men are pieces of shit and they cause the problem even when they're not there, even when they're not there?
So I think that fatherlessness is something that needs to be focused on and understood and we need to find some way to help the kids. But I don't know if the situation is so simple as the conservative view that it's fatherlessness. I think there's at least an equal possibility that the mothers are all broken and one of the reasons that the father didn't stay is that the mother is broken and he just couldn't put up with it. So why is it always the father's fault? Now I'm not saying the fathers should be off the hook. Nothing like that. I'm just saying that the way we analyze this is so obviously not rational then why would we expect that we could figure out how to solve it? If we're not looking at it in a rational way why would you expect anybody could solve it? You'd have to start with understanding it at the very least. And if you're not willing to say the truth that whatever makes these people poor and whatever makes this father leave or whatever makes the mother not have a partner, maybe it's them. Maybe it's them. All right, maybe the people are both the mother and the father. Maybe poverty is just always bad. How about poverty is always bad?
You know I think conservatives, honestly I think you're destroying the topic because when you simplify it to fatherlessness, first of all there's I just don't think there's enough support for that opinion even though the statistics are highly correlated. That's just too simplified. There's just too many other things that are correlated. So somebody says you're off on this. Yeah I'll look for some pushback. By the way if it turns out that the statistics just say yeah it really is the guy's fault pretty much every time, I could be persuaded. I'm easily persuaded on this point by the way. Easily persuaded. But there is no argument against what I just said. The automatic assumption that men are trash is what is driving the entire frame of the debate. And if you're in the wrong frame you're not going to find a solution.
So what's the solution? How about fix the mothers? How about that? Imagine if every single mother who had a kid started looking like a good prospect. Suppose instead of saying oh shoot this one's got a kid, I don't want to marry that because I'm going to be responsible for somebody else's kid, don't want to be a stepdad. You know what? What if you fix the mothers so that men want to stay with them? Oh yeah, look what I just did. What if you fixed the mothers so the men wanted to stay? But I will give you this. You would have to also train the mothers not to have sex with the wrong guys. Can I give you that? Because most guys are the wrong guys. Most of the men are defective too. Like I'm not, don't, if you think I'm letting men off the hook that's not what's happening here. I'm not letting anybody off the hook. I'm just saying that everybody's on the hook, right, including me. I didn't have any biological kids. We're sort of all on the hook. Like I don't feel that I don't have responsibility for this. I feel like I do. I feel like I do.
Now you know my philosophy which is in two occasions I've preferred being a stepdad than a biological dad. Now why did I willingly take on these stepdad functions? Because in both cases it was an attractive proposition. So you don't think other single women can learn how to become an attractive proposition so that men will say you know I would love to be part of that deal. Let me in. Yeah let me tell you this. There is not much competition out there, is there? Anybody single? Anybody single watching? Have you noticed that weirdly there isn't much competition out there? Here's what I mean. If you go to the gym and have a job you're in the top 10% of all eligible men. That's true. If you go to the gym and you have a job you're in the top 10% of all eligible men. Was that hard? That wasn't hard. What would it take for a single woman to have multiple men who want to marry her? Not hard. I'm not going to say go to the gym because then I look like a sexist jerk. I'm just going to say that it's not hard to get into the top 10% of eligible people. It's not hard. It really isn't. You just have to be nice to people, build your talent stack, work on your appeal, right, which is mostly fitness and diet. Pretty much anybody can get in the top 10%. Pretty much anybody. Let's say for their age. You'd have to adjust for age. And yeah so I would say that maybe if we were a little less woke we could be more beneficial to the base problem which is you have single women that no man wants to marry. I'm sorry if there are a lot of single women that no man wants to marry you should at least ask yourself can the women try harder? It has to be asked. I'm not letting the men off the hook whatsoever. The men have to be held to the maximum amount of reasonable responsibility for whatever they do. But they're not the only ones in the conversation. That's all I'm saying.
Remember I told you that nobody really understands inflation and debt and the Fed and all that. Do you believe me when I say that literally nobody understands it? Like the experts don't really understand it well. Here's a little more evidence to that case. There's an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Vigilante. I hope I'm pronouncing his name right. And I won't give you the whole thing but his basic point is that nobody understands the topic and that the only person who did was some economist in the Reagan era and maybe Reagan himself. And I'm going to read just a little portion of it and all I'm not trying to get you to understand it right. So when you don't understand this don't worry about that. That's not the point. I want you to understand that here's somebody who makes what I think is a fairly strong argument that nobody understands it.
All right so here's his definition. This is Richard Vigilante for the Wall Street Journal and I recommend the piece. It's eye-opening. He said that Reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply. So remember everybody thinks that inflation is caused by an increase in M2, the money supply. But Reagan beat inflation not by reducing it. Okay so that's the first thing that's opposite of what everybody thinks. Like everybody thinks increasing the money supply is that's inflation. That's all it is. Too much money for too few goods. But Reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply. M2 nearly doubled during his time. Okay that's opposite everything that everybody believes. But he did it by boosting demand for money. How do you do that? How do you boost the demand for money?
The great lesson of the Reagan era is that money supply is determined by investment opportunity. What absent such opportunities, no matter how much money the government gives people they will reject it and turn it into stuff, meaning they'll buy goods. So people have two choices of what to do with money, simplifying things. They can put money into just buying things that they like or they can invest. If you give them better opportunity to invest then that money supply just gets sucked up into investments which creates new taxes which creates all kinds of goodness. But if you take that money supply and there's too much of it and there's just a lot of money people will say you know I don't need this new thing but my money's not worth much and I'd like a chair. I'll just turn my money into a chair because the money's going to be worthless. I might as well have a chair or something like that. I'm simplifying too much.
And so what do you think of that? What do you think of the idea that all we would need to do is a Reagan-ish, Trump-ish change in, I think what Reagan did is he changed the capital gains taxes and some other things to make investment much more worthy. And he beat inflation because he came in after Carter, right? So he came in during the stagflation near the worst of all possible worlds. So if all you do is make it better to invest you solve everything.
So now I'm going to give you two rules of economics that could explain everything, right? Number one is if employment is good you're probably fine. I keep telling you that if you just look at the one variable, is our employment rate good, you're probably fine as long as you're not ruining the country with inflation or debt, right? So that's the big variable. So here's the one rule maybe, maybe the one rule that tells you if you're in trouble in inflation in the long run is whether you're making investment look like a good option. So if the government is continuing to make investment look good you solve every problem. So two things to know your economy. If your employment is good you're probably in good shape as long as your inflation is also good. And you can predict that by your investment situation.
Now what would happen if Republicans take control of Congress and the presidency? Four words. I got four words for you. If you think the Republicans are going to take both the Congress and the presidency, four words: you better own stock. Because from our current bottom, and I think we're close to some kind of a bottom here, if Republicans go ahead and do what people kind of sort of think is going to happen, take control of things, there's almost no way that they won't make investment more attractive. And that will fix the inflation or it will look like it is which then the anticipation actually changes the reality. And we could be entering the single best investment opportunity of all time. I wonder if that'll get quoted somewhere. So I'll say it again just in case somebody wants to quote it somewhere.
These two situations I think are unprecedented. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a historian. I say it's unprecedented. We have the economic badness that's pretty bad, the high inflation, the big debt. So we've got the economic badness and the shortages and everything else at the same time we have what looks like a Republican sweep upcoming and almost unstoppable. Have we ever had a situation where the economics were at their lowest point, the Republicans look like a sure bet for taking control, and the Republican policies are the exact prescription for fixing the problem which is Reagan-ish improvements in the investment outlook or the investment situation? Have we ever been in the situation with those two things lining up at the same time? I don't know for sure but in terms of risk reward it might be the best investment opportunity of all time maybe.
Now let me say before you go off and invest anything you really shouldn't take investment advice from me. I'm not good at it. So can I say that clearly? I'm not really good at this, at the investment stuff because nobody is. The only way to be good at investing is either buy Apple computer stock or an index fund and don't go buy Apple stock because I just said that. I'm using Apple as an example of something that's such a big company it's almost a diversified stock portfolio by itself. It does so many things.
All right did I sell it? ETH when it jumped? No. My philosophy is on ETH and Bitcoin just hold forever and it's just a hedge just in case. It's a small portion of portfolio.
Father's Day is Juneteenth Day. How about that? The richest man in the world gets sued a lot. Elon Musk is getting sued over allegedly pumping up Dogecoin and then it became worthless. So I don't, who knows? Is there anybody who was buying crypto who thought it was an investment? I feel like this is a lawsuit of smart people against numb people. Like the only way you'd win is if you've got a jury of your peers who also believed that crypto was a good investment. In some cases it's never going to be a good investment except in the narrow sense of a diversified portfolio.
All right so apparently there are 30 alleged officials from the Trump administration who believe that Trump is not fit to be president again. What do you think of that? Do you think that there are 30 people who are close to Trump who say he should not be, that he's not fit for president? You know what I wonder is if Republicans are going to throw away everything because Trump might be the only Republican who can lose. I hate to say it. He might be the only Republican who could lose the presidency. Because imagine if it's just some strong candidate that's not Trump. DeSantis, Tom Cotton let's say. I believe that without Trump's baggage and given Biden's low poor popularity that anybody could beat Biden. And by the Republican Biden I mean the person who doesn't have so much baggage that that's the whole story. They just have to be a Republican and they'll just get elected. Trump is the only one who brings risk because I'm not sure how many people are going to vote for somebody whose former advisors say you shouldn't vote for them. That's pretty much a, now if that stays. And by the way these former advisors, I'd need to see some more names. I saw two or three but I'm not so sure there are 30 of them. Yeah but allegedly there's some conversation about how to keep him from running.
And by the way I'm not convinced that he's decided to run or let's say I'm not convinced he will decide to run. I think he could take a better offer. He could. I think he could take a better offer. I don't know what that would look like but if anybody ever made a better offer he's a deal maker. I think he'd take it. Yeah he's already a kingmaker. So imagine if they said look you know you're a little bit dangerous as the president but you've been a kingmaker until now. How about you just keep it up? How about you continue to be a kingmaker? Imagine if the Republican Party said look you know we're going to run a different candidate for president but we'd love you to get Trump back on Twitter and make him the voice of the party because he's so interesting. You know I would listen to Trump talk all day and be happy about it if somebody like Ron DeSantis was actually running the job. And you know because I love all the controversy that Trump brings. Like I love the entertainment. I love the show. And I do think that in the way that Fox News can influence Republicans I think that Trump could influence topics almost as much by talking about them out of office. You know if he had his Twitter platform back for example. So I don't know. I think there's at least a 50% chance that Trump will take a better offer. And the better offer would be to not do the job of president but be the most influential voice in the country. Because he could easily do that because he can decide who gets his endorsement.
And you know what? Oh my god I just realized there's a hole in the conservative world that hasn't been plugged yet. Do you know what the hole is? Just yeah you're okay you got me you're ahead of me. Rush Limbaugh. Republicans lost their strongest provocative non-politician voice. Trump should have a prime time show. Maybe a radio show but I think he's better live. Maybe a podcast. Yeah Trump as the new Rush Limbaugh having actually served in the office would be insanely interesting. Like you couldn't look away from that. And as soon as you hear it that he would be the Rush Limbaugh replacement what does that tell you about the quality of that option? It changes it doesn't it? If you said to President, to ex-President Trump here's the deal you can run for president and get all that attention and maybe even win or you could be the Rush Limbaugh power center of the Republican Party, which do you think sounds like a better offer at his age and given the risk reward of running for president? Because if he runs for president he's going to be a target again and he is a certain age. He could take the win and go off and have some kind of a prime time show.
Remember I told you that I'd love to see a show like The Apprentice except he deals with topics. Imagine Trump filling the Rush Limbaugh role of the important voice if you will and except doing it and allowing both the left and the right to debate with him as the moderator of the debate. Oh my god imagine watching him interrupt people on the left and the right because you know there's stories of him challenging even the people on the right during meetings. What do you love to see him say stop, stop, answer the question. No you're lying. You're lying. Answer the question. How much would you love to see Trump with his thumb on two experts making them fight it out but they have to make sense and they have to stay on topic and they have to answer the questions? Oh my god.
Now imagine a sidekick because you always have to have a sidekick. So who would be the, most notably would be, okay I guess that would be first choice for one type of sidekick. But I'm talking about a sidekick who would be the data person you know. Imagine somebody who's like a real data expert who was just there and Trump says all right is that even true? And then the data person says well actually that's not true so they're gonna have to try. No again not the data person. That wouldn't be me. This would be amazing. Trump could own political commentary just by having both sides. Think about it because anybody would go on the show after a while. He could get anybody as long as he let the liberal side have as much time. I think he'd get anybody on the show because they would want to show that their opinion is better than the other side. If they couldn't do it you know why? Somebody said I just described Fox News 15 to 20 years ago. You know I think you're right about that.
All right apparently SpaceX fired some employees who put together a little letter saying that Elon's, Elon Musk's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us particularly in recent weeks. So SpaceX found out who was involved in it and allegedly what do you think of that? Do you think the free speech guy Elon Musk should fire his own employees for his freedom of speech in which they said that the boss is embarrassing them? Yes. Yes he should. Yes that's a firing offense. Do you know what's a good reason for firing somebody? They don't want to work there or they're unhappy. That's a perfectly good reason. Now it's also a good reason for changing something. Yeah there are two good things you can do when employees are disgruntled. You could find out what it is and if it's valid maybe change it. And if it is something you don't want to change well then the thing you should do is fire them if it's a big enough problem. So yeah I think this is, I think he's right to, I think any company in this situation is perfectly within their right to fire a disgruntled employee.
And so CNN is even talking about Biden maybe running for reelection because they admit he might be the best they have because they don't have anybody else who could beat Trump they think. Now I think that's wrong. I do think that they have other people who could beat Trump because Trump has the risk of beating himself right and the media would be on one side. But I think it's interesting that CNN's opinion of the Democrat bench if you will is so low that even though they're also beating on Biden that's having the lowest approval. So while CNN is saying that Biden has the lowest approval that's the news people and opinion people. An opinion piece on their site is saying that he might be the best they have. The lowest opinion ever of a president and they admit he might be the best candidate. Just think about that. How in the world could Democrats win?
Oh here's how. Do you think there's any way that Democrats can recover from this? Here's the bad news. They already did. Turns out that Rasmussen has a new poll and that they do the hypothetical match between a hypothetical Republican and hypothetical Democrat in the congressional races. And they say if it's just a Republican or just a Democrat and that's all you know they're just generic who do you vote for? Well there had been a nine point difference which is huge in favor of the generic Republican until today. Now that those January 6 hearings are making a dent apparently now there's a six point, no a five point lead. So almost cut in half. So the Republican advantage going into the midterms was a nine point lead. That just got cut to five.
Now what happened? What's happening in the world that would cause such a radical change in this opinion? January 6 coverage. I can't think of anything else. I don't think it's margin of error. I think it's the January 6 coverage. I think it's working. I think it's actually working. Because remember the January 6 coverage is mostly showing violent looking Republicans. It basically is look at these Republicans. I mean that's all people are getting from the coverage because they don't follow the details. It just looks like Republicans have become a violent extremist country. If you just dip into the coverage you just see Republicans attacking the Capitol. That's kind of all you know. So I think the January 6 propaganda is working really well. And you know I like to separate what I like from what is good work. Good being subjective. I think the propagandists are doing a great job on propaganda. Now I don't like propaganda but if you're going to do it you might as well do it well. And I think they're killing it. I think they're killing it. They've actually cut their strategy. I guess credit to Nancy Pelosi or whoever makes up their strategy but they came up with a strategy to come up with this gigantic hoax that it was an insurrection while there were in fact some violent people who probably wanted exactly that. It wasn't an insurrection I mean not in general it wasn't an insurrection. But the hoax looks like it's working.
