Episode 1994 Scott Adams - Crowder, WEF And More

foreign good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization coffee with Scott Adams there's never been a finer thing and if you'd like to take this up to levels that nobody's ever experienced before unless they've climbed a mountain well doing acid and having sex at the same time or something like that but all we have today is a substitute for all that good stuff and it's called a glass of Tankard shallow Stein a canteen jug of flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day the thing makes everything better it's called the simultaneous Sip and it's happening now go yeah that was a good one looks like everything's uh operating just the way it should today I'm feeling like you're all going to have a good day today is anybody ready for a good day yeah uh Don M asked me what about smoking weed with Scott Adams well sounds like somebody needs to join the locals community where we do visit the man cave in the evenings and the man cave is a very different very different situation but we're going to go private over here on locals there are subscription sites they get the good stuff there you go you're private now all right what's going on uh question number one I saw a user on Twitter Terry Schilling asked this question to his users should men still open doors for women interesting question should men still open doors now let me make a distinction uh the distinction is oh I'm only private on the locals platform so I do some extra content there on uh on You.

Tube it's public this is all public on You.

Tube um so I make a distinction between opening a door where a woman walks up to a door and stands there and waits for you to open the door for him versus you've walked through a door and then you're holding it open for somebody or you just get there first because you're walking first and then you hold it open for could it be a woman but it could be anybody now yeah but now my take on this is if I don't know their pronouns I don't want to take a chance and if you can't identify a Woman by looking at them and I believe that is the standard the standard now is that you can't identify a woman just by looking that would be kind of an assumption now what if you what if you saw somebody coming and you said to yourself oh a woman I think I'll I'll be polite and then what if you're wrong what if it's somebody who identifies as a man but you've misidentified well what a problem social problem for you probably get canceled on social media as well so don't take the chance if you see a woman coming or somebody you identify as a woman but you don't know hold that door closed and and don't let that person even get through that's the only way to play it you gotta let him fight with it a little bit and then you'll you'll all be like equal no not even equal Equitable that would be equitable well that's just a big cluster F so we'll see how that works out um here's a growing positive trend that you wouldn't notice unless you're following certain Twitter accounts but uh Corey De.

Angelis continues to report that you know various state legislatures are improving uh funding for that follows the kid instead of the school so that uh parents could say let's take our kid to another school and then some money would go with them to help pay for that alternate School so free market it's apparently Florida Florida legislatures just introduced a bill to fund students and study systems so a number of states are doing it and the conservative States seem to be passing them it's a big thing it's a big deal and I love the fact that when we talk about the states being the laboratory for the country this is exactly what we're talking about right let a few smart States try something they probably won't execute the same way see if anybody can nail it if anybody Nails it maybe we know in you know five to seven years and then we can start copying it it's pretty good that's a pretty good sign actor Alec Baldwin is going to be prosecuted for two counts we've talked about this way too much but um here's the first thing I'll bet we're going to find out a whole bunch of surprises I think the trial will kick up some things that just seem like surprises and apparently uh at one point early in the process Baldwin had said in an interview that he did not pull the the trigger but the forensic people said yes the trigger was pulled now is that going to be a problem because he said I would never point a gun at a person and pull the trigger even if it was a movie gun he said he would never do that which suggests unfortunately for him it suggests that he was fully aware fully aware of the danger of pointing a gun into somebody and he did pull the trigger according to the forensics people we don't know yeah I suppose it could be like a weird defective gun that pulls its own Trigger or something yeah the trigger pulled itself well so here's my take on it I hate you know the the legal system has to do with the legal system does but I hate that it was a genuine accident and some you know another life and his family will all be scarred by it forever I don't know it just doesn't feel like justice because you can't bring the person back and it would be hard to punish him more than he's already already punished you know psychologically and financially and reputationally and everything else and it's not exactly like there's any message to be sent is there is there anybody in Hollywood who doesn't already know to maybe double check that gun like nobody's going to learn anything if he goes to jail there's no learning that will happen so an histology is going to be like reformed so if he makes another movie he won't make that same mistake again there's just nothing there's just no benefit now if you say that the family of the deceased should sue him and get a bunch of money I think that already happened didn't it and that that feels like the right domain you know maybe there's financial compensation but I don't know jail doesn't make sense now let me make a completely different switch my argument yeah your head's going to spin here he was also the head of the production as the head of the Productions it looks like you really effed up it looks like he he just didn't do you know the job of a boss to make sure the right people who were in place in the right processes that's that's harder to defend right the asking a non-gun owner actor and the you know in the context of fictional movie to do all the right things yeah so that's a big ask by asking a boss to make sure he hired the right people to take care of safety when there were all kinds of safety complaints that one's hard to defend so I think he's in trouble but we're gonna have some surprises I know we'll have some surprises apparently there were more uh live bullets in his gun belt I saw that in a Tim cast tweet all right um apparently we know why the airline failure happened the FAA said some contractor unintentionally deleted some files that some Antiquated system needed to operate and it was hard to recover the files now the obvious is why do we have a system that's that week that's like the weakest system I've ever seen apparently it's really old it's like from the generation of the Walkman I saw somebody in Wall Street Journal say so boy somebody was somebody who was not doing their job there but there's not much to say about that I saw a video at the world economic forum in which FBI director Christopher Ray was talking and uh user Alx on Twitter tweeted this is what Ray actually said now it's a little out of context but my point will be that he shouldn't be there in any capacity so even in context it's all wrong but this is probably a little bit out of context but here's what he says the level of collaboration between the private sector and the government especially the FBI has made significant strides yes it has yes as a matter of fact it has the scariest thing you've ever heard why are we sending a representative of the United States to embarrass us in front of the world what like why is that okay like why does he still have a job like everything about that is just creepy and wrong it was probably out of context and you know I'm sure the context would have you know not not sounded as scary so this is something the Wes does is they do things which certainly sounds scary you know who knows what they actually intend to do so here's what I'm trying to understand about the world economic forum is it a useless Dilbert entity where a bunch of people get together and say a bunch of jargon and have a nice holiday and go home how many people think that's what's happening and that they don't really have any impact on anything like everything would have happened on its own they just talk about it and take credit and Pat each other in the back oh I'm saying yeses and those but I think it's at least partly that wouldn't you agree not no matter what else it is it's partly just a bunch of jargon spewing you know woke signaling people having a nice vacation it would be easy to overestimate how much power they have but it would be easy to underestimate it too because there might be some circles you know some areas where they do influence now I saw on Dr.