And speaking of hoaxes, Biden just repeated the fine people hoax which still exists. Now here's the test. You've seen me compliment CNN quite a bit lately because I do think that their new leader is trying to make them report straight news on both sides and they do show signs that they're taking that seriously. So I'm going to give them massive credit every time they make a step in that direction and even I would even encourage you to watch them more because it's an interesting shift. You can see it in real time happening. But why, do you think that CNN will report what's happening with the fine people hoax? This is the ultimate test. If CNN's leader is going to take seriously that CNN is going to report straight news from now on he has a fresh example of Biden repeating the fine people hoax. I would bet you that the guy who's in charge of CNN knows it's a hoax. I'm not positive because I can't know what he's thinking but I'll bet he does. I'd say it's a 60-40.
I'll bet he does. Now if he knows that's a hoax and he knows the president just repeated it in public, if he doesn't see his people call it down as a hoax will he make them? Will he say you're going to have to say that was a hoax because we do context now. We're not doing the leave stuff on a context thing. We're going to put the context in it. It looks like he's serious. So that's something to watch for today. If you see that CNN is back that would be big news. And if I were the head of CNN I would just break the world in half and just say look let's really make a splash. Let's admit that all of our coverage was fake about this fine people hoax. We don't have to actually go back and do apologies but you're going to have to put it in context going forward and you're going to have to start today because the president just repeated it. What would happen to CNN's viewership if they did that? Would they lose viewers because their own side would say hey what's this? Or would they gain viewers because it would be a national debate about what's going on over there? I think they could gain and I would love to see this. I would love to have us battling it out about whether CNN has actually changed the direction of the ship. Because again credit where credit is due. I think they're trying. I think they're trying legitimately trying and that could be a great thing for the world. I mean really a great thing. You know it's funny because there's an opening for a major news network who reports the news straight down the middle. If they find themselves that they can do that well maybe they've got something there.
All right since summer has come I've stopped looking at the, oh I've gone extra long. So I think I'll go do something else because you probably need to too. And may I say this was the finest live stream of all time. I think you all enjoyed it a little bit extra if you play it at 1.25 or 1.75 speed. My understanding is I'm even better. So make sure you do the recorded one if you want to do that. And YouTube I'll talk to you tomorrow.
good morning everybody and welcome to possibly the best experience you've ever had it's called coffee with scott adams and i'm so excited for you today you're going to experience something so so wonderful today that i wish i were you i mean if i could trade places and be listening to what i'm going to be telling you today wow i do it in a heartbeat you are so lucky compared to me but all you need to join me and others in a plane of happiness that's hard to describe is a copper mag yeah or a mag get your mag you probably have a few magazines if you know what i mean and i'm not talking about things you read i know my audience all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker cellos or stein a canteen jugger-flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite beverage you know i love coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure oh this is going to be a good one the dopamine here of the day the thing that makes everything good with a little bit of oxytocin on the side go long covered thank you very much thanks for noticing no an update on my uh long covet zero so i could say with high degree of certainty that i have no detectable long co-fit in case you wonder in case you're keeping track of your anecdotes all right now here's a here's a thought for you you know i'm always jabbering on about we live in a simulation and you know this this reality is a bunch of bits created by some other civilization or intelligence and how do how could you tell if it's true it's sort of annoying isn't it because if we're innocent if we're in a simulation presumably the simulation could be programmed to make it impossible for you to know you're in a simulation i mean all it would take is one line of code right if you discover you're in a simulation immediately reinterpret it as not a simulation that's it one line of code and every time we discovered our true reality we would instantly forget it and reinterpret it in some other way so it would be very easy for the creators if we were a simulation just hypothetically to keep us from knowing it literally one line of code that's it i just wrote it and so that's how easy it would be but could they take away all the hints and i would say no i don't think they could remove all of the hints they could just remove the solid proofs you know the math and the physics part but one of the things you would expect to see see if this makes sense to you one of the things you'd expect to see is that the people who believe they live in a simulation would have better outcomes than people who didn't do you think that's fair that if you believed you lived in a simulation you could perhaps navigate it more effectively because you'd have a better understanding of what you're dealing with so you might use affirmations for example without knowing any scientific reason why that should make any difference whatsoever but maybe it's a way you can program the simulation maybe you can author your own future because we live in a fairly subjective reality no matter what you think so wouldn't you say that if somebody had publicly stated that they believed in the simulation you'd expect them to have an unusual effect on the world and to be unusually successful in whatever ways we wanted to find that fair enough just keep that frame in mind as i go through the stories today that's going to be the the meta arc over the smaller stories people who believe we live in a simulation do they have more impact on the world yesterday i was watching the uh what turned out to be the finals of the nba basketball warriors versus the celtics and the warriors came out on top but you don't have to be a sports fan to appreciate this element of the story what would you agree that there are sort of two things that determine the winner when you get to the nba finals because by the time two teams get to the finals they're really good and were those are two teams that on any given day one could beat the other so generally speaking that's a true statement now often it said that the difference is size so when you get to the finals there's just so much physicality and bumping into each other that the biggest team that's willing to bump the hardest has a big advantage so size is a big thing and the celtics had a bit of size and youth i believe over the warriors who were seasoned and a little bit injured this year and a little bit older so the physicality argument said the celtics were going to win and at least in one of the early games or two it looked like that was going to be the story just bigger was better there's just nothing you can do about it bigger is better especially if you're going to put your full energy into it bigger is often not better if you're on the pla practice court this is something that don nelson discovered the smaller players would beat the bigger players in practice games but when he got to the finals the big players would play harder and that was it they would just you know shut down everything um so the celtics should have won if if size were the only factor but you also have talent and superstars and people who can change the game you know you've got steph curry on the warriors and he can basically just change the nature of any game like a michael jordan could have so that's another factor but the other biggest factor is the psychology of the two teams and here i think that steve kerr because i've been watching from him for a long time is kind of a genius on the psychology and here's here's just some of the things that i see him do one of them is that he you know supports the team especially the the superstars so you would see if like um so uh green who's who's one of the more vocal and best players in the nba um he got real mad and demanded that the coach show a replay which they have only a few rights to do so you don't want to use up your replay rights but he demanded the coach do it and watching watching the way kerr responded to green was really interesting because the moment that green demanded it kerr said yes and i don't think he necessarily would have like it doesn't look like that would have been his independent decision but the way kerr manages green's psychology is sort of amazing because you can imagine green is a tough character because he's always arguing with the refs he's he's a like a really big personality on the on the field and but green is the one who manages the team's psychology so there's this trickle down when you're on the court you can see green really being the one whose energy changes everybody else's energy if he's having a good game he just makes them have a good game right he gets the ball to the hot person i mean he's really just you watch him in real time just completely controlling the psychology of his own players and and then they control the psychology of the game and then they win and it's you can see the trickle down it's ker to green to the team it's not it's not steph curry steph curry is just the best player but green is the one who manages the psychology on the field you know and then having the best player is a big part of it of course so there was okay you're you're way ahead of me on this story this story has a wrinkle that's coming up last night on the on the warriors bench now they're playing an away game right so they're in there in their enemy opponents building in boston and on their bench they have a visitor steve kerr the guy who i think is just one of the best managers of psychology i've ever seen has as his one visitor on the bench tony robbins tony robbins now if you don't know how funny that is let me give you some background tony robbins has been you know famous for doing his um personal growth you know personal improvement seminars and books and stuff for decades and the reason that he's so famous and he can do this for decades is is why you know why is tony robbins so rich and famous and successful for decades it's because it works that's it now you know you expect somebody like that to have some kind of scandal take you down i think he's had some like minor ones that he's managed to brush aside but he's really good and the things that he says are based on the same things i've studied so he's a an expert on persuasion and he also has a direct line back to the top hypnotists literally hypnotists uh of history so he was actually mentored by one of the most famous hypnotists and i don't think he necessarily uses that word but is one of the things he's added to his talent stack you know beyond the energy he brings in the you know his own all of his own ideas and stuff but he's got a talent stack that includes hypnosis now one of the things that hypnotists learn is just part of being a hypnotist is that reality is completely subjective almost like you live in a simulation almost like you'll live in the simulation and i think that's one of the reasons that i think this is a simulation because if you study hypnosis one of the things you learn is that people make decisions first and then they decide why they made the decision second and you can't even be a hypnotist until you understand that that's like a basic understanding that everybody sees the world backwards or upside down or inside out whichever it is as soon as you see it the way it is you can manage it more effectively if i believe that people thought about things and then made decisions i would treat people differently i would write differently i would have i would express myself differently i would do everything differently but i don't believe that there's no evidence of it and once you learn it it's hard to unlearn people make decisions first for reasons they don't understand and then they say it's um because it was a i'll save money in the long run but that's sort of after the fact now that's not every single decision there's some that the objective parts of the decision are just hard coded and everybody would make the same decision but for a lot of the important things like what job do you have who do you marry do you have kids all of those things are completely irrational decisions that we rationalize after the fact mostly we're just acting on our mating instincts and trying to act like we didn't in fact that's the best explanation of human beings everything we do is some expression of our mating instinct and then we're trying to make it look like that's not what we're doing and part of that is convincing ourselves that's not what we're doing that's not what i'm doing i did this i i dressed really well today you know why because i like how it makes me feel whenever whenever i hear somebody say that that the way they're dressing women say this more than men but i'm dressing for myself i dress for the way i feel to make myself feel good i always think that's someone who doesn't understand the basic nature of reality that we're all just expressing our mating instincts and some people are aware of it and some are not now imagine if the only thing that was different about you is that you knew that and nobody else did imagine being born into a world in which you alone understood that everybody was acting on their mating instinct they just weren't aware of it but you knew it you would be like the one-eyed king in the land of the blind you'd have almost a superpower of understanding what people are going to do and why they did it and other people would be like how did you know that was going to happen like how did you know you know this person was interested in this person and i'd be like well look how they dressed today i'm done that was the mating instinct they knew they were going to see this person one-on-one and so it would look like you had magic powers if you just understood that the world is backwards from the way you're taught it is so tony robbins understanding that world and knowing that we live in a backwards world and therefore understanding which tools to use to to improve a backwards world if you're following the chain here is hugely successful tony robbins is really really really successful personally but also has been credited by all kinds of leaders for you know helping them so imagine uh how much tony robbins probably helped the warriors in their psychological game because the warriors came out and were psychologically impenetrable because they they got behind early i mean they just started getting slaughtered in their away game for the first quarter and then they didn't do anything except come back hard and win they came back so hard they just just stomped the celtics so the older beaten up team with the the players had been like cobbled together over the over the the years in fact the commentators said it was the the worst team the warriors had ever won with it was the worst performing team the you know because people were injured etc and yet steve kerr would got winning performances out of every combination of players he put together every time steve kerr put a combination together with or without curry the best player in the game he still won do you know why because he got the psychology right i think i mean i think that was the main thing he kept getting right and he had green on the team that helps right so somebody says yeah plus luck there's always luck so here's here's my point about tony robbins imagine you're the celtics and you get out the court and you're thinking all right we got this we're feeling good we got this all we have to do is like play harder and be smarter because we got the size so if we can match them in psychology we already have the size and the youth we're going to win it all and then they look over and sitting next to steve kerr on the bench is the most powerful hypnotist in the history of civilization this would be sort of like uh you got in a you're in a math league competition and you saw on the other side on the other team was paul dirac now this is a very obscure uh reference that maybe five percent of you got somebody paul dirac d-i-r-a-c anybody okay mathematical genius so imagine imagine if you're you know you go you go for a pick-up game of basketball and michael jordan's on the other side like that is what steve kerr did to the celtics what steve kerr did to the celtics was so effective it should be banned what steve kerr did to the celtics in that critical game was so devastatingly mentally effective that you should have been able to call the result of the game as soon as you saw him sitting on the bench as soon as i saw him i was like oh no he didn't did steve kerr really put tony frickin robins next to him on the bench because if you're the celtics you're just gonna freaking give up remember just two there's two variables size and psychology and steve kerr basically said all right we got you on the psychology so you better work on the size thing a little bit more because we're going to pulverize you on the psychology and then what did he do he pulverized them on the psychology you could see the celtics just look defeated about halfway through they they look like they just didn't have anything left it was awesome well senator tom cotton has is saying that the attorney general should resign because there have been i didn't know this but reportedly 50 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches in recent weeks purportedly carried out by some shadowy domestic violence group called jane's revenge so they're targeting conservatives and once again tom cotton shows us he's one of the effective people in uh congress in the senate so i always like the fact that he picks he picks things which i always think are the obvious things that should be done but why isn't anybody else doing them i don't know there's a certain genius to be able to do the obvious things the the free money you know the thing that just needs to be done and why isn't somebody else doing this so yeah i think this is a pretty valid thing to say there if conservatives and republicans are being haunted hashtag hunted do you remember anybody who made a prediction that if biden won the election that republicans would be hunted anybody anybody who believes in the simulation somebody you can think of yes me i was widely mocked for that but there might be at least one more story today on that topic so to their credit and i'm going to keep giving them credit for this cnn had another what i would consider very balanced um segment in which john berman was pushing jennifer granholm the energy secretary on the consistency of the following things that the biden administration wants so at the same time that the biden administration is demanding the energy companies make massive investments so that you know energy prices will go down he's also telling them he wants them to be out of business in their at least in their traditional energy business so he's asking them to make massive investments for the future at the same time telling them but of course in the future we want to put you out of business so make a massive investment for the future we want to disappear and watching cnn's john berman pusher on that inconsistency was actually first of all refreshing so that that was a you know straight reporting straight approach by cnn which i think should be complemented and she didn't really have what i would consider a sufficient answer for that now her her answer was that the future of these companies should be divesting into greener energy which i think is a fair thing to say but it doesn't quite under co doesn't quite explain the inconsistency because they were all going to do that anyway you know companies invest in other things because they think it's a good investment or not so that's all that's going to happen there if they think it's a good investment they'll do it if they don't they won't so i don't think anything's going to change about how those companies invest in other stuff but i said why would you make massive investments in these traditional energy sources that the biden administration wants to crush in the future well here's the most damning uh stuff about uh trump from january 6.
because so i keep waiting for the january 6 hearings to come up with the goods against trump specifically and i love watching how uh dots are connected that are not actually connections so making a connection that's not really a connection and so if you read some of the coverage fast and you don't really parse the words you can you could think it means something it doesn't mean i'll give you an example so this i think was from cnn according to testimony from people around the then president uh and elsewhere in trump's political machines all right so they're saying that people close to the to trump uh they were told eastman's plan to have pence declare he had won declared that trump had won or accept other electors was illegal see this is getting complicated yet trump tried to go ahead with anyway all right so here let me simplify this so trump's attorney eastman um had a plan and people told trump the eastman's plan who is a lawyer was illegal so there were apparently lawyers who disagreed with lawyers now if you're trump does that mean that you knew it was illegal so the report the factual reporting is that he had his most important lawyer i guess his closest lawyer maybe or one of the one of the closest lawyers recommended it but then other lawyers said it's illegal so did trump know it was illegal well if the lawyers didn't know if the lawyers didn't know it was illegal how is he supposed to know now if all of the lawyers had agreed then i would say the story is yeah trump knew that was illegal but if there was even one lawyer that was close to him and you know was a credible lawyer saying no i think i think this is legal then trump did not know it was illegal he knew it was gray or maybe so if the if the reporting was trump knew it was a gray area i would say that's completely probably supported by the facts because if you can find one lawyer who says it's a good idea and yeah and at least one who says it's a bad idea then you say okay it's a gray area so what does a leader do when there's a gray area about what's legal you tell me if there's a gray area like a legitimate gray you really don't know if it's legal or not what do you do do you do the thing that you think is the right thing and then try to make the legal part work or do you say it's a gray area so even though i think one thing is the right thing to do i'm not going to do it because i don't want to take a chance in this gray area situation what would a leader do in that situation well it depends on the leader probably if you have a low appetite for risk you'd probably say all right i'll just accept it and move on because you have a low appetite for risk suppose you have a high appetite for risk and you spent your entire career in ambiguous legal situations can you think of anybody who has spent more time in ambiguous legal jeopardy than trump over his entire career how much ambiguous legal jeopardy has that man endured in his entire life more than anybody in the world maybe maybe maybe if there was some kind of you know competition of who has endured and survived the most ambiguous legal jeopardy situations i think it would be trump all the way i think he has decades of doing this consistently and at least not being taken down by it what would you do if you spent your entire career not being defeated by ambiguous legal situations you do what you know he's done you'd use your you'd use your gut and you just go for it that seems to be his method he uses his gut and then he just goes for it and probably has worked more than it's not worked his whole career which is why he's trump and you're not so it's hard to get in anybody's head but it's not irrational if you have disagreeing lawyers and an entire background of your hunches or let's say your your instinct as he might call it if you've had good luck with your instinct forever in these ambiguous situations and you fell strongly you'd probably just go for it and that doesn't to me sound like evil you know you could spin it as he was doing anything to keep off to keep him in power but let me ask you this do the democrats believe that if it had been trump's second term and he you know he just ran two terms well or let me ask you a different way do democrats believe that if trump got reelected for another four years and it was constitutionally impossible for him to run for another term does anybody believe he would try to stay and i think the answer is yes i think democrats believe he would try to work some kind of you know dictator trick to stay in office after a second term i don't think there's one republican that would support that i mean okay there's always one i mean you can get a crazy person to support anything but it's not like the republic there there are many people in the mega who would say let's get rid of that two-term thing no matter how much you like trump you still say you know there are people with trump's policy preferences who are not a thousand years old so you know i think people would just naturally gravitate to a younger younger republican anyway we don't know what trump was thinking but the way they write it was indirect sentences so something uh somebody was told something we don't know who did it and we don't say somebody told him we say somebody was told when i see indirect writing like that the was told that feels like somebody's in weasel mode while they're writing the sentence because direct sentences help you with clarity and indirect sentences which is one of the most um obvious things that a good editor would change you know it's kind of a tell that somebody's trying to not be clear usa today deleted a bunch of articles by one of their right writers and i guess fired her because apparently some of the quotes were fabricated uh the the existence of some individuals quoted could not be independently verified in addition some stories had quotes in them that had been credited to others so basically they fired their own reporter for having lots of stories that were partially made up now mike cernovich who's one of the highest value twitter followers you can have if you're not following cernovich why not you you need to um he points out that u.s today is a fact check partner for facebook and maybe even twitter so the fact check partner for facebook and maybe even twitter i'm not sure why we don't know if it's twitter but we don't um had to fire one of their own reporters for making up news like a lot of it a lot of it apparently and uh elon musk who apparently follows cervich's account just uh replied with one word wow now why why is elon musk in the news four times a day so here's the first one so you know as he's trying to buy twitter and he's watching the quality of their fact checkers you know disintegrate at least their reputation disintegrate in the public and he's just wow so you know he's watching that which is interesting to me now if you were if you believed you lived in a simulation like elon musk did wouldn't you be surprised if he were not the richest person in the world or let me say it another way shouldn't we expect that at some point if we live in a simulation that all of the richest people in the world are people who believe in the simulation because they would be the ones who played the game the best and know knew how to win maybe so there's musk richest guy and also coincidentally believes we live in the simulation huh jack pasabic is uh foreshadowing something interesting he's tweeting today what if a row will not be overturned and if it came from someone else you'd say okay there's somebody just speculating some stuff on twitter means nothing but uh jack possabic has a long history of having good sources and so when someone who has good sources says maybe the supreme court won't overturn roe or maybe not in the way that has been reported so somebody asked him what he knows that other people don't know and i think he responded nothing good now it's a little bit cryptic isn't it so i don't know if there could be yet another leak from the supreme court wouldn't that indicate there are two leaks from the supreme court now here's the interesting play here number one may i ask was i the first person who said you know i wouldn't trust that first draft now other people have said it of course but i think you heard you heard me first say don't necessarily assume that the first draft is what anything that you're going to see they could be just testing the argument out what if that's true now the other thing is this if you're the supreme court what is more important to you the integrity of the supreme court or this decision what is more important to you if you're the supreme court the integrity of the supreme court or this decision i think it's the integrity of the supreme court and if they and if they went in that direction i wouldn't say it's crazy and i could imagine them i could imagine them pulling back the ruling and not ruling at all because there was a leak would that up everything imagine it imagine how baller that would be imagine if the supreme court said because and maybe they would never say this out loud which i would also agree would be a good idea never comment on it never comment on it never go to their graves take it to their graves with no comment imagine the supreme court getting together and saying here's the deal this abortion thing very important very important issue but not even close to the importance of what happened with that leak and so here's what i would ask of you on both sides of the issue let us once and for all make it impossible for anybody to benefit from a leak from the supreme court let's make it impossible to benefit from a leak and don't don't release the ruling and just say if there's a leak there's no rule now would that give people the ability to stop any ruling by leaking maybe maybe but it would certainly be be a baller thing to do because if the court wanted let's say the court knew they had a majority for this ruling if they pulled back because of the leak that would say a lot about you know the the uh the power of the league and how much of a problem that is why would it be baller because they would be ignoring the opinion in favor of the integrity of the supreme court and so they would they would basically they'd be taking control back that's a better way to say it the the court would be taking its power and credibility back by just saying we don't have to do anything that the public requires us to do we're just gonna rule now the other the other interpretation is much less favorable yeah they're cowards now you beat me to it in the comments the other the other interpretation is that they're afraid that the riots that would ensue would be terrible now here's another interpretation do you believe that the people on the supreme court are not at all independent and it would be more fair to say that they are simply conservatives and liberals and really that's all there is to it right with that you know every now and then you get a surprise justice roberts decision or something but basically would you say that even though they act as their independent blah blah they're really it's just some liberals and some conservatives and that's why we have all the debate debating because if they were really independent you wouldn't have to argue about all the nominations it's that you know when you nominate them what they're going to rule before you even get the question so if they're that partisan and it's that obvious to everyone what would stop the conservatives on the court from saying we we only want to make a ruling that helps us politically suppose the conservatives said you know the only thing that would stop republicans from sweeping is a supreme court ruling killing roe and then making everybody go to the go to the elections think about that if if the conservatives on the court are really i'll say corrupt i think corrupt would be a fair enough word in this case if they're really just conservatives and they're not even real justices all they're doing is saying conservatives this is what you get and we're going to rationalize it somehow but we're on your team we're just gonna vote your way every time so there are some real interesting questions about this i i could easily imagine that the court would pursue their own credibility or even or even a republican victory and then hold off the decision until after 2024.
what about that what if the court said we're going to delay this until after the political season oh oh here's my prediction oh yeah here's my prediction the court has the correct me if i'm wrong they have the flexibility to take any case or not take any case and they have the flexibility to wait as long as they want is that true that they do have the flexibility to wait on any decision as long as they want nobody's going to tell them they have to make a decision is that true there's no pressure to do it or lose it right suppose the supreme court says there has to be a response to the leak there has to be and because the leak was obviously released for political purposes to influence the midterms and maybe even the presidential election we at the supreme court are going to take away that win and we're going to delay the decision actually they don't even have to announce it they could just not do it and maybe it would leak that that's a reason because that would give them that would give them their are you agreeing with this because that would give the supreme court everything they want if you imagine that that is the decision they want the majority of them they would still get their decision but they would wait until there was a republican scenario because that would also guarantee that the conservatives get the next nomination in the courts etc assuming everybody can survive until 2024.
what do you think of that prediction okay that's what i would do if i were justice roberts so if i were the supreme court and even if i wanted that ruling even if i were a conservative i would say since the reason for the leak was political we're going to take that win away from them but will still reserve the right to do it immediately after the election when it has the least political impact i feel like i would do that but that would also be the supreme court meddling in the election wouldn't it so i'm not sure if that would be fixing a meddling or that would be its own meddling so i guess that would be a problem either way well speaking of republicans being hunted there's a list uh on the internet now of the people who were the most um responsible for sowing doubt about the 2020 election so researchers come through 45 million tweets to find the people who are most responsible for doubt about the election and i'm number 28 on the list so i'm on a list of people who sowed the most doubt in the whole world about the election now as someone else asked how did they determine that because i accepted the election on the day the results were announced i congratulated biden for the win on the day the election was official and i never changed and i've said every time sunset he's the president so that didn't change but i've also said that since our election can't be audited and not fully then you can't know if anything was rigged but you could know for certain that if it doesn't get plugged those holes that it will be we don't know when might be this election might be next 20 years from now but if you don't plug the holes it's a guarantee somebody's going to walk through that open gate so yeah of course until we have a fully auditable system one assumes that you can't fully trust any result but i value just like the supreme court conversation i do value the system over the imperfections and even over the choice because when an election is close you know it's like 48 50 sort of situation um i don't really think the the public loses when if the 48 wins over the 50 because it's not that much of a difference it's like not it's not like the public is so smart that you know we can you know we can fine-tune those decisions if it's if it's sort of a half and half then at least half the country got what they wanted and that's not too bad compared to the other half getting what they wanted right it's not the worst thing in the world and so you know i i still support the system because i don't want this system to fall apart even though you could never know for sure if it gave you 100 accurate results but i would say that every day that goes by that we don't have further evidence of the 2000 mules uh accusations the less likely you're ever going to see them so to me that feels like hydroxychloroquine and ivormectin and 2000 mules i put them all in the same category in just one thin way not in general but just one specific way which is every day that goes by that they're not proven to work well it's probably less likely that they will ever be proven to work so the challenge against the 2000 mules thing is that the cell phone data location stuff wasn't specific enough you need some photographic evidence of the same person going to the same box has not been produced or you need a whistleblower the allegations of all of these mules is kind of interesting when if a mule existed you don't think that mule would find a way to monetize their whistle blowing because you could go to a major news platform and say look disguise my voice pay me 50 000 and i'll tell you that i was a mule and i dropped off you know multiple things but that hasn't happened has it there's not one mule who would take 50 000 and you know a disguised identity to to tell that story now maybe they'd be afraid of being killed or something but i don't know how much you get paid to be a mule but it can't be that much i would think that i'd take the fifty thousand dollars if i were a mule and i thought i could get away with it because remember these are people who think they can get away with stuff if you're a mule you've already bought into the idea of breaking the law right so if you could have another way to maybe not break the law and make fifty thousand dollars that doesn't seem like a big risk so every day that you don't see somebody take the fifty thousand dollars because easily somebody would give them fifty thousand right you're telling me that there's no conservative who would pay fifty thousand dollars to get somebody to hide their identity and say yeah i was a mule here's how i did it i don't know that many mules so the same argument that says if you don't have a totally secure election system and we there have been reports of vulnerabilities eventually it will be hacked but for the same same sort of math logic if you have so many alleged mules and you'd have to have a lot of them right not one of those people who are a group of people who engage in illegal activity by definition because it's illegal at least the muelling we're talking about is illegal not one of those people would accept fifty thousand dollars to tell their story because of their own legal jeopardy maybe i don't know i feel like that's a group that would take the fifty thousand dollars i feel like you could get dozens of them to take it because that's good money for you know a little bit of criminal activity suppose you had a mule who went to the press and said i'll make you a deal if you the press hire me a lawyer and you go to the law enforcement and you ask them to give me a pardon or you know some kind of dispensation i will tell my story to you you'll give me fifty thousand dollars and i'll have no legal jeopardy because you help me clear that with your lawyer there's no there's no mule smart enough to make that deal really i don't know i feel like that would be just such an obvious deal that they could make that deal so every day that goes by that we don't have proof there was anything wrong with that election i say the odds of it are much smaller much smaller right all right so what do you make of the fact that i'm on a list of election doubters doesn't that sound like i've been hunted literally somebody paid some rich people paid for an entity to pour through my tweets and other people's tweets hunting hunting for certain people who are associated with opinions that they say are associated with the right now i'm not republican and i'm not conservative but i got on the list now have i been haunted did they not literally hunt for me by the data i that looks looks like a hunt to me what is hunting other than going and looking for your target like actually what is the definition of hunting let me ask that there's a definition of hunting and see if it fits do you find hunting all right uh the activity of hunting wild animals or game especially for food okay it's not that um well that's a rather limited definition so they're not using the uh oh it's similar to stalking all right well we can do better than that um so remember i told you that it seems likely that especially before the 2024 election that i will be the subject of a hippies i feel like this list is sort of activating the activists say okay here's your here's your hit list and it even it even included how many people retweeted us so you could know how big our influence was it was literally a list of who was influential on a topic they don't like a list of who is most influential on a topic they don't like think about that suppose conservatives created a list of who on the right was the most influential on a target they did on the topic they didn't like how would that feel how would that feel because if you saw that list what would you do well if you're a nice person you'd probably just read it and it'd be interesting but if you're a troll or a terrible person what would you do it looks like a hit list doesn't it it looks like the list of people that you should go after you should troll harder you know you try to make their life uncomfortable because these are the bad people i believe i just got put on a bad people list because what would be the point of making a list of people who are most influential on a topic you don't like what would be the other reason for the list tell me what would be the other purpose of the list other than to target me personally for some kind of payback or destruction or minimization am i right there's no other purpose i don't believe there's even an alleged other purpose i don't believe there's a cover story i don't believe anybody's saying anything else but here's a list we of people who should be you know disavowed or targeted or something so i'm on the list now um but you know if there's one person you don't want to put on the list like who would it be who would be the person that you would least want to piss off in the whole world who would you least want to piss off in the whole world no not me tony robbins tony robbins not me no i don't know maybe maybe tony robbins is above anything like revenge because i've never seen anything like that that would suggest he he's vengeful but um you wouldn't want to make somebody you wouldn't want to make somebody angry if you thought they controlled the simulation now the people who do control the simulation if there's a simulation and if somebody can control it they would look exactly like me but that doesn't mean i do they would just look exactly like my life so just think about that apparently russia is handling all the sanctions well and doing fine okay now is the russia ukraine thing the best example of two movies on one screen that you've ever seen i mean i guess trump trump was the most classic example but we have a situation in which people like me will claim we were right by saying that russia did not take over ukraine so but on the other hand russia won the war so it's like two opposites at the same time russia tried to attack and over and conquer ukraine and i believe they at least i think they at least wanted it and maybe they thought they had a shot at it so i think what they did is they probably tried to take the whole country and maybe still will try maybe they're still trying but quite reasonably you know adjusted their tactics when it was time to do that consolidated their control over the most valuable parts and then presumably we'll just keep picking on ukraine forever and try to get the whole thing but people like me can say hey i was right because ukraine defended itself better than the experts said they would but then the experts are going to say well we told you russia could do anything they wanted and what they wanted to do was get this valuable part and they got it so russia won and if they want the rest of it well they can pick on that later and they'll probably get that too so is everybody right everybody's right scott the mind reader of putin you know the thing with putin is you don't have to read his mind because he said publicly pretty clearly that ukraine should be in russia's control and blah blah blah nato is a risk blah blah so i don't think that's a mind-reading example but i always take seriously those criticisms because it's easy to you know fall into the mind-reading thing um here's a shocking statistic that 85 of children teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes and over 70 percent of all adolescent patients in drug and alcohol treatment originate from homes without fathers therefore the problem is not enough fathers yes or no connect these dots this will be your data analysis test if we know that 85 percent of children and teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes therefore the fatherless part is the reason right what would be something else in common that fatherless homes have what would be some other big variable a lack of money what can you name something where poor people are doing better i mean there's probably something but in what category do poor people do better do they have better health no do they do they have better uh happiness i don't think so the last thing you would expect is that for that the poorer you are the healthier your mental health would be so are we not talking about we're talking about fathers but it's really a poverty problem now you might say to yourself if the father stayed that would solve the poverty problem would it are these fathers the the fathers with good jobs who the only thing wrong with them is that they didn't stay no i don't think the only thing wrong with the fathers is they didn't stay