Carlson's show the claim that the wef was behind Sri Lanka's uh destroyed economy because Sri Lanka didn't use proper fertilizer because it was sort of you know pooh-pooed by the wef in some way is that true let me say that without even looking into it it doesn't sound true doesn't sound true yeah so let me let me say that uh I'll go look that oh let me do a little research I was going to do that before I get on but I want to comment it before I research before researching it it doesn't sound true it sounds like it's true-ish it has the ring to it of something that's sounds true but if you looked into it there'd be a little something there well let me understand this the WF cannot require anybody to do anything or am I right so they didn't require anybody to do anything and so Sri Lanka was under no more or less requirement than every other country is that is that true or false every country had the same set of standards that were being pushed on them but one of them made a horrible catastrophic decision to I don't know follow some some specific part of it too far why did nobody else do it incentives did the WF offer them incentives all right heavily encouraged did they heavily encourage them to look for substitutes or did they heavily encourage them to farm in a way that would not possibly work because I have trouble believing that the WF said get rid of your fertilizer and don't replace it with anything I don't believe that happened do you believe that happened I don't believe that happened and only one country in all the countries only only little Sri Lanka actually took that advice they're the only ones all right now um am I am I acting too confident for someone who has no information on the topic whatsoever probably and probably but but I but I want you to see um so this is like a little test is a little test I believe that you could usually let's say eighty percent of the time identify without doing any research eighty percent of the time now the twenty percent of the Iran could be a real problem right so I'm not I'm not saying 80 is good but I think about 80 of the time you can tell it's just from the story itself so I'm gonna I'm gonna call on the story with a complete lack of knowledge about the context because I think I have an 80 chance of being right and then a 20 chance of embarrassing myself but I never care about that right so it's just an experiment I don't know what's true I'll just I'll just make it eighty percent bet then tomorrow if I remember we'll check and I'll tell you if there's any context that changes the situation but I don't believe it's true uh but I could brawl let's talk about uh Stephen Crowder versus The Daily wire I knew this story was going to get more interesting didn't you couldn't you kind of smell it like like there was a little story I'll tell I'll give you the starting point but just from the very beginning I thought this is going to go deeper and then it did all right so the story is uh internet uh say conservative Superstar uh Stephen Crowder who has millions of followers on You.

Tube and other places and he was offered a very lucrative contract to work with daily wire and what went wrong was the daily wire made a large offer of 50 million over four years with the option to extend now that 50 million would include his production costs but you know maybe that's 10 or 20 percent of it so it's a big deal a connection problem there and Stephen Crowder went in public but he didn't name the entity he didn't name daily wire initially daily wire outed themselves because I think they assumed people would figure out who they were there are not many entities on the right who could offer a big contract right and he was leaving Blaze the blaze so they're basically were like two entities they could offer him a lot of money and the daily wire was one so people would have figured it out you know I I think that trying to imagine uh yeah I think that trying to imagine that nobody would figure it out was unrealistic in my opinion somebody would have figured it out from the ends but uh Crowder said that the real issue was that the daily wires offer was in let's see if I can I'll try to do my most honest attempt to accurately characterize his his opinion which is always sketchy whenever you're trying to summarize someone else's opinion you almost never get it right because I watch people do it with me and they never get it right so I'm I'm wary that I might be misrepresenting his opinion but you you all many of you have seen it so keep me honest okay so call me out if I'm not representing his side as accurately as possible part of the deal said that if uh Crowder got demonetized by You.

Tube for example or some other platforms that would have a obviously have a big impact on their shared Revenue so the idea was Crowder would make content daily wire would promote it and put it on their platforms Etc and then the two of them would share the combined money but if Crowder did something that would get him uh demonetized or banned on platforms the amount of money the two of them could make could be substantially decreased so so the daily wires first offer and first offer is important first offer is not a final offer his first offer was that there would be a financial offsets for that or penalties you might call it so that they wouldn't have to pay Crowder millions of dollars if he was making no money for them now Crowder interpreted this as effectively a form of censorship because he would be penalized if some other platform that he can't control decided he said something they didn't like so in effect his point which is accurate this is an accurate point is that the daily wires offer would make him still subsidiary to the social media sensors in other words he he would now the daily wire would be an extra force on the side of the the sensors does that capture it that the daily wires offer because it included a penalty for bad behavior you know bad behavior and quotes that that was the same as being on the side of the sensors how many would take that view oh and furthermore furthermore he said very clearly it is not about the money it is not about the money does that capture it and then he backed up is not about the money by saying I never said the 50 million wasn't enough I never even discussed the dollar amount which appear apparently is true so does that does that back his view that it's not about the money because he never discussed the 50 million it's only about them being on the side of the sensors and that he was he was also concerned not so much for himself but he said directly on an audio we heard he said but what about the the smaller person who comes up and can't negotiate with you what about them are they going to get this deal too where basically everybody's just going to be under the heel of the sensors which is exactly what we don't want and then he suggested that they move away from being dependent on Advertising now so would you characterize that as number one not about the money how many would you agree the Crowder's complaint was not about the money you're not quite sure are you well I'm gonna I'm gonna clear it up for you in a minute all right and um all right so let me give you three different takes on this the first take will be people who don't have experience in business second take will be from a lawyer the third take will be from somebody who's very experienced at negotiating contracts very much of this type all right do you think those three views are going to be the same not even close not even close all right so for our first uh stand in for the opinion of someone who I believe and if by the way if I'm mischaracterizing this individual please correct me but uh do you know uh Carolyn borisenko on Twitter uh Dr.