they probably would be an economic drag as much as an economic benefit so i'm not sure the saying fatherlessness is the problem that feels like the outcome of the problem do you want to give me another do you want to hear the most provocative hypothesis of what the real problem is do you want to see me get banned from all social media and lose 15 percent of my followers in the next 60 seconds i'm just going to throw on a hypothesis what if the problem is mothers i'm not saying it is i'm i think it's curiously missing from the conversation because remember it's a bunch of things we don't understand so if if it's a if it's a thing we don't understand with a bunch of variables in it why can't it be the mothers if if the father doesn't stay what's one possibility for that what is one reason that the father wouldn't stay name a reason well one is that the father's a piece of crap right that's what you go to immediately the father's a deadbeat piece of crap irresponsible uh possibly a rapist that's what you go to why because men are awful and women are awesome those are the rules those are the rules i'm sorry amber heard an exception but the rules are the men are trash and women are goddesses and uh queens queens and goddesses those two categories you can only be two things if you're a woman either a queen or a goddess a princess three things but men are criminals and dirt and rapists and you know murderers they're awful and so if you see a situation where there are two variables involved one is the mother who is the one who spends most of the time with the child that becomes ruined so the mother is the one who spends all the time with the child who gets ruined and the fault of the uh of this process not working the mother spending the all of the time raising the child that gets ruined the reason that the child is ruined by the mother who spends all the time with the child is the father who's not there so the person who's not there is the one who ruined the child not the person who's there no not the person who's there let me let me do a little mental experiment for you let's imagine a world in which the mothers were doing the leaving and the fathers were always left with children all right it's an imaginary world in the imaginary world where the women all left and the fathers were left to raise the kids and then those kids turned out to be drug addicts and behavioral problem kids would the analysis be that the problem was the mother left or would the analysis be i think the one who's there raising the kid is the one ruining them and no wonder the mother left because that father couldn't even raise a kid so how much of a father could he be so obviously it's the father who's a piece of trash garbage who is you know at least they're there at the home but they're ruining that kid because they're the one raising it and the kid turned down bad now is that a fair analysis that the person who raises the kid is mostly to blame if the kid turns out wrong or is it the person who wasn't there is that is that who he normally thinks in a normal situation would you blame the person who wasn't there or would you blame the person who was there and how come you've never asked that question how come you just automatically accept the interpretation that men are pieces of and they cause the problem even when they're not there even when they're not there um so i think that fatherlessness is you know something that needs to be focused on and understood and you know we need to find some way to help the kids but i don't know if the situation is so simple as the conservative view that is fatherlessness i think there's at least an equal possibility that the mothers are all broken and one of the reason that the father didn't stay is that the mother is broken and he just couldn't put up with it so why is it always the father's fault now i'm not saying the fathers should be off the hook nothing like that i'm just saying that the way we analyze this is so obviously not rational then why would we expect that we could figure out how to solve it if you know i mean and this is i think i've made a pretty strong case here if you know we're not looking at it in a rational way why would you expect anybody could solve it you'd have to start with understanding it at the very least and if you're not willing to say the truth that whatever makes these people poor and whatever makes this father leave or whatever makes the mother you know not have a partner maybe it's them maybe it's them all right maybe the people are up both the mother and the father maybe maybe poverty is just always bad how about poverty is always bad you know i think conservatives honestly i think i think you're destroying the topic because when you simplify it to fatherlessness first of all there's i just don't think there's enough support for that opinion even though the statistics are highly correlated it that's not a it's just too simplified there's just too many other things that are correlated so uh somebody says you're off on this yeah i'll look for some uh i'll look for some pushback by the way um if it turns out that the statistics just say yeah it really is the guy's fault pretty much every time i could be persuaded i'm easily persuaded on this point by the way easily persuaded but there is no argument against what i just said the automatic assumption that men are trash is what is driving the entire frame of the the debate and if you're in the wrong frame you're not going to find a solution so what's the solution how about fix the mothers how about that imagine if every single mother who had a kid started looking like a good prospect suppose instead of saying oh shoot this one's got a kid i don't want to marry that because i'm going to be responsible for somebody else's kid don't want to be a step dad you know what what if you fix the mothers so that men want to stay with them oh yeah look what i just did what if you fixed the mothers so the men wanted to stay but i will give you this you would have to also train the mothers not to have sex with the wrong guys can i give you that because most guys are the wrong guys most of the men are defective too like i'm not don't if you think i'm letting men off the hook that's not what's happening here i'm not letting anybody off the hook i'm just saying that everybody's on the hook right including me i didn't have any biological kids we're sort of all on the hook like i don't feel that i don't have responsibility for this i feel like i do i feel like i do now you know my philosophy which is in two occasions i've preferred being a step-dad than a biological dad now why did i willingly take on these step-dad functions because in both cases it was a an attractive proposition so you don't think other single women can learn how to become an attractive proposition so that men will say you know i would love to be part of that deal let me in yeah let me say let me tell you this um there is not much competition out there is there anybody single anybody single watching have you noticed that weirdly there isn't much competition out there here's what i mean if you go to the gym and have a job you're in the top 10 of all eligible men that's true if you go to the gym and you have a job you're in the top 10 of all eligible men was that hard that wasn't hard what would it take for a single woman to have you know multiple men who want to marry her not hard i'm not going to say go to the gym because then i look like a sexist jerk i'm just going to say that it's not hard to get into the top 10 percent of eligible people it's not hard it really isn't you just have to be nice to people you know build your talent stack work on your appeal right which is mostly fitness and diet pretty much anybody can get in the top 10 pretty much anybody let's say for their age you know you'd have to adjust for age and yeah so i would say that maybe if we were a little less woke we could be more beneficial to the base problem which is you have single women that no man wants to marry i'm sorry if there are a lot of single women that no man wants to marry you should at least ask yourself can the women try harder it has to be asked i'm not letting the men off the hook whatsoever the men have to be held to the the maximum amount of you know reasonable responsibility for whatever they do but they're not the only ones in the conversation that's all i'm saying um remember i told you that nobody really understands inflation and debt and the fed and all that do you believe me when i say that literally nobody understands it like the the experts don't really understand it well here's here's a little more evidence to that case there's an opinion piece in the wall street journal by richard vigilante i hope i'm pronouncing his name right and i won't i won't give you the whole thing but his basic point is that nobody understands the topic and that the only person who did was some economist in the reagan era and maybe reagan himself and i'm going to read just a little portion of it and all i'm not trying to get you to understand it right so when you don't understand this don't worry about that that's not the point i want you to understand that here's somebody who makes what i think is a fairly strong argument then nobody understands it all right so here's here's his definition this is uh richard vigilante for the wall street journal and i recommend the piece it's it's eye-opening he said that reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply so remember everybody thinks that inflation is caused by an increase in m2 the money supply but reagan beat inflation not by reducing it okay so that's the first thing that's opposite of what everybody thinks like everybody thinks increasing the money supply is that's inflation that's all it is too much money for too few goods but reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply m2 nearly doubled during his time okay that's opposite everything that everybody believes but he did it by boosting demand for money how do you do that how do you boost the demand for money the great lesson of the reagan era is that money supply is determined by investment opportunity what absent such opportunities no matter how much money the government gives people they will reject it and turn it into stuff meaning they'll buy goods so people have two choices of what to do with money simplifying things they can put money into just buying things that they like or they can invest if you give them better opportunity to invest then that and that money supply just gets sucked up into investments which creates you know new taxes which creates all kinds of you know goodness but if you take that money supply and there's too much of it and there's just a lot of money people will say you know i don't need this new thing but my money's not worth much and i'd like a chair i'll just turn my money into a chair because you know the money's going to be worthless i might as well have a chair or something like that i'm simplifying too much and so what do you think of that what do you think of the idea that uh all we would need to do is a reagan-ish trumpish change in i think what reagan did is he changed the capital gains taxes and some other things to make investment much more worthy and and he beat inflation because he came in after carter right so he came in during the stag flesh near the worst of all possible worlds so if all you do is make it better to invest you solve everything so now i'm going to give you two rules of economics that could explain everything right number one is if employment is good you're probably fine i keep telling you that if you just look at the one variable is our employment rate good you're probably fine as long as as long as you're not ruining the country with inflation or debt right so that's the the big variable so here's the one rule maybe maybe the one rule that tells you if you're in trouble in inflation in the long run is whether you're making uh investment look like a good option so if you're if if the government is continuing to make investment look good you solve every problem so two things to know your economy if your employment is good you're probably in good shape as long as your inflation is also good and you can predict that by your investment situation now what would happen if republicans take control of congress and the presidency four words i got four words for you if you think the republicans are going to take both the congress and the presidency four words you better own stock because from our current you know bottom and i think we're close to some kind of a bottom here if republicans go ahead and do what people kind of sort of think is going to happen take control of things there's almost no way that they won't make investment more attractive and that will fix the inflation or it will look like it is which you know then the anticipation actually changes the reality and we could be we could be entering the single best investment opportunity of all time i wonder if that'll get quoted somewhere so i'll say it again just in case somebody wants to quote it somewhere these two situations i think are unprecedented correct me if i'm wrong because i'm not a historian i say it's unprecedented we have the economic badness that's pretty bad the high inflation the big debt so we've got the economic badness and the shortages and everything else at the same time we have what looks like a republican sweep upcoming and almost unstoppable have we ever had a situation where the economics were at their lowest point the republicans look like a sure bet for taking control and the republican policies are the exact prescription for fixing the problem which is reaganish improvements in the investment outlook or the investment you know situation have we ever been in the situation with those two things lining up at the same time i don't know for sure but in terms of risk reward it might be the best investment opportunity of all time maybe now let me say before you go off and invest anything you really shouldn't take investment advice from me i'm not good at it so can i say that clearly i'm not really good at this at the investment stuff because nobody is the only the only way to be good at investing is either buy apple computer stock or you know an index fund and don't go buy apple stock because i just said that i'm using apple as an example of something that's such a big company it's it's almost a diversified stock portfolio by itself it does so many things all right did i sell it uh eth when it jumped no my philosophy is uh on eth and bitcoin uh just hold forever and it's just a hedge just in case it's a small portion of portfolio um father's day is juneteenth day how about that the richest man in the world gets sued a lot elon musk is getting sued over uh allegedly pumping up dogecoin and then it became worthless so i don't who knows is there anybody who was buying crypto who thought it was an investment i feel like this is a lawsuit of smart people against numb people like the only way you'd win is if you've got a jury of your peers who also believed that crypto was a good investment in some cases it's never going to be a good investment except in the narrow sense of a diversified portfolio all right so apparently there are 30 alleged officials from the trump administration who believe that trump is not fit to be president again what do you think of that do you think that there are 30 people who are close to trump who say he should not be that he's not fit for president you know what i wonder is if republicans are going to throw away everything because trump might be the only republican who can lose i i hate to say it he might be the only republican who could lose the presidency because imagine if it's just some strong candidate that's not trump desantis tom cotton let's say i believe that without trump's baggage and given biden's low poor popularity that anybody could be the republican biden and by the republican biden i mean the person who doesn't have so much baggage that that's the whole story they just have to be a republican and they'll just get elected trump is the only one who brings risk because i'm not sure how many people are going to vote for somebody who's former advisors say you shouldn't vote for them that's pretty much a now if that stays and by the way these former advisors you know i'd need to see some more names i saw two or three but i'm not so sure there are 30 of them yeah but allegedly there's some conversation about how to keep him from running and by the way i'm not convinced that he's decided to run or let's say i'm not convinced he will decide to run i i think i think he could take a better offer he could i think he could take a better offer i don't know what that would look like but if anybody ever made a better offer he's a deal maker i think he'd take it yeah he's already a king maker so imagine imagine if they said look you know you're a little bit dangerous as the president but you've been a king maker until now how about you just keep it up how about you you continue to be a king maker imagine if the republican party said look you know we're going to run a different candidate for president but we'd love you to you know get trump back on twitter and make him the voice of the party because he's so interesting you know i would listen to trump talk all day and be happy about it if you know somebody like ron desantis was actually running the job and you know because i love every all the controversy that trump brings like i love the entertainment i love the show and i do think that in the way that fox news can influence republicans i think that trump could influence topics almost as much by talking about them out of office you know if he had his twitter platform back for example so i don't know i think i think there's at least a 50 chance that trump will take a better offer and the better offer would be to not do the job of president but but be the most influential voice in the country because he could easily do that because he can decide who gets who gets his endorsement and you know what oh my god i just realized there's a hole in the conservative world that hasn't been plugged yet do you know what the hole is just yeah you're okay you got me you're ahead of me rush limbaugh republicans lost their strongest provocative non-politician voice trump should have a prime time show maybe a radio show but i think he's better live maybe a podcast yeah trump as the new rush limbaugh having actually served in the office would be insanely interesting like you couldn't look away from that and and as soon as you hear it that he would be the rush limbaugh replacement what does that tell you about the quality of that option it changes it doesn't it if you said to president to ex-president trump here's the deal you can run for president and get all that attention and maybe even win or you could be the rush limbaugh power center of the republican party which do you think sounds like a better offer at his age and given the risk reward of running for president because if he runs for president he's going to be a target again and he is a certain age he could take the win and go off and have you know some kind of a prime time show remember i told you that i'd love to see a show like the apprentice except he deals with topics imag imagine trump filling the rush limbaugh role of you know the important voice if you will and except doing it and allowing both the left and the right to debate with him as the moderator of the debate oh my god imagine watching him interrupt people on the left and the right because you know you know he there's stories of him challenging even the people on the right during meetings what do you love to see him say stop stop answer the question no you're lying you're lying answer the question how much would you love to see trump with it with his thumb on two experts making them fight it out but they have to make sense and they have to stay on topic and they have to answer the questions oh my god now now imagine a sidekick because you always have to have a sidekick so who would be the man most notably would be okay i guess that would be first choice for the for one type of sidekick but i'm talking about a sidekick who would be the the data person you know imagine somebody who's like a real data expert who was just there and trump says all right is that even true and then the data person says well actually that's not true so they're gonna have to try no again not the data person that wouldn't be me this would be amazing trump could own political commentary just by having both sides think about it because anybody would go on the show after a while you know he get anybody as long as long as he let the liberal side you know have as much time i think he anybody on the show because they would want to show that their opinion is better than the other side if they couldn't do it you know why somebody said i just described fox news 15 to 20 years ago you know i think you're right about that all right apparently spacex fired some employees who put together a little letter saying they that elon's elon musk's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us particularly in recent weeks so spacex uh found out who was involved in fardham allegedly what do you think of that do you think the free speech guy elon musk should fire his own employees for his freedom of speech in which they said uh they that the boss is embarrassing them yes yes he should yes that's a firing offense do you know what's a good reason for firing somebody they don't want to work there or they're unhappy that's a perfectly good reason now it's also a good reason for changing something yeah there are two good things you can do when employees are disgruntled you could find out what it is and if it's valid maybe change it and if it is something you don't want to change well then the the thing you should do is fire them if it's a big enough problem so yeah i think this is i think he's right to uh i i think any company in this situation is perfectly within the right to fire a disgruntled employee and so cnn is even talking about biden maybe running for reelection because they admit he might be the best they have because they don't have anybody else who could beat trump they think now i think that's wrong i do think that they have other people who could beat trump because trump has the risk of beating himself right and the media would media would be on one side as a so but i think it's interesting that cnn's opinion of the democrat bench if you will is so low that even though they they're also beating on biden that's having the lowest approval so while cnn is saying that biden has the lowest approval that's the news people and opinion people an opinion a piece on their site is saying that he might be the best they have the lowest opinion ever of a president and they admit he might be the best candidate just think about that how in the world could democrats win oh here's how do you think there's any way that democrats can recover from this uh here's the bad news they already did turns out that rasmussen has a new poll and that they do the hypothetical match between a hypothetical republican and hypothetical democrat in the congressional races and they say if it's just a republican or just a democrat and that's all you know they're just generic who do you vote for well there had been a nine point difference which is huge in favor of the generic republican until today now that those january 6 hearings are making a dent apparently now there's a six point no a five point lead so almost cut in half so the republican advantage going into the midterms was a nine point lead that just got cut to five now what happened what what's happening in the world that would cause such a radical change in this opinion january 6 coverage i can't think of anything else i don't think it's margin of error i think it's the january 6 coverage that's not confirmed but maybe the supreme court maybe but i think it's the january 6 coverage i think it's working i think it's actually working because remember the january 6 coverage is mostly showing violent looking republicans it basically is look at these republicans i mean that's all people are getting from the coverage because they don't follow the details it just looks like republicans have become a violent extremist country if you just dip into the coverage you just see republicans attacking the capital that's kind of all you know so i think the january 6 propaganda is working really well and you know i like to separate what i like from what is what is good work good being subjective i think the propagandists are doing a great job on propaganda now i don't like propaganda but if you're going to do it you might as well do it well and i think they're killing it i think they're killing it they've actually cut the their strategy i i guess credit to uh you know nancy pelosi or whoever makes up their strategy but they came up with a strategy to come up with this you know this gigantic hoax that it was an insurrection while there were in fact some violent people who probably wanted exactly that it wasn't an insurrection i mean not in general it wasn't an insurrection but the hoax looks like it's working and speaking of hoaxes biden just repeated the fine people hoax which still exists now here's the test you've seen me compliment cnn quite a bit lately because i do think that their new leader is trying to make them report straight news on both sides and they do show signs that they're taking that seriously so i'm going to give them like massive credit every time they make a step in that direction and even i would even encourage you to watch them more because it's an interesting shift you can see it in real time happening but um but why but do you think that cnn will report um what's happening with the fine people hoax this is the ultimate test if cnn's leader is going to take seriously that cnn is going to report straight news from now on he has a fresh example of biden repeating the fine people hoax i would bet you that the guy who's in charge of cnn knows it's a hoax i'm not positive because i can't know what he's thinking but i'll bet he does i'd say it's a 60 40.
i'll bet he does now if he knows that's a hoax and he knows the president just repeated it in public if he doesn't see his people call it down as a hoax will he make them will he say you're going to have to say that was a hoax because we do context now we're not doing the leave stuff on a context thing we're going to put the context in it looks like he's serious so that's something to watch for today if you see that cnn is back that would be big news and if i were the head of cnn i would just break the the i'll just break the world in half and just say look let's let's really make a splash let's admit that all of our coverage was fake about this fine people hoax we don't have to actually go back and do apologies but you're going to have to put it in context going forward and you're going to have to start today because the president just repeated it what would happen to cnn's viewership if they did that would they lose viewers because their own side would say hey what's this or would they gain viewers because it would be a national debate about what's going on over there i think they could gain and and i would love to see this i would love to have us battling it out about whether cnn has actually changed the direction of the ship because again credit where credit is due i think they're trying i think they're trying legitimately trying and that could be a great thing for the world i mean really a great thing you know it's funny because there's an opening for a major news network who uh reports the news straight down the middle if they find themselves you know that they can do that well maybe they've got something there all right since uh summer has come i've stopped looking at the oh i've gone extra long um so i think i'll go do something else because you probably need to too and may i say this was the finest live stream of all time i think you all enjoyed it a little bit extra if you play it at 1.25 or 1.75 speed my understanding is i'm even better so make sure you do the recorded one if you want to do that and youtube i'll talk to you tomorrow
[Music]
good morning everybody
and welcome
to possibly the best experience you've
ever had
it's called coffee with scott adams and
i'm so excited for you today
you're going to experience something so
so wonderful today
that i wish i were you
i mean if i could trade places
and be listening to what i'm going to be
telling you today
wow i do it in a heartbeat you are so
lucky compared to me
but all you need
to join me
and others
in a plane of happiness that's hard to
describe
is a copper mag
yeah or a mag
get your mag
you probably have a few magazines
if you know what i mean and i'm not
talking about things you read
i know my audience all you need is a cup
or a mug or a glass of tanker cellos or
stein a canteen jugger-flask a vessel of
any kind
fill it with your favorite beverage
you know i love coffee
and join me now
for the unparalleled pleasure oh this is
going to be a good one
the dopamine here of the day the thing
that makes everything good with a little
bit of oxytocin on the side
go long covered
thank you very much
thanks for noticing
no an update on my uh long covet
zero
so i could say with
high degree of certainty
that i have no detectable long co-fit
in case you wonder
in case you're keeping track of your
anecdotes
all right now here's a
here's a thought for you
you know i'm always jabbering on about
we live in a simulation
and you know this this reality is a
bunch of bits created by some other
civilization
or intelligence
and
how do how could you tell if it's true
it's sort of annoying isn't it
because if we're innocent if we're in a
simulation
presumably the simulation could be
programmed
to make it impossible for you to know
you're in a simulation i mean all it
would take is one line of code right
if you discover you're in a simulation
immediately reinterpret it as
not a simulation
that's it one line of code
and every time we discovered our true
reality we would instantly forget it and
reinterpret it in some other way
so it would be very easy for the
creators if we were a simulation just
hypothetically
to keep us from knowing it literally one
line of code that's it
i just wrote it
and
so that's how easy it would be
but
could they take away all the hints and i
would say no
i don't think they could remove all of
the hints they could just remove the
solid proofs you know the math and
the physics part
but one of the things you would expect
to see
see if this makes sense to you
one of the things you'd expect to see
is that the people who believe they live
in a simulation
would have better outcomes
than people who didn't
do you think that's fair
that if you believed you lived in a
simulation you could perhaps
navigate it more effectively because
you'd have a better understanding of
what you're dealing with
so you might use affirmations for
example
without knowing any scientific reason
why that should make any difference
whatsoever
but maybe it's a way you can program the
simulation
maybe you can author
your own future because we live in a
fairly subjective reality no matter what
you think
so wouldn't you say
that if somebody had publicly stated
that they believed in the simulation
you'd expect them to have an unusual
effect on the world and to be unusually
successful in whatever ways we wanted to
find that
fair enough
just keep that frame in mind as i go
through the stories today
that's going to be the the meta arc over
the smaller stories
people who believe we live in a
simulation
do they have more impact on the world
yesterday i was watching the uh what
turned out to be the finals of the nba
basketball warriors versus the celtics
and the warriors came out on top but you
don't have to be a sports fan
to appreciate this element of the story
what would you agree
that there are sort of two things that
determine the winner when you get to the
nba finals
because by the time two
teams get to the finals
they're really good
and were those are two teams that on any
given day
one could beat the other so generally
speaking that's a true statement
now often it said that the difference is
size
so when you get to the finals there's
just so much physicality and bumping
into each other
that the biggest team that's willing to
bump the hardest
has a big advantage so size is a big
thing
and the celtics had a bit of size and
youth i believe
over the warriors who were seasoned and
a little bit injured this year and a
little bit older
so the physicality argument said
the celtics were going to win
and at least in one of the early games
or two it looked like that was going to
be the story
just bigger was better
there's just nothing you can do about it
bigger is better
especially if you're going to put your
full energy into it
bigger is often not better if you're on
the pla practice court
this is something that don nelson
discovered the smaller players would
beat the bigger players in practice
games
but when he got to the finals the big
players would play harder
and that was it
they would just you know shut down
everything
um
so
the celtics should have won
if if size were the only factor but you
also have talent and superstars and
people who can change the game you know
you've got
steph curry on the warriors and he can
basically just change the nature of any
game like a michael jordan could have
so that's another factor
but the other biggest factor
is the psychology of the two teams
and
here i think that steve kerr because
i've been watching from him for a long
time
is kind of a genius
on the psychology
and here's here's just some of the
things that i see him do
one of them is that he you know supports
the team
especially the the superstars
so you would see if like
um
so uh green who's who's one of the more
vocal and
best players in the nba
um he got real mad and demanded that the
coach
show a replay which they have only a few
rights to do so you don't want to use up
your replay rights
but he demanded the coach do it and
watching watching the way kerr
responded to green
was really interesting because the
moment that green demanded it
kerr said yes
and i don't think he necessarily would
have like it doesn't look like that
would have been his independent decision
but the way kerr manages green's
psychology
is sort of amazing because you can
imagine green is a tough
character because he's always arguing
with the refs he's he's a
like a really big personality on the on
the field
and but green is the one who manages the
team's
psychology
so there's this trickle down
when you're on the court you can see
green really being the one whose energy
changes everybody else's energy if he's
having a good game he just makes them
have a good game right he gets the ball
to the hot person i mean he's really
just you watch him in real time just
completely controlling the psychology of
his own players
and and then they control the psychology
of the game and then they win
and it's you can see the trickle down
it's ker to green
to the team it's not it's not steph
curry
steph curry is just the best player
but green is the one who manages the
psychology on the field you know and
then
having the best player is a big part of
it of course
so there was okay you're
you're way ahead of me on this story
this story has a wrinkle that's coming
up
last night
on the on the warriors bench
now they're playing an away game right
so they're in there in their enemy
opponents building
in boston
and on their bench they have a visitor
steve kerr
the guy who i think is just one of the
best managers of psychology i've ever
seen
has as his one visitor on the bench
tony robbins
tony robbins
now
if you don't know how funny that is let
me give you some background tony robbins
has been you know famous for doing his
um personal growth
you know personal improvement
seminars and books and stuff
for decades
and the reason that he's so famous and
he can do this for decades is
is why
you know why is tony robbins so rich and
famous and successful
for decades
it's because it works
that's it
now
you know you expect somebody like that
to have some kind of scandal take you
down i think he's had some like minor
ones that he's managed to brush aside
but
he's really good and the things that he
says
are based on the same things i've
studied
so he's a
an expert on persuasion
and he also has a direct line back to
the top hypnotists
literally hypnotists
uh of history
so he was actually mentored by one of
the most famous hypnotists
and i don't think he necessarily uses
that word
but is one of the things he's added to
his talent stack you know beyond the
energy he brings in the
you know his own all of his own ideas
and stuff but he's got a talent stack
that includes hypnosis
now one of the things that hypnotists
learn
is just part of being a hypnotist
is that reality is completely subjective
almost like you live in a simulation
almost like you'll live in the
simulation and i think that's one of the
reasons that i think
this is a simulation
because if you study hypnosis one of the
things you learn is that people make
decisions first
and then they decide why they made the
decision second
and you can't even be a hypnotist until
you understand that
that's like a basic understanding that
everybody sees the world backwards or
upside down or inside out whichever it
is as soon as you see it
the way it is
you can manage it more effectively
if i believe that people thought about
things and then made decisions
i would treat people differently
i would write differently
i would have i would express myself
differently i would do everything
differently but i don't believe that
there's no evidence of it and once you
learn it it's hard to unlearn
people make decisions first for reasons
they don't understand
and then they say it's um because it was
a
i'll save money in the long run
but that's sort of after the fact
now that's not every single decision
there's some that the objective parts of
the decision are just
hard coded and everybody would make the
same decision
but
for a lot of the important things like
what job do you have who do you marry
do you have kids all of those things
are completely irrational decisions that
we rationalize after the fact mostly
we're just acting on our mating
instincts and trying to act like we
didn't
in fact that's the best explanation of
human beings
everything we do is some expression of
our mating instinct
and then we're trying to make it look
like that's not what we're doing
and part of that is convincing ourselves
that's not what we're doing that's not
what i'm doing i did this i
i dressed really well today you know why
because i like how it makes me feel
whenever whenever i hear somebody say
that
that the way they're dressing women say
this more than men
but
i'm dressing for myself i dress for the
way i feel to make myself feel good i
always think that's someone who doesn't
understand the basic nature of reality
that we're all just
expressing our mating instincts
and some people are aware of it
and some are not
now imagine if the only thing
that was different about you
is that you knew that
and nobody else did imagine being born
into a world in which you alone
understood that everybody was acting on
their mating instinct they just weren't
aware of it but you knew it
you would be like
the one-eyed king in the land of the
blind
you'd have almost a superpower of
understanding what people are going to
do and why they did it
and other people would be like how did
you know that was going to happen
like how did you know
you know this person was interested in
this person
and i'd be like well look how they
dressed today
i'm done
that was the mating instinct they knew
they were going to see this person
one-on-one and so it would look like you
had magic powers
if you just understood that the world is
backwards from the way you're taught it
is
so
tony robbins understanding that world
and knowing that we live in a backwards
world and therefore understanding which
tools
to use to
to improve a backwards world if you're
following the chain here
is hugely successful
tony robbins is really really really
successful personally
but also has been credited by all kinds
of leaders
for you know helping them
so imagine uh how much tony robbins
probably helped the warriors
in their psychological game
because the warriors came out
and were psychologically
impenetrable
because they they got behind early i
mean they just started getting
slaughtered in their away game
for the first
quarter and then
they didn't do anything except come back
hard and win
they came back so hard
they just
just stomped the celtics
so the older beaten up team
with the the players had been like
cobbled together over the over the
the years in fact the commentators said
it was the
the worst team the warriors had ever won
with
it was the worst performing team the you
know because people were injured etc
and yet steve kerr would got winning
performances out of every combination of
players he put together
every time steve kerr put a combination
together
with or without curry the best player in
the game
he still won
do you know why
because he got the psychology right i
think i mean i think that was the main
thing he kept getting right
and he had green on the team that helps
right so
somebody says yeah plus luck there's
always luck
so here's here's my point about tony
robbins imagine you're the celtics
and you get out the court and you're
thinking all right we got this we're
feeling good we got this
all we have to do
is like play harder
and be smarter
because we got the size
so if we can match them in psychology
we already have the size and the youth
we're going to win it all
and then they look over
and sitting next to steve kerr on the
bench
is the most powerful
hypnotist
in the history of civilization
this would be sort of like
uh you got in a
you're in a math league competition
and you saw on the other side on the
other team was paul dirac
now this is a very obscure
uh
reference
that maybe five percent of you got
somebody paul dirac d-i-r-a-c anybody
okay mathematical genius
so imagine imagine if you're
you know you go you go for a pick-up
game of basketball and michael jordan's
on the other side
like that is what steve kerr
did to the celtics what steve kerr did
to the celtics
was so effective
it should be banned
what steve kerr
did to the celtics in that critical game
was so
devastatingly mentally effective
that you should have been able to call
the result of the game as soon as you
saw him sitting on the bench as soon as
i saw him i was like
oh no
he didn't
did steve kerr really put tony frickin
robins
next to him on the bench
because if you're the celtics you're
just gonna freaking give up
remember just two there's two variables
size
and psychology
and steve kerr basically said all right
we got you on the psychology so you
better work on the size thing a little
bit more
because we're going to pulverize you on
the psychology and then what did he do
he pulverized them on the psychology
you could see the celtics just look
defeated about halfway through they they
look like
they just didn't have anything left
it was awesome
well senator tom cotton has
is saying that
the attorney general should resign
because there have been i didn't know
this but reportedly 50 attacks on
pro-life pregnancy centers and churches
in recent weeks
purportedly carried out by some shadowy
domestic violence group called jane's
revenge
so they're targeting conservatives
and once again tom cotton shows us
he's one of the effective people in uh
congress in the senate
so
i always like the fact that he picks he
picks things which
i always think are the obvious things
that should be done but why isn't
anybody else doing them
i don't know there's a certain genius to
be able to do the obvious things
the the free money you know the thing
that just needs to be done and why isn't
somebody else doing this so yeah i think
this is a pretty valid thing to say
there if conservatives and republicans
are being
haunted
hashtag hunted
do you remember anybody who made a
prediction that if biden won the
election that republicans would be
hunted
anybody
anybody who believes in the simulation
somebody you can think of yes me
i was widely mocked for that
but there might be at least one more
story today on that topic
so
to their credit and i'm going to keep
giving them credit for this cnn had
another what i would consider
very balanced
um segment in which john berman was
pushing
jennifer granholm the energy secretary
on the consistency of the following
things that the biden administration
wants
so at the same time that the biden
administration is demanding the energy
companies
make massive investments
so that you know energy prices will go
down
he's also telling them he wants them to
be out of business
in their at least in their traditional
energy business
so he's asking them to make massive
investments
for the future
at the same time telling them but of
course in the future we want to put you
out of business
so make a massive investment for the
future we want to disappear
and watching cnn's john berman pusher on
that inconsistency
was actually first of all refreshing so
that that was a you know straight
reporting straight approach by cnn
which i think should be complemented
and she didn't really have what i would
consider a sufficient answer for that
now
her her answer was that
the future of these companies should be
divesting into greener energy
which i think is a fair thing to say
but it doesn't quite under co doesn't
quite explain the inconsistency because
they were all going to do that anyway
you know companies invest in other
things because they think it's a good
investment or not
so
that's all that's going to happen there
if they think it's a good investment
they'll do it if they don't they won't
so i don't think anything's going to
change about how those companies invest
in other stuff
but i said why would you
make massive investments in these
traditional energy sources that
the biden administration wants to crush
in the future
well here's the most damning uh
stuff about uh trump from january 6.