Carolyn besenko now she's a popular Tweeter you've seen a lot of her tweets probably and her take was uh oh first of all you need to know that Stephen Crowder recorded his phone call with the daily wire and then he played it on the air okay we'll talk about that but Dr uh borisenko says Stephen Crowder recorded phone call with the daily wire CEO that absolutely destroys the narrative that they meaning the daily wire have been trying to sell you and so I listened to the audio and I didn't hear that I didn't hear anything like that I didn't hear any narrative get destroyed do you know what I heard I'll tell you in a minute so so somebody who and again if I'm mischaracterizing this you know somebody should correct me because I'll apologize but I don't think that Dr borisenko would characterize herself as an expert in business or negotiating I don't think so now if you're not if you're not really experienced in negotiating would it be reasonable that your take on this is incomplete that there's maybe some blind spots because just a lack of experience in this it's a very unique domain right it's a domain that if you're not quite uh like experienced with there'd be huge things that are not obvious to you it would just be obvious to somebody who does it for a living so that's one take so I'll uh I'll say more about that but the initially I would say uh it looks like she's agreeing that it wasn't about the money and it looks like she's agreeing that it was about the censorship is that a reasonable take for somebody who's not an expert at negotiating contracts is that reasonable from that perspective let's say I think so I I mean it sounds like a smart person because she is smart she's you know she's above average way above average I think way above average in IQ and accomplishment and it's reasonable you know if if that was your frame of reference now let's take another frame of reference uh there's a an attorney maybe you've heard of them Robert Barnes has anybody ever heard of attorney Robert Barnes well he's got to take um in which he said on Twitter Crowder called the Crowder called the Gilded cage of censored speech slavery to Big Tech uh not the dollar offer and he says Crowder was right so from a lawyer's take um he's sort of more of like a technical take on what he said and his technical take is that it was about sensory speech you know slavery the big Tech it was not about the dollar amount of the offer so that's the lawyers take by contacts Robert Barnes is who I call the dumbest attorney in the world but that doesn't mean he's wrong on this just on he's wrong about me but so I I just have a problem with him personally but yeah yeah is that a reasonable opinion do you think that the attorney view because it very much agrees with um Carolyn Dr basenko pretty reasonable yeah I'm going to say that's reasonable based on what he heard all right now I'm going to give you the third view which is someone with extensive business experience in this exact domain and that would be me because not only am I a content provider who has done lots of content providing contracts of all kinds but I also used to be a contract negotiator for a living and you know I've got a degree in economics and the MBA and so I have exactly the qualifications for exactly this topic all right so would somebody who has lots of experience in it have the same view as the attorney and as Dr basenko well here's my take it's always about the money it's always about the money here's why now in order to understand that you would have to have some experience so the the idea was that Crowder would lose money if he got demonetized on the platform but the daily wire quite reasonably quite reasonably the daily wire said well if you make less money shouldn't we pay you less money is that unreasonable he says that if you pay me less money in censorship no it isn't it's less money if he didn't care about the money he wouldn't be complaining about the contract because the contract allows them to say anything he wants wherever he wants what would be the penalty just money the reason he he feels he's trapped in the Gilded cage is that he'll lose money if he says what he wants to say and is judged uh unfit for the platforms so he doesn't want to be under the the Yoke of advertisers we agree with that he should not be under the Yoke of advertisers but what should he have done how should he have handled it if he were an experienced business person operating with full ethics number one you never record somebody's phone call in a negotiation and play it in public if you do no one should ever work with you again no there's no forgiveness there's no second strike there's no second chance for that one right that that is game oh it's so hard not to swear that is game over from an Ethics perspective unless you know if we find out later let me let me soften this a little because there might be something I don't know so you know if in 48 hours we find out that the daily wire knew they were recorded and agreed to it and agreed to have it public that'd be fine but that's not an Evidence at the moment it looks like he recorded them without their knowledge and played it without their knowledge if that's true the daily wire should not be working with him he that would be evidence that he's not not a person you could trust that would be one of the worst things I've ever seen in a business context right no he didn't steal any money but it's as bad as a you know Gary as a Madoff FTX Sam bagman free I mean except for the money amount because it wasn't no money was lost but in terms of uh ethical breaches it's as big as it gets I mean it's literally illegal depending where you are right I think it depends on the state or something but it's literally illegal to record somebody with audio without their permission in my state it is it's different I think different places so that's the first thing you need to know so the daily wire uh has played this so far professionally and I got I got to give them credit for that now here's what Crowders should have done or could have done if he had more experience and wanted to solve this he could have said to them look I totally understand that if we have a deal where we're both doing something to make money and if I do something that makes you not have money that that needs to be dealt with somehow because otherwise why would the daily wire make a deal when they didn't you know without protecting the thing that's their biggest risk here's how they do it it's a very typical contract problem Stephen Crowder could uh counter with this how about we share the subscription Revenue and I just keep the all of the You.

Tube revenue and then it's my problem if they you know I'll say whatever I want and it's just my problem if they demonetize me but we'll have a much smaller dollar amount and we'll just share the subscription money so that the daily wire will never ever be in a position where even accidentally they're on the side of the sensors because that's where the subscription gets you people just pay it no matter what that would be the counteroffer I've made those counter offers before it's very standard business now you might say but why did the daily wire offer that in the first place to which I say that's not the way it works no they make the offer that's good for them the daily wire and they make it close enough to something that's good for the other person that when they negotiate you know they're not too far off and you could go back and forth so Crowder could have easily said how about way less money but I'll have full control to say what I want and if I get demonetized it only affects me now they might not have gone for that offer but that's the offer but in every case it's only about the money it's only about the money because the money is what causes the censorship so to say it's about the censorship is honestly that seems disingenuous like I I don't even know what to think about that Jared says wow Scott you completely Miss Stefan's point um I bet I don't his point is that the daily wire would be colluding in this in the sentence accidentally but colluding with the big tech companies to censor him isn't that the point um right do you I'm just saying it did I really miss the point I don't think I did I think you missed the first part where I described his point in detail so um how do I do a deal like this same way same way so when I do a deal with a publisher do you think the publisher says I'll give you millions of dollars no matter what you do of course not do they say we will give you a contract if you give us a book we can't publish because it's so terrible no in every case people have to perform performing to a contract is the most basic thing any contract does so they just said this is what we expect of you if this thing happens to you it's going to happen to us at the same time you know we're both not going to get that You.

Tube money so let's share the risk if he wanted them to take more of the risk he could have done it you could have just offered something else all right so it's always about the money because the thing he's talking about can be transferred into money every anytime anybody says it's not about the money stop listening to them everything they say after it's not about the money when there's 50 million dollars there it's always about the money always you know the fact that he's talking about it in the public what's that about it's about the money right you know his nose so I'm going to be strongly on the side of the daily wire on this they made a good first offer he didn't counter he could have there are lots of ways to counter he didn't and he recorded them and I would never even I would never even take his phone call would you if Stephen Crowder called you would you even take his call if you know he recorded somebody and then played it I wouldn't even answer the phone I don't know how he could ever go forward and do business with anybody at this point I mean seriously that that is an ethical lapse of just Monumental size in my opinion maybe it's just a pet peeve all right here's something interesting uh on Fox Business on Charlie Payne's show making money um this big master of Finance Jeffrey gun ledge he's the double line CEO so he's one of the you know Masters of the Universe in finance and he he's he's talked about fentanyl and he says that the lack of action to shut down Fentanyl has to be intentional you said that right on you said that right on TV he goes there's no explanation for the lack of action it has to be intentional this is this is I don't know if he's a billionaire he's probably a billionaire this is somebody who's High credibility in the business World who's looked at this and says there's no explanation it has to be intentional that we're letting a hundred thousand people die for what reason we don't know but since you know what the problem is and you know what you would do if you were trying to solve it and we're not doing the things that you do if you're even trying like it would be one thing to try and fail but we're not trying see that part is unexplained failing everybody gets failing that's just you know business as usual but not trying on one of the biggest problems in the country that everyone realizes is the best that has to be corruption it has to be it's the process of elimination if you could give me one other explanation I would take it but it's got to be corruption now it might not be all money corruption it might be somebody doesn't want to you know raise their head and say something that will get them you know fewer voters or something but it's still corrupt because they're not doing the people's work it's just a different kind of corruption all right well it was good to know that somebody smart and prominent has exactly the same opinion the first thing I did was go to his Twitter account and find out if he was following me because I haven't heard anybody else say it have you have you have you heard anybody else say that the lack of action process of elimination it's got to be intentional who has anybody else said that no he doesn't follow he doesn't follow me on Twitter so so what's uh that's even more impressive because it means I'm not the only one noticing but it means that just smart observers are saying the same thing that there's no action and there's no explanation for the direction do you know what was the other time I saw this when Obama reversed his position when he said he wouldn't touch the dispensaries and the weed business in States and then he did exactly the opposite and he said he would go after the dispensaries and he never said why he changed his View never said to which I said if you don't explain why you changed your opinion is corruption is the Assumption it has to be corruption so I assume that that Obama's a criminal based on that yeah just of that alone I I assume he's a criminal um there's a funny story about the Supreme Court leaker remember with a that Roe verse Wade thing that got overturned and Jonathan Turley says that they on Twitter the Supreme Court's report uh indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects so that's people who had access to the document and it is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself uh 80 people and then Joel Pollock writing in Breitbart notes that uh it appears that the Supreme Court did not investigate the Supreme Court Justices themselves no I don't know this for sure yeah unless it was done in secret but there's no mention no mention that the Supreme justices themselves are obvious suspects now here's the funny part well it's funny or tragic you decide so the Supreme Court should be in our system the most credible entity we have because it's sort of our final defense against other entities being corrupt right so so if if your Supreme Court isn't your best people in terms of credibility and honesty you've got a real problem because that's like you know the cap of the whole business right so here's what's hilarious uh oh and also some of the people they talked to admitted they talk to their spouses so some of the 80s said no I didn't leak it to the media but I did tell my spouse so we now have a situation where we can't trust the justices we can't trust at least 80 of their staff and I'm not sure we can trust their spouses so it turns out that the entity that we should trust the most has more suspects to this crime than any group you can imagine like if this happened in you know any retail store that had lots of employees I don't think they would have hundreds of suspects do you have you ever seen any crime in which there were hundreds of suspects of the same entity when a bank when a bank gets robbed it's an Insider job are there hundreds of suspects the the the the fact that everybody is a suspect is to be as hilarious like just everybody they're all they're all untrustworthy see that's why transparency is the the only solution you really can't trust anybody in government you just have to have transparency it's the only way speaking of transparency um Rasmussen is reporting did a very provocative poll and uh reported that 57 percent of likely U.S voters believe Congress should investigate the CDC over their vaccine handling uh but it gets even more interesting 41 don't think it's likely the CDC has provided complete information so 22 percent say it's not likely that they got complete information so unfortunately I fall into the 22 percent because I famously always say 25 or so get every poll wrong in other words they they have the dumb answer for every poll but here I am in the 22 percent I'm in the group that says it's not likely at all that the the CDC provided complete information about vaccine risks do you know why it's not likely they provided complete information yeah because they're not psychic how could they possibly have complete information did the CDC know what was going to happen in five years you know when any potential problems might arise no no all they knew is what the the manufacturers told them basically so how in the world could they have that information they can't tell you it's safe they could just tell you what somebody told them that's all they could do so anybody who thought that they should know it's safe how would they possibly know that that was unknowable all right uh but then I guess more interesting Rasmussen asked people uh how many of them know somebody they think died from vaccines or had vaccine injury it's like 28 percent what 28 percent how about this um 68 of the this is from racism also 68 of the 260 million adults and that would be 177 million adults in the United States so 177 million indicate that receives the covid vaccination and seven percent of those reported major side effects now that would translate to 12 million people with major side effects I guess I would include well I I don't know I guess that doesn't include death because they couldn't have answered the poll but that got picked up in the the other question so how do you interpret this let's say uh and by the way hold hold your analysis for a moment right because I've got some I'll go deeper so suppose uh the I think the polling is probably accurate in the sense that seven percent really did answer that they had in their in their opinion major side effects let's say you knew that was true we don't know that's true but let's say you know it was a fact the seven percent reported major side effects that they associate with the vaccination would you say that is strong evidence there's a problem evidence of nothing or strong evidence that the vaccinations work go a strong evidence the vaccinations are killing people doesn't tell us anything or it's strong evidence that the vaccinations were a good idea on a risk reward basis what's your interpretation a lot of people say nothing interesting well remember you know it's a poll of people's opinions so you know by by definition that's not a science but wouldn't you be worried as the various report had this how is it different than the various report is it less reliable than the Verge report which is where the doctor's input who they think got injury from the vaccinations all right let me give you some context so seven percent report that they believe the vaccination injured it doesn't mean they're right that's just their best view of what it was but in context eighty percent of the United States believes angels are real 80 percent 60 percent believe in ghosts that go surreal 60 percent um six percent of Americans are not don't believe it but they are sensitive to gluten six percent are sensitive to gluten but 25 percent self-diagnosed as sensitive to gluten so only six percent are scientifically sensitive to it but 25 believe they are right um the placebo effect how big is the placebo effect if you if you compare the non-active pill to the real pill in a study the placebo effect is 30 to 60 percent so 30 to 60 percent of people will report that the pill helped them Thirty to sixty percent when it did nothing or maybe it did because their body just reacted to their belief how about how many people believe Elvis is alive four percent four percent of the country thinks Elvis is alive what percent of the country think Bigfoot is real 14 percent um according to an NBC poll this was taken some time ago how many believe Hillary Clinton is honest what percentage of the of the country believes Hillary Clinton is honest 11 11 percent all right so 11 of the country thinks Hillary is honest but only seven percent think they were injured by vaccinations I don't know does that context do anything for you so the context should be how accurate are people's self-reporting anything yeah seven percent actually sounds low to me it says low I would I would have expected more like 20 percent but seven percent is probably exactly the number of people who had a major health problem at around the same time as a vaccination I I don't know about you but at my age I tend to have some major health issue every year do you now when I say major I mean like I had problems with my blood pressure meds and you know at one point my sinuses were bad at one point I had some reaction from some other meds and you know I got I thought my fitness declined quite a bit for a while during the pandemic so I had all these things that I could have said you know I might have said we're due to the uh shot but what if it's something like this it caught my my eye either six percent of the public is sensitive to gluten and almost the same number believe they had vaccine side effects do you think it could be as simple as there's some people who have a specific allergy and and they did have bad outcomes with the vacs yeah I I don't know I don't know if you I don't know if the vaccine is something you can have an allergy to because it has to be alive doesn't have to be alive to give you an allergic reaction technically oh I think it does it doesn't have to be alive to give you I think there's like a technical definition that requires something to be alive but you could have a bad reaction to something that's not alive so it looks the same all right so here's what I'd say I would say this is a super alarming in the same way that the varus reports are but if you take it too much beyond that then you'd be into pretty speculative range all right so I'd be worried about it apparently there's another report on one of the vaccinations giving Strokes to even older people because we know there's some extra risks with the younger people so one of them might actually have some older people risk but they're looking into that drip drip drip so I was listening to a spaces that audio program on Twitter and there was a conversation about the vaccine injury and stuff and Alex Berenson was there and there's they were talking about the fact that there are more vaccinated people being hospitalized and having bad outcomes than unvaccinated and it was an extended conversation and while I was listening to it I didn't hear the whole thing I didn't hear anybody bring up the obvious point that whether the vaccines work or don't work at least the way we currently you know the way the doctors currently say they work which is not spreading not stopping the spread but rather helping you survive whether uh so here's what here's what they were not saying how would you interpret the fact that it's mostly the heavily boosted more boosters you have the more likely you have a bad outcome what's your interpretation of that your interpretation is that the vaccine not only doesn't work it gives you a negative a negative impact right because that's not my interpretation well that seems to be the way everybody else is interpreting it and I'm trying