because so i keep waiting for the
january 6 hearings
to come up with the goods against trump
specifically
and
i love watching how
uh dots are connected
that are not actually
connections
so making a connection that's not really
a connection
and so
if you read some of the coverage fast
and you don't really parse the words you
can you could think it means something
it doesn't mean
i'll give you an example
so
this i think was from cnn according to
testimony from people around the then
president
uh and elsewhere in trump's political
machines all right so they're saying
that people close to the to trump
uh
they were told eastman's plan to have
pence
declare he had won
declared that trump had won or accept
other electors
was illegal
see this is getting complicated
yet trump tried to go ahead with anyway
all right so here let me simplify this
so trump's attorney eastman
um
had a plan
and people told trump the eastman's plan
who is a lawyer
was illegal so there were apparently
lawyers who disagreed with lawyers
now if you're trump
does that mean that you knew it was
illegal
so the report the factual reporting is
that he had
his most important lawyer i guess his
closest lawyer maybe or one of the one
of the closest lawyers
recommended it
but then other lawyers
said it's illegal
so did trump know it was illegal
well if the lawyers didn't know
if the lawyers didn't know it was
illegal how is he supposed to know
now if all of the lawyers had agreed
then i would say the story is yeah trump
knew that was illegal
but if there was even one lawyer
that was close to him and you know was a
credible lawyer
saying no i think i think this is legal
then trump did not know it was illegal
he knew it was gray or maybe
so if the if the reporting was trump
knew it was a gray area
i would say that's completely
probably supported by the facts
because if you can find one lawyer who
says it's a good idea and yeah and at
least one who says it's a bad idea then
you say okay it's a gray area
so what does a leader do
when there's a gray area about what's
legal
you tell me
if there's a gray area
like a legitimate gray
you really don't know if it's legal or
not what do you do
do you do the thing that you think is
the right thing
and then try to make the legal part work
or do you say it's a gray area so even
though i think one thing is the right
thing to do
i'm not going to do it because i don't
want to take a chance
in this
gray area situation
what would a leader do in that situation
well
it depends on the leader probably
if you have a low appetite for risk
you'd probably say
all right i'll just accept it and move
on
because you have a low appetite for risk
suppose you have a high appetite for
risk
and you spent your entire career
in ambiguous legal situations
can you think of anybody who has spent
more time
in ambiguous legal jeopardy than trump
over his entire career
how much ambiguous legal jeopardy has
that man endured in his entire life
more than anybody
in the world maybe
maybe maybe if there was some kind of
you know competition
of who has endured and survived
the most ambiguous legal
jeopardy situations
i think it would be trump all the way
i think he has decades of doing this
consistently
and at least not being taken down by it
what would you do if you spent your
entire career
not being defeated by ambiguous legal
situations
you do what you know he's done
you'd use your you'd use your gut
and you just go for it
that seems to be his method he uses his
gut and then he just goes for it and
probably has worked more than it's not
worked his whole career
which is why he's trump and you're not
so
it's hard to get in anybody's head
but it's not irrational if you have
disagreeing lawyers and an entire
background of your hunches
or let's say your
your instinct as he might call it
if you've had good luck with your
instinct forever in these ambiguous
situations
and you fell strongly
you'd probably just go for it
and that doesn't to me sound like evil
you know you could spin it as he was
doing anything to keep off to keep him
in power
but let me ask you this
do the democrats believe
that if it had been trump's second term
and he you know he just ran two terms
well or let me ask you a different way
do democrats believe that if trump got
reelected for another four years
and it was constitutionally impossible
for him to run for another term
does anybody believe he would try to
stay
and i think the answer is yes
i think democrats believe
he would try to work some kind of you
know dictator trick to stay in office
after a second term
i don't think there's one republican
that would support that
i mean okay there's always one
i mean you can get a crazy person to
support anything but it's not like the
republic there there are many people in
the mega who would say let's get rid of
that two-term thing
no matter how much you like trump you
still say you know
there are people with trump's policy
preferences
who are not a thousand years old
so
you know i think people would just
naturally gravitate to a younger
younger republican
anyway
we don't know what trump was thinking
but the way they write it was
indirect sentences
so
something uh somebody was told something
we don't know who did it and we don't
say somebody told him we say somebody
was told
when i see indirect writing like that
the was told
that feels like somebody's in weasel
mode while they're writing the sentence
because direct sentences
help you with clarity and indirect
sentences which is one of the most
um obvious things that a good editor
would change
you know it's kind of a tell that
somebody's trying to not be clear
usa today deleted
a bunch of articles by one of their
right writers and i guess fired her
because
apparently some of the quotes were
fabricated
uh the the existence of some individuals
quoted could not be independently
verified in addition some stories
had quotes in them that had been
credited to others
so basically they fired their own
reporter for having lots of stories
that were partially made up
now mike cernovich who's one of the
highest value twitter followers you can
have if you're not following cernovich
why not
you you need to
um
he points out that u.s today is a fact
check partner for facebook and maybe
even twitter
so
the fact check partner for facebook and
maybe even twitter i'm not sure why we
don't know if it's twitter
but we don't
um
had to fire one of their own reporters
for making up news like a lot of it
a lot of it apparently
and uh elon musk who apparently follows
cervich's account
just uh replied with one word wow
now
why why is elon musk in the news
four times a day
so here's the first one
so you know as he's trying to buy
twitter and he's watching the quality of
their fact checkers you know
disintegrate at least their reputation
disintegrate in the public
and he's just wow so you know he's
watching that
which is interesting to me
now if you were if you believed you
lived in a simulation like elon musk did
wouldn't you be surprised if he were not
the richest person in the world or let
me say it another way shouldn't we
expect that at some point
if we live in a simulation
that all of the richest people in the
world are people who believe in the
simulation
because they would be the ones who
played the game the best and know knew
how to win
maybe
so there's musk richest guy and also
coincidentally believes we live in the
simulation huh
jack pasabic is uh
foreshadowing something interesting
he's tweeting today what if a row will
not be overturned
and if it came from someone else you'd
say okay there's somebody just
speculating some stuff on twitter means
nothing
but uh jack possabic
has a long history of having good
sources
and so when someone who has
good sources says
maybe the supreme court won't overturn
roe or maybe not
in the way that has been reported
so somebody asked him what he knows that
other people don't know and i think he
responded nothing good
now
it's a little bit cryptic isn't it
so i don't know if there could be yet
another leak from the supreme court
wouldn't that indicate there are two
leaks from the supreme court
now here's the interesting play here
number one may i ask
was i the first person who said you know
i wouldn't trust that first draft
now other people have said it of course
but i think you heard you heard me first
say don't necessarily assume that the
first draft is what anything that you're
going to see they could be just testing
the argument out
what if that's true
now the other thing is this
if you're the supreme court
what is more important to you
the integrity of the supreme court
or this decision
what is more important to you if you're
the supreme court the integrity of the
supreme court or this decision
i think it's the integrity of the
supreme court and if they and if they
went in that direction i wouldn't say
it's crazy
and i could imagine them
i could imagine them
pulling back the ruling and not ruling
at all
because
there was a leak
would that up everything
imagine it
imagine how baller that would be
imagine if the supreme court
said because
and maybe they would never say this out
loud which i would also agree would be a
good idea never comment on it
never comment on it never
go to their graves
take it to their graves with no comment
imagine the supreme court getting
together and saying here's the deal
this abortion thing very important very
important issue but not even close
to the importance of what happened with
that leak
and so
here's what i would ask of you on both
sides of the issue
let us once and for all make it
impossible for anybody to benefit from a
leak from the supreme court
let's make it impossible to benefit from
a leak
and don't don't
release the ruling
and just say if there's a leak there's
no rule
now would that give people the ability
to stop any ruling by leaking
maybe
maybe
but it would certainly
be
be a baller thing to do
because if the court wanted let's say
the court knew they had a majority for
this ruling if they pulled back
because of the leak
that would say a lot about
you know the
the uh the power of the league and how
much of a problem that is
why would it be baller
because they would be ignoring the
opinion in favor of the integrity of the
supreme court
and so they would
they would basically they'd be taking
control back
that's a better way to say it the the
court would be
taking its power and credibility back
by just saying we don't have to do
anything
that the public requires us to do we're
just gonna rule now the other the other
interpretation is much less favorable
yeah they're cowards
[Laughter]
now you beat me to it in the comments
the other the other interpretation is
that they're afraid that the riots that
would ensue
would be terrible now here's another
interpretation
do you believe
that the people on the supreme court are
not at all independent
and it would be
more fair to say that they are simply
conservatives and liberals and really
that's all there is to it
right with that you know every now and
then you get a surprise
justice roberts decision or something
but basically
would you say that even though they act
as their independent blah blah they're
really it's just some liberals and some
conservatives and that's why we have all
the debate debating
because if they were really independent
you wouldn't have to argue about
all the nominations
it's that you know when you nominate
them what they're going to rule
before you even get the question
so
if they're that partisan
and it's that obvious
to everyone
what would stop the conservatives on the
court
from saying
we we only want to make a ruling that
helps us politically
suppose the conservatives said you know
the only thing that would stop
republicans from sweeping
is a supreme court ruling
killing roe and then making everybody go
to the
go to the elections
think about that
if if the conservatives on the court
are really
i'll say corrupt i think corrupt would
be
a fair enough word in this case if
they're really just conservatives and
they're not even real justices all
they're doing is saying conservatives
this is what you get
and we're going to rationalize it
somehow but we're on your team we're
just gonna vote your way every time
so
there are some real interesting
questions about this i i could easily
imagine that the court
would
pursue their own credibility or even
or even a republican victory and then
hold off the decision until after 2024.
what about that
what if the court said we're going to
delay this until after the political
season oh
oh here's my prediction
oh
yeah
here's my prediction
the court has the
correct me if i'm wrong they have the
flexibility to take any case
or not take any case
and they have the flexibility
to wait as long as they want
is that true
that they do have the flexibility to
wait on any decision as long as they
want nobody's going to tell them they
have to make a decision is that true
there's no pressure to do it or lose it
right
suppose the supreme court says there has
to be a response to the leak
there has to be and because the leak was
obviously released for political
purposes
to influence the midterms and maybe even
the presidential election
we at the supreme court are going to
take away that win
and we're going to delay the decision
actually they don't even have to
announce it they could just not do it
and maybe it would leak that that's a
reason
because that would give them that would
give them their
are you agreeing with this
because that would give the supreme
court everything they want
if you imagine that that is the decision
they want the majority of them
they would still get their decision but
they would wait until there was a
republican
scenario
because that would also guarantee that
the conservatives get the next
nomination in the courts etc
assuming everybody can survive until
2024.