to figure out is it me all right here's my interpretation what group of people are most likely to get boosted the people who spend the most time around people in crowds because they would have the most chance of getting infected and the people were weak and old and have co-morbidities if you took just the group of people who have comorbidities and around lots of people and compared to them you know forget about vaccinations just compare the people who are weak and around a lot of people to the people who are healthy and not around a lot of people would they have the same amount of um outcomes it should be hugely different right the old people are dying like crazy the young people is just a sniffle right now which group is more likely to get the most shots and the most boosters the ones who know they have no real risk to begin with and they're not around people all the time what are the people who are around people and also have the highest risk they should the ones who are around people should be the most vaccinated the ones who are also have comorbidities or they're old so if you took that group and you decreased the risk by half I'm just making up a number if you decrease that the the vulnerable group I have it should still be way higher than the people who never got vaccinated at all even if the vaccination worked great so these numbers tell me the vaccination could be working great if it reduced the risk by half but it's still like you know two or three times more than the healthy people that's exactly what I'd expect so the numbers are exactly what I'd expect if the vaccine did protect people I'm not saying it yet that's not my claim because we don't know right we could be surprised tomorrow you know tomorrow we learn all kinds of new stuff who knows and it hasn't been tested for long enough that you can be sure about anything but here's my problem I don't know if that's a good point and here's a here's what I would need to know when they do these studies of who's hospitalized are they looking at people with the same comorbidities vaccinated versus unvaccinated or are they looking at healthy people who didn't get vaccinated much compared to unhealthy people who are around a lot of people all the time who did get vaccinated because that's probably what it is if all they did is look at the outcomes then they didn't do the study right it's just a dumb study now I always mentioned Andre's back house you know because he's better than I am by a lot in looking at data and figuring out if at least the analysis is correct or they've you know confused correlation and causation and I believe his exact um his exact comment on the of this stuff was lol I don't know exactly what he's thinking but I don't think it was worth more than an LOL because there's no way that they've sorted out causation from correlation I don't think so and and there was nobody on that spaces call who would even bring up the question now again I'm not sure it's the right question because if they really controlled the study somehow and then maybe maybe they controlled for it but I doubt it I don't think they could it's proven to Scott no it's the data might be proven the data might be proven but the interpretation is sketchy now is it cognitive dissonance if I allow that both possibilities are entirely entirely possible cognitive dissonance is almost always when you've made up your mind I'm telling you explicitly both possibilities are alive can you hear that or not Edith Eve is yelling cognitive distance Edith your incognitive dissonance you're experiencing it you're totally you're totally having a hallucination because I'm the one saying either one is possible and the data allows both interpretations you're saying I'm having cognitive dissonance that's cognitive distance you are experiencing it because you have some certainty about something that couldn't be certain no you are no you are you projected person laughs people think they could read my body language and determine that I'm being disingenuous okay all right here's the problem I keep having when I bring up the same point everybody goes quiet what's wrong with you today why does everybody go quiet when I bring up that point every time some people are just triggered into cognitive dissonance but the rest of you are just sort of commenting you know indirectly in general I don't see people saying Scott I agree with your interpretation do you agree with my interpretation or no that my interpretation is well my interpretation is that there are two interpretations and they're both alive at the moment okay so I think that needs to be at least part of every conversation on this or it doesn't feel doesn't feel real all right um that's about all I had in this I'd like to say again even though that I think I believe Alex Berenson is misinterpreting this data but I like to say that uh I think he's a valuable asset to the country because I do like the fact that people were pushing really hard against the safety claims of the vaccines they might you know they may be uh overzealous but you need that like Society really needed you know these people pushing hard who were credible people so I appreciate Alex bernson's service to the country I don't know if he's you know got every question right but that's not how I would judge him I wouldn't judge him by whether he got everything right during a pandemic because nobody did right so so I'm not going to judge anybody for being wrong during a pandemic I told you in the beginning of the pandemic I wasn't going to do it and I'm trying to be consistent foreign all right uh did I miss anything any uh any stories happening that I missed are you going to talk about the Democrats uh being hunted in New Mexico now is that the story about the serial killer who there was a serial killer who hunted down some Democrats I did I did see something like that I I typically don't talk about uh crime stories but if but that's worth mentioning so the Republicans are always talking about I'm always talking about uh Republicans being hunted but there was a case of somebody who looks like they went out and just tried to kill some Democrats and we of course condemn that at the highest possible level but yeah that that's a fair comment and see now that's the kind of criticism that I appreciate because that that was first of all totally fair that there was something that was counter to my narrative that I didn't mention now again the reason is because I don't talk about specific crimes too much that's sort of my thing I don't talk about them but in that case I should have you're right that absolutely should have been mentioned as the the you know counterbalance so good for you I like it when you call me on stuff that's you know as clearly wrong as that was all right uh what did Crenshaw say Crenshaw is supporting military against the cartels well there we go is there anybody who doesn't now I'm going to ask you a question that I know I'm going to get mocked for all right I sometimes think that one of my special uh let's say services that I can do for the Republic are to take something that you can't talk about and normalize it so that it becomes part of the option set because there's some things that people just won't say first because whoever goes first will just get shot down and I'm pretty sure I've been the loudest public voice about a military intervention in Mexico and I said it loudly and clearly I supported it and I will argue it in public I'll argue with anybody who wants and I'll make my case because it has to be part of the option set now I believe that I did enough of it that it demonstrated that people were more open to it than maybe you would have assumed wouldn't you agree there was plenty of pushback on the Practical part of it and there should be like I don't want to I don't want to recommend a war and have nobody in the United States disagree do you want to live in that country no no I always want a healthy disagreement about war like yes no that should be the biggest fight we ever have but it should be a fair fight right we should we should be serious about it about whether we ever use military force but I put that out there and I think after people ask questions about you know how it could work and are you serious and what would it look like largely people I think accepted it as an option would you agree now I'm not you know I suppose maybe somebody else talked about it and I'm not aware of it but um as Lance says you never did that can somebody tell Lance that for a long time I've been saying we should attack the cartels militarily a long time and and I've been saying it publicly on live stream I've said it on Twitter and I think that helps normalize it because remember what happened when uh who was it who talked about uh Trump brought it up once privately and one of his staffers basically just shot him down like like it's not even something you can talk about and that's what I wanted to change I wanted to make sure that Trump could say that in public which he did he put in a video saying it directly because I think he saw that the the room had been softened enough that you could say it and you could defend it so anyway I normalized more war well war is normalized isn't it do you think I did that pretty sure that was normalized a long time ago we haven't been out of a war since I can remember yeah I would love whoever said that was crazy to say that to me do you think they would say so I mean I would I would just eviscerate anybody who said that it just would be it would be just destruction on camera all right oh he also implied to many rallies earlier too yeah but I think the direct the direct statement that special forces will go in and obliterate the the cartels operation that was the part that he he says directly Trump does and it's the reason that I'm going to back him because I'm a single issue voter I'm a single issue voter on fentanyl so whatever Trump does that you don't like not my problem yeah he can defend that as himself all right would politician families be targeted by the cartels if we bomb them probably the Virginia Merit scholar story oh yeah yeah is the story that in Virginia um some students were not informed that they'd won the National Merit Scholarship they were not informed in time to put it on the resume which would have helped them get into a better College they were told after but only the white ones so somebody held back the white people now if that's true that's a horrible crime like this isn't one that was was it all agents yeah maybe it was just basically anti-asian and anti-white mostly Asians all right well so what whatever whatever group was uh held back there that is huge that when I heard that story like I almost couldn't believe it like we did get to the point where that would be done intentionally yeah that's somebody should go to jail for that don't you think I would think that's I don't know if it's a crime but it ought to me 13 schools God that's just amazing yes for over a year oh my God yeah uh life after death life after death would just be the end of the simulation for you but it might mean that you're you know I also think we might be inhabited by another species who just uses this when we're awake so they would it would just be like a video game where you turn off the video game that's all it would be yeah they should lose something for doing that all right is there any other story I missed I think I'm all good uh uh all right it would be the only fish on the other hand when you asked it about marriage it was clearly they can't do complex math analysis how would you be judging when to trust it and when oh so chat GPT this is a good question you know when would you trust that to do searches well it's not connected to the internet so right now all it is using basically everything it knows about language to create intelligence as soon as it's connected to the internet then we'll be able to check its answers against the manual search and then you'll either be comfortable with it or not but I think it'll take a while to evolve to where it's better um all right just looking at your classified documents oh what do you think of Trump's claim that he kept hundreds of classified documented folders empty folders because they were cool souvenirs believe it or not do you think you would keep them as cool souvenirs I thought of one situation in which he might right my first reaction was that doesn't sound like a good explanation who would keep empty folders and I thought to myself imagine if he wanted to create a piece of art in which the wall was just all the empty classified folders and I think maybe some of them had different fronts so imagine a display of empty folders it's just you know the flat folders on a wall and you would know what was in those folders they wouldn't be in there but but you know somehow like this one was about North Korea and this one was about nuclear weapons and stuff because it would be like a like a visual representation of Trump's job in office his job in office was hey look at this secret file and let's make some decisions and then that would be like the tapestry of his of his uh term and there wouldn't be any details it'd just be a visual representation of how many Secrets a president has to do now if he had said that I don't think anybody would believe it but when I thought about it I thought you know that would actually be a really cool display wouldn't it be like you know a wall of just of just the folders the empty folders it would be kind of cool I I would stop and look at it and I would also think oh those folders every one of those folders was touched by the president of the United States and had a state secret in it which would be kind of cool I have a request for a parting sip for the You.

Tube people and I think I will comply here's your parting sip for this great live stream I'm going to talk to the locals people after join me now in the party except ah hi You.

Tube thanks for joining I'll see you tomorrow

foreign

good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of civilization coffee

with Scott Adams there's never been a

finer thing and if you'd like to take

this up to levels that nobody's ever

experienced before unless they've

climbed a mountain well doing acid

and having sex at the same time or

something like that but all we have

today is a substitute for all that good

stuff and it's called

a glass of Tankard shallow Stein a

canteen jug of flask a vessel of any

kind fill it with your favorite liquid

I like coffee and join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine

the other day the thing makes everything

better it's called the simultaneous Sip

and it's happening now go

yeah that was a good one

looks like everything's uh operating

just the way it should today I'm feeling

like you're all going to have a good day

today

is anybody ready for a good day

yeah

uh Don M asked me what about smoking

weed with Scott Adams

well sounds like somebody needs to join

the locals community

where we do visit the man cave

in the evenings

and the man cave is a very different

very different situation

but we're going to go private over here

on locals

there are subscription sites they get

the good stuff

there you go you're private now

all right

what's going on uh question number one

I saw a user on Twitter Terry Schilling

asked this question to his users

should men still open doors for women

interesting question

should men still open doors now let me

make a distinction

uh the distinction is oh I'm only

private on the locals platform

so I do some extra content there on uh

on YouTube it's public this is all

public on YouTube

um

so I make a distinction between opening

a door

where a woman walks up to a door and

stands there and waits for you to open

the door for him

versus you've walked through a door and

then you're holding it open for somebody

or

you just get there first

because you're walking first and then

you hold it open for could it be a woman

but it could be anybody

now yeah

but now my take on this is if I don't

know their pronouns I don't want to take

a chance

and if you can't identify a Woman by

looking at them and I believe that is

the standard the standard now is that

you can't identify a woman just by

looking that would be kind of an

assumption

now what if you what if you saw somebody

coming

and you said to yourself oh

a woman I think I'll I'll be polite and

then what if you're wrong

what if it's somebody who identifies as

a man but you've misidentified well

what a problem

social problem for you

probably get canceled on social media as

well so don't take the chance

if you see a woman coming

or somebody you identify as a woman but

you don't know

hold that door closed and and don't let

that person even get through

that's the only way to play it you gotta

let him fight with it a little bit and

then you'll you'll all be like equal no

not even equal

Equitable that would be equitable

well that's just a big cluster F so

we'll see how that works out

um here's a growing positive trend

that you wouldn't notice unless you're

following certain Twitter accounts but

uh Corey DeAngelis continues to report

that you know various state legislatures

are improving uh funding for that

follows the kid instead of the school

so that uh parents could say let's take

our kid to another school and then some

money would go with them to help pay for

that alternate School

so free market

it's apparently Florida Florida

legislatures just introduced a bill to

fund students and study systems so a

number of states are doing it and the

conservative States seem to be passing

them

it's a big thing it's a big deal and

I love the fact

that when we talk about the states being

the laboratory for the country this is

exactly what we're talking about right

let a few smart States try something

they probably won't execute the same way

see if anybody can nail it if anybody

Nails it

maybe we know in you know five to seven

years and then we can start copying it

it's pretty good that's a pretty good

sign

actor Alec Baldwin is going to be

prosecuted for two counts

we've talked about this way too much but

um here's the first thing I'll bet we're

going to find out a whole bunch of

surprises

I think the trial will kick up some

things that just seem like surprises

and apparently uh

at one point early in the process

Baldwin had said in an interview

that he did not pull the the trigger but

the forensic people said yes the trigger

was pulled

now is that going to be a problem

because he said I would never point

a gun at a person and pull the trigger

even if it was a movie gun he said he

would never do that which suggests

unfortunately for him it suggests that

he was fully aware

fully aware of the danger of pointing a

gun into somebody

and he did pull the trigger according to

the forensics people we don't know

yeah I suppose it could be like a weird

defective gun that pulls its own Trigger

or something yeah the trigger pulled

itself

well

so here's my take on it I hate

you know the the legal system has to do

with the legal system does but

I hate

that it was a genuine accident

and some you know another life and his

family will all be scarred by it forever

I don't know it just doesn't feel like

justice because you can't bring the

person back

and it would be hard to punish him more

than he's already already punished you

know psychologically and financially and

reputationally and everything else

and it's not exactly like there's any

message to be sent is there

is there anybody in Hollywood who

doesn't already know to maybe double

check that gun like nobody's going to

learn anything if he goes to jail

there's no learning that will happen

so an histology is going to be like

reformed so if he makes another movie he

won't make that same mistake again

there's just nothing there's just no

benefit

now if you say that the family of the

deceased

should sue him and get a bunch of money

I think that already happened didn't it

and that that feels like the right

domain you know maybe there's financial

compensation

but I don't know jail doesn't make sense

now

let me make a completely different

switch my argument

yeah your head's going to spin here he

was also the head of the production

as the head of the Productions it looks

like you really effed up it looks like

he he just didn't do

you know the job of a boss to make sure

the right people who were in place in

the right processes that's that's harder

to defend

right the asking a non-gun owner actor

and the you know in the context of

fictional movie to do all the right

things yeah so that's a big ask

by asking a boss to make sure he hired

the right people to take care of safety

when there were all kinds of safety

complaints

that one's hard to defend

so I think he's in trouble but we're

gonna have some surprises

I know we'll have some surprises

apparently there were more uh live

bullets in his gun belt I saw that in a

Tim cast tweet all right

um

apparently we know why the airline

failure happened the FAA said some

contractor unintentionally

deleted some files

that some Antiquated system needed to

operate and it was hard to recover the

files

now

the obvious is why do we have a system

that's that week

that's like the weakest system I've ever

seen apparently it's really old it's

like from the generation of the Walkman

I saw somebody in Wall Street Journal

say

so

boy somebody was somebody who was not

doing their job there but there's not

much to say about that

I saw a video at the world economic

forum

in which FBI director Christopher Ray

was talking

and uh user Alx on Twitter tweeted this

is what Ray actually said

now it's a little out of context

but my point will be that he shouldn't

be there

in any capacity so even in context it's

all wrong but this is probably a little

bit out of context but here's what he

says

the level of collaboration between the

private sector and the government

especially the FBI has made significant

strides

yes it has

yes as a matter of fact it has

the scariest thing you've ever heard