what do you think of that prediction
okay that's what i would do if i were
justice roberts
so
if i were the supreme court and even if
i wanted that ruling even if i were a
conservative i would say since the
reason for the leak was political
we're going to take that win away from
them
but will still reserve the right to do
it immediately after the election
when it has the least political impact
i feel like i would do that but that
would also be the
supreme court
meddling in
the election wouldn't it
so i'm not sure if that would be
fixing a meddling or that would be its
own meddling so i guess that would be a
problem either way
well speaking of republicans being
hunted there's a list
uh on the internet now of
the people who were the most
um
responsible for sowing doubt about the
2020 election
so researchers come through 45 million
tweets
to find the people who are most
responsible
for doubt about the election
and i'm number 28 on the list
so i'm on a list
of people who sowed the most doubt in
the whole world
about the election
now as someone else asked how did they
determine that because i accepted the
election on the day the results were
announced i congratulated biden for the
win on the day the election was
official
and i never changed
and i've said every time sunset he's the
president
so that didn't change
but i've also said
that since our election can't be audited
and not fully
then you can't know if anything was
rigged
but you could know for certain that if
it doesn't get plugged those holes that
it will be
we don't know when might be this
election might be next
20 years from now but if you don't plug
the holes it's a guarantee somebody's
going to walk through that open gate
so yeah of course
until we have a fully auditable system
one assumes that you can't fully trust
any result
but
i value just like the supreme court
conversation i do value the system
over the imperfections and even over the
choice
because when an election is close you
know it's like 48 50 sort of situation
um i don't really think the the public
loses when if the 48 wins over the 50
because it's not that much of a
difference it's like not it's not like
the public is so smart
that you know we can
you know we can fine-tune those
decisions
if it's if it's sort of a half and half
then at least half the country got what
they wanted and that's not too bad
compared to the other half getting what
they wanted right it's not the worst
thing in the world
and so
you know i i still support the system
because i don't want this system to fall
apart even though
you could never know for sure if it gave
you 100 accurate results
but i would say that every day that goes
by that we don't have further evidence
of the 2000 mules
uh accusations
the less likely you're ever going to see
them
so to me that feels like
hydroxychloroquine and ivormectin
and 2000 mules
i put them all in the same category in
just one thin way not in general but
just one specific way
which is every day that goes by
that they're not proven to work
well it's probably less likely that they
will ever be proven to work
so
the challenge against the 2000 mules
thing is that the cell phone data
location stuff
wasn't specific enough
you need some photographic evidence of
the same person going to the same box
has not been produced
or you need a whistleblower
the allegations of all of these mules is
kind of interesting
when
if a mule existed
you don't think that mule would find a
way to
monetize
their whistle blowing
because you could go to a major news
platform and say look
disguise my voice
pay me 50 000
and i'll tell you that i was a mule and
i dropped off you know multiple things
but that hasn't happened has it
there's not one mule
who would take 50 000
and you know a disguised identity
to
to tell that story
now maybe they'd be afraid of being
killed or something but i don't know how
much you get paid to be a mule but it
can't be that much
i would think that i'd take the fifty
thousand dollars
if i were a mule and i thought i could
get away with it because remember these
are people who think they can get away
with stuff
if you're a mule
you've already bought into the idea of
breaking the law
right
so if you could have another way to
maybe not break the law and make fifty
thousand dollars
that doesn't seem like a big risk
so every day that you don't see somebody
take the fifty thousand dollars
because easily somebody would give them
fifty thousand right you're telling me
that there's no conservative who would
pay fifty thousand dollars
to get somebody
to hide their identity and say yeah i
was a mule here's how i did it
i don't know
that many mules
so the same argument that says if you
don't have a
totally secure election system
and we there have been reports of
vulnerabilities
eventually it will be hacked
but for the same same sort of math logic
if you have so many alleged mules and
you'd have to have a lot of them right
not one of those people
who are a group of people who
engage in illegal activity by definition
because it's illegal at least the
muelling we're talking about is illegal
not one of those people
would accept fifty thousand dollars to
tell their story
because of their own legal jeopardy
maybe
i don't know
i feel like that's a group that would
take the fifty thousand dollars
i feel like you could get dozens of them
to take it
because that's good money
for you know a little bit of criminal
activity
suppose you had a mule who went to the
press and said i'll make you a deal
if you the press hire me a lawyer
and you go to the
law enforcement
and you ask them to give me a pardon or
you know some kind of dispensation
i will tell my story to you
you'll give me fifty thousand dollars
and i'll have no legal jeopardy because
you help me clear that with your lawyer
there's no there's no mule smart enough
to make that deal
really
i don't know
i feel like that would be just such an
obvious deal that they could make that
deal
so every day that goes by that we don't
have proof there was anything wrong with
that election i say the odds of it are
much smaller
much smaller
right
all right so
what do you make of the fact that i'm on
a list of election doubters
doesn't that sound like i've been hunted
literally somebody paid some rich people
paid
for an entity to pour through my tweets
and other people's tweets
hunting
hunting
for certain people who are associated
with opinions that they say are
associated with the right
now i'm not republican and i'm not
conservative
but i got on the list
now
have i been haunted
did they not literally hunt for me
by the data
i
that looks looks like a hunt to me
what is hunting other than going and
looking for
your target
like actually what is the definition of
hunting
let me ask that
there's a definition of hunting
and see if it fits
do you find
hunting
all right
uh the activity of hunting wild animals
or game especially for food okay it's
not that
um
well that's a rather limited definition
so they're not using the uh
oh it's similar to stalking
all right well we can do better than
that um
so
remember i told you that it seems likely
that especially before the 2024 election
that i will be the subject of a hippies
i feel like this list
is sort of activating the activists
say okay here's your here's your hit
list
and it even it even included how many
people retweeted us
so you could know how big our influence
was
it was literally a list
of who was influential on a topic they
don't like
a list
of who is most influential
on a topic they don't like
think about that suppose conservatives
created a list of who on the right
was the most influential on a target
they did on the topic they didn't like
how would that feel
how would that feel because if you saw
that list what would you do
well if you're a nice person you'd
probably just read it and it'd be
interesting
but if you're a troll or a terrible
person what would you do
it looks like a hit list doesn't it
it looks like the list of people that
you should go after you should troll
harder
you know you try to make their life
uncomfortable because these are the bad
people i believe i just got put on a bad
people list
because what would be the point of
making a list of people who are most
influential
on a topic you don't like
what would be the other reason for the
list
tell me
what would be the other purpose of the
list
other than to target me personally for
some kind of payback or destruction or
minimization
am i right there's no other purpose
i don't believe there's even an alleged
other purpose
i don't believe there's a cover story
i don't believe anybody's saying
anything else but
here's a list we of people who should be
you know disavowed or targeted or
something
so i'm on the list now
um
but you know
if there's one person you don't want to
put on the list
like who would it be
who would be the person that you would
least want to piss off
in the whole world
who would you least want to piss off in
the whole world
no not me
tony robbins
tony robbins
not me
no i don't know maybe maybe tony robbins
is above anything like revenge because
i've never seen anything like that that
would suggest he
he's vengeful but
um you wouldn't want to make somebody
you wouldn't want to make somebody angry
if you thought they controlled the
simulation
now the people who do control the
simulation if there's a simulation and
if somebody can control it
they would look exactly like me
but that doesn't mean i do
they would just look exactly like my
life
so
just think about that
apparently russia is handling all the
sanctions well and doing fine
okay
now is the russia
ukraine thing the best example of two
movies on one screen that you've ever
seen
i mean i guess trump trump was the most
classic example but
we have a situation in which people like
me will claim we were right
by saying that russia did not take over
ukraine
so
but on the other hand
russia won the war
so it's like two opposites at the same
time
russia tried to attack and over and
conquer ukraine and i believe they at
least
i think they at least wanted it
and maybe they thought they had a shot
at it
so i think what they did is they
probably tried to take the whole country
and maybe still will try maybe they're
still trying
but
quite reasonably you know adjusted their
tactics when it was time to do that
consolidated their control over the most
valuable parts
and then presumably we'll just keep
picking on ukraine forever and try to
get the whole thing
but
people like me can say hey i was right
because ukraine defended itself better
than the experts said they would
but then the experts are going to say
well we told you russia could do
anything they wanted and what they
wanted to do was get this valuable part
and they got it
so russia won and if they want the rest
of it well they can pick on that later
and they'll probably get that too
so
is everybody right
everybody's right
scott the mind reader of putin you know
the thing with putin is you don't have
to read his mind because he said
publicly
pretty clearly
that ukraine should be in russia's
control and
blah blah blah nato is a risk
blah blah
so i don't think that's a mind-reading
example
but i always take seriously those
criticisms because it's easy to you know
fall into the mind-reading thing
um
here's a shocking statistic
that 85 of children teens with
behavioral disorders come from
fatherless homes
and over 70 percent of all adolescent
patients in drug and alcohol treatment
originate from homes without fathers
therefore
the problem is
not enough fathers
yes or no
connect these dots
this will be your data analysis test
if we know that 85 percent of children
and teens with behavioral disorders come
from fatherless homes
therefore
the fatherless part is the reason right
what would be something else in common
that fatherless homes have
what would be some other big variable
a lack of money
what can you name something where poor
people are doing better
i mean there's probably something but
in what category do poor people do
better
do they have better health
no
do they do they have better uh happiness
i don't think so
the last thing you would expect is that
for that the poorer you are
the healthier your mental health would
be
so are we not talking about we're
talking about fathers but it's really a
poverty problem
now you might say to yourself
if the father stayed that would solve
the poverty problem
would it
are these fathers the the fathers with
good jobs
who the only thing wrong with them is
that they didn't stay
no
i don't think the only thing wrong with
the fathers is they didn't stay
they probably would be an economic drag
as much as an economic benefit so i'm
not sure the saying
fatherlessness is the problem that feels
like
the outcome of the problem
do you want to give me another do you
want to hear the most provocative
hypothesis of what the real problem is
do you want to see me get banned from
all social media and lose 15 percent of
my
followers in the next 60 seconds i'm
just going to throw on a hypothesis
what if the problem is mothers
i'm not saying it is
i'm i think it's curiously missing from
the conversation
because remember it's a bunch of things
we don't understand
so if if it's a if it's a thing we don't
understand with a bunch of variables in
it
why can't it be the mothers
if if the father doesn't stay
what's one possibility for that
what is one reason that the father
wouldn't stay
name a reason
well one is that the father's a piece of
crap
right
that's what you go to immediately the
father's a deadbeat piece of crap
irresponsible
uh possibly a rapist
that's what you go to why
because men are awful and women are
awesome
those are the rules those are the rules
i'm sorry amber heard an exception
but the rules are the men are trash
and women are goddesses
and uh queens queens and goddesses those
two categories you can only be two
things if you're a woman either a queen
or a goddess a princess three things
but men are
criminals and dirt and rapists and you
know murderers
they're awful
and so if you see a situation where
there are two variables involved
one is the mother
who is the one who spends most of the
time with the child
that becomes ruined
so the mother is the one who spends all
the time with the child who gets ruined
and the fault of the
uh of this process not working the
mother spending the all of the time
raising the child that gets ruined
the reason that the child is ruined by
the mother who spends all the time with
the child
is the father who's not there
so the person who's not there
is the one who ruined the child not the
person who's there
no not the person who's there
let me let me do a little mental
experiment for you
let's imagine a world in which the
mothers were doing the leaving
and the fathers were always
left with children all right it's an
imaginary world
in the imaginary world where the women
all left
and the fathers were left to raise the
kids
and then those kids turned out to be
drug addicts and behavioral problem kids
would the analysis be
that the problem was the mother left
or would the analysis be
i think the one who's there raising the
kid is the one ruining them and no
wonder the mother left because that
father couldn't even raise a kid so how
much of a father could he be so
obviously it's the father who's a piece
of trash garbage
who is you know
at least they're there at the home but
they're ruining that kid
because they're the one raising it and
the kid turned down bad
now is that a fair analysis
that the person who raises the kid is
mostly to blame if the kid turns out
wrong
or is it the person who wasn't there
is that is that who he normally thinks
in a normal situation
would you blame the person who wasn't
there
or would you blame the person who was
there
and how come you've never asked that
question
how come you just automatically accept
the interpretation that men are pieces
of
and they cause the problem even when
they're not there
even when they're not there
um
so i think that fatherlessness is
you know something that needs to be
focused on and understood
and you know we need to find some way
to help the kids
but i don't know if the situation is so
simple as the conservative view that is
fatherlessness
i think there's at least an equal
possibility
that the mothers are all broken
and one of the reason that the father
didn't stay
is that the mother is broken
and he just couldn't put up with it
so why is it always the father's fault
now i'm not saying the fathers should be
off the hook
nothing like that
i'm just saying that the way we analyze
this is so obviously not rational
then why would we expect that we could
figure out how to solve it
if you know
i mean and this is i think i've made a
pretty strong case here if you know
we're not looking at it in a rational
way
why would you expect anybody could solve
it
you'd have to start with understanding
it at the very least and if you're not
willing to say the truth that whatever
makes these people poor
and whatever makes this father leave or
whatever makes the mother you know not
have a partner
maybe it's them
maybe it's them
all right maybe the people are up
both the mother and the father
maybe
maybe poverty is just always bad
how about poverty is always bad
you know i think conservatives honestly
i think i think you're destroying the
topic
because when you simplify it to
fatherlessness
first of all there's i just don't think
there's enough support for that opinion
even though the statistics are highly
correlated
it that's not a
it's just too simplified there's just
too many other things that are
correlated
so
uh
somebody says you're off on this
yeah i'll look for some uh i'll look for
some pushback
by the way
um
if it turns out that the statistics just
say yeah it really is
the guy's fault pretty much every time
i could be persuaded
i'm easily persuaded on this point by
the way easily persuaded but there is no
argument
against what i just said
the automatic assumption that men are
trash
is what is driving the entire frame of
the the debate
and if you're in the wrong frame you're
not going to find a solution
so what's the solution
how about fix the mothers
how about that
imagine if every
single mother who had a kid
started looking like a good
prospect
suppose instead of saying oh shoot this
one's got a kid
i don't want to marry that because i'm
going to be
responsible for somebody else's kid
don't want to be a step dad
you know
what what if you fix the mothers
so that men want to stay with them oh
yeah
look what i just did
what if you fixed the mothers so the men
wanted to stay
but i will give you this
you would have to also train the mothers
not to have sex with the wrong guys
can i give you that because most guys
are the wrong guys
most of the men are defective too
like i'm not don't if you think i'm
letting men off the hook
that's not what's happening here i'm not
letting anybody off the hook i'm just
saying that everybody's on the hook
right including me
i didn't have any biological kids we're
sort of all on the hook
like i don't feel that i don't have
responsibility for this i feel like i do
i feel like i do
now you know my philosophy which is in
two occasions i've preferred being a
step-dad than a biological dad
now
why did i willingly take on these
step-dad functions
because in both cases it was a an
attractive proposition
so
you don't think other single women
can learn how to become an attractive
proposition
so that men will say you know
i would love to be part of that deal let
me in
yeah
let me say let me tell you this
um
there is not much competition out there
is there anybody single
anybody single watching
have you noticed that weirdly there
isn't much competition out there
here's what i mean
if you go to the gym
and have a job
you're in the top 10 of all eligible men
that's true
if you go to the gym and you have a job
you're in the top 10 of all eligible men
was that hard
that wasn't hard
what would it take for a single woman
to have you know multiple men who want
to marry her
not hard
i'm not going to say go to the gym
because then i look like a sexist jerk
i'm just going to say that it's not hard
to get into the top 10 percent of
eligible people
it's not hard
it really isn't
you just have to be nice to people
you know build your talent stack
work on your
appeal
right which is mostly fitness
and diet pretty much anybody can get in
the top 10
pretty much anybody let's say for their
age you know you'd have to adjust for
age
and
yeah
so i would say that maybe if we were a
little less woke
we could be more beneficial to the base
problem
which is you have single women that no
man wants to marry
i'm sorry
if there are a lot of single women that
no man wants to marry
you should at least ask yourself
can the women try harder
it has to be asked
i'm not letting the men off the hook
whatsoever
the men have to be held to the the
maximum amount of you know reasonable
responsibility for whatever they do
but they're not the only ones in the
conversation that's all i'm saying
um
remember i told you that nobody really
understands inflation and debt and the
fed and all that
do you believe me
when i say that literally nobody
understands it
like the the experts
don't really understand it
well here's here's a little more
evidence to that case there's an opinion
piece in the wall street journal by
richard vigilante i hope i'm pronouncing
his name right
and i won't i won't give you the whole
thing
but
his basic point is that
nobody understands the topic
and that the only person who did was
some economist in the reagan era and
maybe reagan himself
and i'm going to read just a little
portion of it and all i'm not trying to
get you to understand it
right so when you don't understand this
don't worry about that that's not the
point
i want you to understand
that here's somebody who makes what i
think is a fairly strong argument
then nobody understands it
all right so here's here's his
definition
this is uh richard
vigilante for the wall street journal
and i recommend the piece it's it's
eye-opening
he said that reagan beat inflation not
by reducing the official money supply so
remember everybody thinks that inflation
is caused by
an increase in m2 the money supply
but reagan beat inflation
not by reducing it okay so that's the
first thing that's opposite of what
everybody thinks
like everybody thinks
increasing the money supply is that's
inflation that's all it is
too much money for too few goods
but reagan beat inflation not by
reducing the official money supply
m2 nearly doubled during his time okay
that's opposite everything that
everybody believes
but he did it by boosting demand for
money
how do you do that how do you boost the
demand for money
the great lesson of the reagan era is
that money supply is determined by
investment opportunity
what
absent such opportunities no matter how
much money the government gives people
they will reject it and turn it into
stuff meaning they'll buy goods
so people have two choices of what to do
with money
simplifying things
they can put money into just buying
things that they like
or they can invest
if you give them better opportunity to
invest
then that and that money supply just
gets sucked up into investments which
creates you know new taxes which creates
all kinds of you know goodness
but if you take that money supply and
there's too much of it
and there's just a lot of money
people will say you know i don't need
this new thing but my money's not worth
much and i'd like a chair i'll just turn
my money into a chair because
you know the money's going to be
worthless i might as well have a chair
or something like that i'm simplifying
too much
and so
what do you think of that
what do you think of the idea that
uh all we would need to do is a
reagan-ish
trumpish
change in i think what reagan did is he
changed the capital gains taxes
and some other things to make investment
much more
worthy
and and he beat inflation
because he came in after carter right so
he came in during the stag flesh near
the worst of all possible worlds
so if all you do is make it better to
invest
you solve everything
so now i'm going to give you two rules
of economics
that could explain everything
right number one is if employment is
good you're probably fine
i keep telling you that
if you just look at the one variable is
our employment rate good you're probably
fine
as long as
as long as you're not ruining the
country with inflation or debt
right so that's the the big variable so
here's the one rule maybe
maybe
the one rule that tells you if you're in
trouble in inflation in the long run
is whether you're making uh investment
look like a good option
so if you're if if the government is
continuing to make investment
look good
you solve every problem
so two things to know your economy if
your employment is good you're probably
in good shape as long as your inflation
is also good and you can predict that
by your investment situation
now what would happen if republicans
take control of congress and the
presidency
four words
i got four words for you
if you think the republicans
are going to take both
the congress and the presidency
four words
you better own
stock
because
from our current you know
bottom and i think we're close to some
kind of a bottom here
if republicans go ahead and do what
people kind of sort of think is going to
happen take control of things
there's almost no way that they won't
make investment more attractive
and that will fix the inflation or it
will look like it is which you know then
the anticipation actually changes the
reality
and
we could be we could be entering the
single best investment opportunity
of all time
i wonder if that'll get quoted somewhere
so i'll say it again just in case
somebody wants to quote it somewhere
these two situations
i think are unprecedented
correct me if i'm wrong because i'm not
a historian
i say it's unprecedented
we have the economic badness that's
pretty bad the high inflation the big
debt
so we've got the economic badness and
the shortages and everything else at the
same time
we have what looks like a republican
sweep
upcoming and almost
unstoppable have we ever had a situation
where the economics were at their lowest
point
the republicans look like a sure bet for
taking control
and the republican policies are the
exact prescription
for fixing the problem
which is reaganish
improvements in the investment
outlook or the investment
you know
situation
have we ever
been in the situation with those two
things lining up at the same time
i don't know for sure
but in terms of risk reward
it might be the best investment
opportunity of all time
maybe
now let me say before you go off and
invest anything
you really shouldn't take investment
advice from me i'm not good at it
so can i say that clearly
i'm not really good at this
at the investment stuff
because nobody is
the only the only way to be good at
investing is
either buy apple computer stock or
you know an index fund and don't go buy
apple stock because i just said that
i'm using apple as an example of
something that's such a big company it's
it's almost a diversified stock
portfolio by itself it does so many
things
all right
did i sell it uh eth when it jumped no
my philosophy is uh on eth and bitcoin
uh just hold forever
and it's just a hedge just in case it's
a small portion of
portfolio
um
father's day is juneteenth day
how about that
the richest man in the world gets sued a
lot elon musk is getting sued over
uh allegedly pumping up dogecoin and
then it became worthless so i don't who
knows is there anybody who was buying
crypto who thought it was an investment
i feel like this is a
lawsuit of smart people against numb
people
like the only way you'd win
is if you've got a jury of your peers
who also believed
that crypto was a good investment in
some cases
it's never going to be a good investment
except in the narrow sense of a
diversified portfolio
all right
so apparently there are 30 alleged
officials from the trump administration
who believe that trump is not fit to be
president again
what do you think of that
do you think that there are 30 people
who are close to trump who say he should
not be
that he's not fit for president
you know what i wonder
is if republicans are going to throw
away everything
because
trump might be the only republican who
can lose
i i hate to say it he might be the only
republican who could lose the presidency
because imagine if it's just some strong
candidate that's not trump
desantis
tom cotton let's say
i believe that without trump's baggage
and given biden's low poor
popularity
that anybody could be the republican
biden and by the republican biden i mean
the person who doesn't have so much
baggage
that that's the whole story
they just have to be a republican and
they'll just get elected
trump is the only one
who brings risk
because
i'm not sure how many people are going
to vote for somebody who's former
advisors say you shouldn't vote for them
that's pretty much a
now if that stays and by the way these
former advisors you know i'd need to see
some more names i saw two or three but
i'm not so sure there are 30 of them
yeah
but allegedly there's some conversation
about how to keep him from running
and by the way i'm not convinced that
he's decided to run
or let's say i'm not convinced he will
decide to run
i i think
i think he could take a better offer
he could i think he could take a better
offer i don't know what that would look
like but if anybody ever made a better
offer
he's a deal maker i think he'd take it
yeah he's already a king maker
so imagine imagine if they said look
you know you're a little bit dangerous
as the president
but you've been a king maker until now
how about you just keep it up
how about you you continue to be a king
maker
imagine if the republican party said
look
you know we're going to run a different
candidate for president
but we'd love you to you know get trump
back on twitter and make him the voice
of the party because he's so interesting
you know i would listen to trump talk
all day
and be happy about it if you know
somebody like ron desantis was actually
running the job and
you know because i love every all the
controversy that trump brings like i
love the entertainment i love the show
and i do think that in the way that fox
news can influence republicans
i think that trump could influence
topics
almost as much by talking about them out
of office you know if he had his twitter
platform back for example
so
i don't know i think
i think there's at least a 50 chance
that trump will take a better offer
and the better offer would be to not do
the job of president but but be the most
influential voice in the country
because he could easily do that
because he can decide who gets who gets
his endorsement
and
you know what
oh my god i just realized
there's a hole in the conservative world
that hasn't been plugged yet do you know
what the hole is
just yeah you're okay you got me you're
ahead of me
rush limbaugh
republicans lost
their strongest provocative
non-politician voice
trump should have
a prime time show
maybe a radio show but i think he's
better live
maybe a podcast
yeah
trump as the new rush limbaugh
having actually served in the office
would be insanely interesting
like you couldn't look away from that
and
and as soon as you hear it that he would
be the rush limbaugh replacement
what does that tell you about the
quality of that option
it changes it doesn't it if you said to
president to ex-president trump here's
the deal you can run for president and
get all that attention and maybe even
win
or
you could be
the rush limbaugh
power center of the republican party
which do you think sounds like a better
offer
at his age
and given the risk reward of running for
president because if he runs for
president he's going to be a target
again
and
he is a certain age
he could take the win and go off and
have you know some kind of a prime time
show
remember i told you that i'd love to see
a show like the apprentice
except he deals with topics
imag imagine trump
filling the rush limbaugh role
of you know the important voice if you
will
and
except doing it and allowing both the
left and the right to debate with him as
the moderator of the debate
oh my god
imagine watching him interrupt
people on the left and the right because
you know you know he
there's stories of him challenging even
the people on the right
during meetings what do you love to see
him say stop stop
answer the question
no you're lying you're lying
answer the question
how much would you love to see trump
with it with his thumb on two experts
making them fight it out but they have
to make sense and they have to stay on
topic and they have to answer the
questions
oh my god now now imagine a sidekick
because you always have to have a
sidekick
so who would be the man
most notably would be
okay i guess that would be first choice
for the for one type of sidekick but i'm
talking about a sidekick who would be
the the data person
you know imagine somebody who's like a
real data expert who was just there and
trump says all right is that even true
and then the data person says well
actually that's not true so they're
gonna have to try
no again
not the data person that wouldn't be me
this would be amazing
trump could own
political commentary
just by having both sides
think about it
because anybody would go on the show
after a while
you know he get anybody as long as long
as he let the liberal side
you know have as much time
i think he anybody on the show because
they would want to show that their
opinion is better than the other side if
they couldn't do it you know why
somebody said i just described fox news
15 to 20 years ago
you know i think you're right about that
all right
apparently spacex fired some employees
who put together a little
letter saying they that elon's elon
musk's behavior in the public sphere is
a frequent source of distraction and
embarrassment for us particularly in
recent weeks
so spacex uh found out who was involved
in fardham allegedly what do you think
of that
do you think the free speech
guy
elon musk
should fire his own employees for his
freedom of speech
in which they said uh they that the boss
is embarrassing them
yes yes he should
yes that's a firing offense
do you know what's a good reason for
firing somebody
they don't want to work there or they're
unhappy
that's a perfectly good reason
now it's also a good reason for changing
something yeah there are two good things
you can do when employees are
disgruntled
you could find out what it is and if
it's valid maybe change it
and if it is something you don't want to
change
well then the
the thing you should do is fire them
if it's a big enough problem
so yeah i think this is
i think he's right to uh i i think any
company in this situation
is perfectly
within the right to fire a disgruntled
employee
and
so cnn is even talking about biden maybe
running for reelection
because they admit he might be the best
they have
because they don't have anybody else who
could beat trump they think
now i think that's wrong i do think that
they have other people who could beat
trump because trump has the risk of
beating himself right and the media
would
media would be on one side as a so
but i think it's interesting that cnn's
opinion of the democrat bench if you
will is so low
that even though they they're also
beating on biden that's having the
lowest approval
so while cnn is saying that biden has
the lowest approval that's the news
people and opinion people an opinion
a piece on their site
is saying that he might be the best they
have the lowest opinion ever of a
president
and they admit he might be the best
candidate
just think about that
how in the world
could democrats win
oh
here's
how do you think there's any way that
democrats can recover from this
uh here's the bad news
they already did
turns out that rasmussen has a new poll
and that they do the hypothetical match
between a hypothetical republican and
hypothetical democrat
in the congressional races
and they say if it's just a republican
or just a democrat and that's all you
know they're just generic who do you
vote for
well there had been a nine point
difference which is huge
in favor of the generic republican
until today
now that those january 6 hearings are
making a dent apparently
now there's a
six point
no a five point lead
so almost cut in half
so the republican advantage going into
the midterms was a nine point lead that
just got cut to five
now what happened
what what's happening in the world that
would cause such a radical change in
this opinion
january 6 coverage
i can't think of anything else i don't
think it's margin of error
i think it's the january 6 coverage
that's not confirmed
but
maybe the supreme court maybe but i
think it's the january 6 coverage
i think it's working
i think it's actually working because
remember the january 6 coverage is
mostly showing violent looking
republicans
it basically is look at these
republicans
i mean that's all people are getting
from the coverage because they don't
follow the details it just looks like
republicans have become a violent
extremist country
if you just dip into the coverage you
just see republicans attacking the
capital that's kind of all you know
so i think the january 6 propaganda is
working really well
and
you know i like to separate what i like
from what is
what is good work
good being subjective i think the
propagandists are doing a great job
on propaganda now i don't like
propaganda
but if you're going to do it
you might as well do it well
and i think they're killing it i think
they're killing it
they've actually cut the their strategy
i i guess credit to uh you know nancy
pelosi or whoever makes up their
strategy
but they came up with a strategy
to come up with this
you know this gigantic hoax that it was
an insurrection
while there were in fact some violent
people who probably wanted exactly that
it wasn't an insurrection
i mean not in general it wasn't an
insurrection
but the hoax
looks like it's working
and speaking of hoaxes
biden just repeated the fine people hoax
which still exists
now here's the test
you've seen me compliment cnn
quite a bit lately because i do think
that their new leader is trying to make
them report straight news
on both sides and they do show signs
that they're taking that seriously
so i'm going to give them like massive
credit
every time they make a step in that
direction and even i would even
encourage you to watch them more
because it's an interesting shift you
can see it in real time happening
but um
but why but do you think that cnn will
report
um
what's happening with the
fine people hoax
this is the ultimate test
if cnn's leader
is going to take seriously
that cnn is going to report straight
news from now on
he has a fresh example
of biden repeating the fine people hoax
i would bet you
that the guy who's in charge of cnn
knows it's a hoax
i'm not positive because i can't know
what he's thinking
but i'll bet he does
i'd say it's a 60 40. i'll bet he does
now if he knows that's a hoax and he
knows the president just repeated it in
public
if he doesn't see his people call it
down as a hoax
will he make them will he say
you're going to have to say that was a
hoax
because we do context now
we're not doing the leave stuff on a
context thing we're going to put the
context in it looks like he's serious
so that's something to watch for today
if you see that
cnn is back
that would be big news
and if i were the head of cnn i would
just break the the
i'll just break the world in half
and just say look
let's let's really make a splash
let's admit that all of our coverage was
fake about this fine people hoax we
don't have to actually go back and do
apologies
but you're going to have to put it in
context going forward and you're going
to have to start today because the
president just repeated it
what would happen to cnn's viewership if
they did that
would they lose viewers because their
own side would say hey what's this
or would they gain viewers because it
would be a national debate about what's
going on over there
i think they could gain
and and i would love to see this i would
love to have us battling it out about
whether cnn has actually
changed the direction of the ship
because again credit where credit is due
i think they're trying
i think they're trying legitimately
trying
and
that could be a great thing for the
world
i mean really a great thing
you know it's funny because there's an
opening for a
major news network who uh reports the
news straight down the middle
if they find themselves you know
that they can do that well
maybe they've got something there all
right
since uh summer has come i've stopped
looking at the oh i've gone extra long
um
so i think i'll go do something else
because you probably need to too
and
may i say
this was the finest live stream
of all time
i think you all enjoyed it a little bit
extra
if you play it at 1.25 or 1.75 speed
my understanding is i'm even better
so make sure you do the recorded one if
you want to do that
and
youtube i'll talk to you tomorrow