why are we sending a representative of

the United States

to embarrass us in front of the world

what like why is that okay

like why does he still have a job

like everything about that is just

creepy and wrong

it was probably out of context and you

know I'm sure the context would have you

know not not sounded as scary so this is

something the Wes does is they do things

which

certainly sounds scary

you know who knows what they actually

intend to do

so

here's what I'm trying to understand

about the world economic forum

is it

a useless Dilbert entity where a bunch

of people get together and say a bunch

of jargon and have a nice holiday and go

home

how many people think that's what's

happening and that they don't really

have any impact on anything like

everything would have happened on its

own they just talk about it and take

credit and Pat each other in the back

oh I'm saying yeses and those but

I think it's at least partly that

wouldn't you agree

not no matter what else it is it's

partly just a bunch of

jargon spewing

you know

woke signaling people having a nice

vacation

it would be easy to overestimate how

much power they have but it would be

easy to underestimate it too because

there might be some circles you know

some areas where they do influence now I

saw on Dr Carlson's show the claim

that the wef was behind

Sri Lanka's uh destroyed economy

because Sri Lanka didn't use proper

fertilizer

because it was sort of you know

pooh-pooed by the wef in some way

is that true

let me say that without even looking

into it it doesn't sound true

doesn't sound true

yeah

so let me let me say that

uh I'll go look that oh let me do a

little research I was going to do that

before I get on but I want to comment it

before I research

before researching it it doesn't sound

true

it sounds like it's true-ish

it has the ring to it of something

that's sounds true but if you looked

into it there'd be a little something

there

well let me understand this the WF

cannot require anybody to do anything or

am I right

so they didn't require anybody to do

anything

and so Sri Lanka was under no more or

less requirement than every other

country is that is that true or false

every country had the same set of

standards that were being pushed on them

but one of them made a horrible

catastrophic decision

to I don't know follow some

some specific part of it too far

why did nobody else do it

incentives did the WF offer them

incentives

all right

heavily encouraged

did they heavily encourage them to look

for substitutes or did they heavily

encourage them to farm in a way that

would

not possibly work

because I have trouble believing that

the WF said get rid of your fertilizer

and don't replace it with anything

I don't believe that happened

do you believe that happened

I don't believe that happened and only

one country in all the countries only

only little Sri Lanka actually took that

advice

they're the only ones

all right now

um

am I am I acting too confident for

someone who has no information on the

topic whatsoever

probably

and probably

but but I but I want you to see

um so this is like a little test

is a little test I believe that you

could usually let's say eighty percent

of the time identify without

doing any research eighty percent of the

time now the twenty percent of the Iran

could be a real problem right so I'm not

I'm not saying 80 is good

but I think about 80 of the time you can

tell it's just

from the story itself

so I'm gonna I'm gonna call on

the story

with

a complete lack of knowledge about the

context

because I think I have an 80 chance of

being right

and then a 20 chance of embarrassing

myself but I never care about that right

so it's just an experiment I don't know

what's true I'll just I'll just make it

eighty percent bet then tomorrow if I

remember

we'll check and I'll tell you if there's

any context that changes the situation

but I don't believe it's true

uh but I could brawl

let's talk about uh Stephen Crowder

versus The Daily wire

I knew this story was going to get more

interesting

didn't you

couldn't you kind of smell it

like like there was a little story I'll

tell I'll give you the starting point

but just from the very beginning I

thought this is going to go deeper and

then it did

all right so the story is uh internet uh

say conservative Superstar

uh Stephen Crowder who has millions of

followers on YouTube and other places

and he was offered a very lucrative

contract to work with daily wire

and

what went wrong was the daily wire made

a large offer of 50 million over four

years with the option to extend

now that 50 million would include his

production costs but you know maybe

that's 10 or 20 percent of it

so it's a big deal

a connection problem there and Stephen

Crowder went in public but he didn't

name the entity he didn't name daily

wire initially

daily wire outed themselves because I

think they assumed people would figure

out who they were there are not many

entities on the right who could offer a

big contract right and he was leaving

Blaze the blaze so they're basically

were like

two entities they could offer him a lot

of money

and the daily wire was one

so people would have figured it out you

know I I think that trying to imagine

uh yeah I think that trying to imagine

that nobody would figure it out was

unrealistic in my opinion somebody would

have figured it out from the ends

but

uh Crowder said that the real issue was

that the daily wires offer was in let's

see if I can I'll try to do my most

honest attempt to accurately

characterize his his opinion which is

always sketchy whenever you're trying to

summarize someone else's opinion you

almost never get it right because I

watch people do it with me and they

never get it right

so I'm I'm wary that I might be

misrepresenting his opinion but you you

all many of you have seen it so keep me

honest okay so call me out if I'm not

representing his side as accurately as

possible

part of the deal said that if uh Crowder

got demonetized by YouTube for example

or some other platforms that would have

a obviously have a big impact on their

shared Revenue so the idea was Crowder

would make content daily wire would

promote it and put it on their platforms

Etc

and then the two of them would share the

combined money

but if Crowder did something that would

get him uh demonetized or banned on

platforms the amount of money the two of

them could make could be substantially

decreased

so so the daily wires first offer and

first offer is important first offer is

not a final offer his first offer was

that there would be a financial offsets

for that or penalties you might call it

so that they wouldn't have to pay

Crowder

millions of dollars if he was making no

money for them

now

Crowder interpreted this as

effectively a form of censorship because

he would be penalized

if some other platform that he can't

control

decided he said something they didn't

like

so in effect his point which is accurate

this is an accurate point is that the

daily wires offer would make him still

subsidiary to the social media sensors

in other words he he would now the daily

wire

would be an extra force on the side of

the the sensors

does that capture it that the daily

wires offer because it included a

penalty for bad behavior you know bad

behavior and quotes that that was the

same as being on the side of the sensors

how many would take that view oh and

furthermore furthermore he said very

clearly it is not about the money

it is not about the money

does that capture it

and then he backed up is not about the

money

by saying I never said the 50 million

wasn't enough I never even discussed the

dollar amount

which appear apparently is true

so does that

does that back his view that it's not

about the money

because he never discussed the 50

million it's only about them being on

the side of the sensors and that he was

he was also concerned not so much for

himself but he said directly on an audio

we heard he said but what about the the

smaller person who comes up and can't

negotiate with you what about them are

they going to get this deal too where

basically everybody's just going to be

under the heel of the sensors which is

exactly what we don't want and then he

suggested that they move away

from being dependent on Advertising

now so would you characterize that as

number one not about the money

how many would you agree

the Crowder's complaint was not about

the money

you're not quite sure are you well I'm

gonna I'm gonna clear it up for you in a

minute all right and

um

all right so let me give you three

different takes on this

the first take will be people who don't

have experience in business

second take will be from a lawyer

the third take will be from somebody

who's very experienced at negotiating

contracts very much of this type

all right do you think those three views

are going to be the same

not even close

not even close all right so for our

first uh stand in for the opinion of

someone who I believe

and if by the way if I'm

mischaracterizing this individual please

correct me

but uh do you know uh Carolyn borisenko

on Twitter uh Dr Carolyn besenko now

she's a popular Tweeter you've seen a

lot of her tweets probably and

her take was uh oh first of all you need

to know that Stephen Crowder recorded

his phone call with the daily wire

and then he played it on the air

okay we'll talk about that

but Dr uh borisenko says Stephen Crowder

recorded phone call with the daily wire

CEO that absolutely destroys the

narrative that they meaning the daily

wire have been trying to sell you

and so I listened to the audio

and I didn't hear that

I didn't hear anything like that I

didn't hear any narrative get destroyed

do you know what I heard

I'll tell you in a minute

so

so somebody who and again if I'm

mischaracterizing this

you know somebody should correct me

because I'll apologize but I don't think

that Dr borisenko would characterize

herself

as an expert in business or negotiating

I don't think so now if you're not if

you're not really experienced in

negotiating

would it be reasonable that your take on

this is incomplete

that there's maybe some blind spots

because just a lack of experience in

this it's a very unique domain right

it's a domain that if you're not

quite uh like experienced with there'd

be huge things that are not obvious to

you it would just be obvious to somebody

who does it for a living

so that's one take so I'll uh I'll say

more about that but the initially I

would say uh it looks like she's

agreeing that it wasn't about the money

and it looks like she's agreeing that it

was about the censorship

is that a reasonable take for somebody

who's not an expert at negotiating

contracts

is that reasonable from that perspective

let's say

I think so

I I mean it sounds like a smart person

because she is smart

she's you know she's above average way

above average I think way above average

in IQ and accomplishment

and it's reasonable you know if if that

was your frame of reference

now let's take another frame of

reference

uh there's a an attorney maybe you've

heard of them Robert Barnes has anybody

ever heard of attorney Robert Barnes

well he's got to take

um in which he said on Twitter Crowder

called the Crowder called the Gilded

cage of censored speech slavery to Big

Tech

uh not the dollar offer and he says

Crowder was right

so from a lawyer's take

um

he's sort of more of like a technical

take on what he said

and his technical take is that it was

about sensory speech you know slavery

the big Tech it was not about the dollar

amount of the offer

so that's the lawyers take

by contacts Robert Barnes is who I call

the dumbest attorney in the world

but that doesn't mean he's wrong on this

just on he's wrong about me but so I I

just have a problem with him personally

but

yeah yeah is that a reasonable opinion

do you think that the attorney view

because it very much agrees with

um

Carolyn Dr basenko

pretty reasonable yeah I'm going to say

that's reasonable based on what he heard

all right now I'm going to give you the

third view which is someone with

extensive business experience in this

exact domain

and that would be me

because not only am I a content provider

who has done lots of content providing

contracts of all kinds

but I also used to be a contract

negotiator for a living

and you know I've got a degree in

economics and the MBA and so I have

exactly the qualifications for exactly

this topic all right so would somebody

who has lots of experience in it

have the same view as the attorney

and

as Dr basenko well here's my take

it's always about the money

it's always about the money

here's why

now in order to understand that you

would have to have some experience

so the the idea was that Crowder would

lose money if he got demonetized on the

platform

but the daily wire quite reasonably

quite reasonably the daily wire said

well if you make less money

shouldn't we pay you less money

is that unreasonable

he says that if you pay me less money in

censorship no it isn't it's less money

if he didn't care about the money he

wouldn't be complaining about the

contract

because the contract allows them to say

anything he wants wherever he wants

what would be the penalty

just money the reason he he feels he's

trapped in the Gilded cage is that he'll

lose money

if he says what he wants to say and is

judged uh unfit for the platforms

so he doesn't want to be under the the

Yoke of advertisers

we agree with that he should not be

under the Yoke of advertisers but what

should he have done

how should he have handled it if he were

an experienced business person

operating with full ethics number one

you never record somebody's phone call

in a negotiation and play it in public

if you do no one should ever work with

you again

no there's no forgiveness there's no

second strike

there's no second chance for that one

right that that is game

oh it's so hard not to swear

that is game over

from an Ethics perspective unless you

know if we find out later let me let me

soften this a little because there might

be something I don't know

so you know if in 48 hours we find out

that the daily wire knew they were

recorded and agreed to it and agreed to

have it public

that'd be fine

but that's not an Evidence at the moment

it looks like he recorded them without

their knowledge and played it without

their knowledge if that's true the daily

wire should not be working with him he

that would be evidence that he's not not

a person you could trust that would be

one of the worst things I've ever seen

in a business context

right no he didn't steal any money

but it's as bad as a you know Gary as a

Madoff

FTX Sam bagman free I mean except for

the money amount because it wasn't no

money was lost but in terms of

uh

ethical breaches it's as big as it gets

I mean it's literally illegal depending

where you are right I think it depends

on the state or something but it's

literally illegal to record somebody

with audio without their permission in

my state it is it's different I think

different places

so that's the first thing you need to

know so the daily wire uh has played

this so far

professionally and I got I got to give

them credit for that now here's what

Crowders should have done or could have

done if he had more experience

and wanted to solve this

he could have said to them look I

totally understand

that if we have a deal where we're both

doing something to make money and if I

do something that makes you not have

money that that needs to be dealt with

somehow because otherwise why would the

daily wire make a deal when they didn't

you know without protecting the thing

that's their biggest risk

here's how they do it it's a very

typical contract problem

Stephen Crowder could uh counter with

this how about

we share the subscription Revenue

and I just keep the all of the YouTube

revenue and then it's my problem if they

you know I'll say whatever I want and

it's just my problem if they demonetize

me but we'll have a much smaller dollar

amount and we'll just share the

subscription money so that the daily

wire will never ever be in a position

where even accidentally they're on the

side of the sensors

because that's where the subscription

gets you people just pay it no matter

what

that would be the counteroffer I've made

those counter offers before it's very

standard business now you might say but

why did the daily wire offer that in the

first place

to which I say that's not the way it

works no they make the offer that's good

for them the daily wire

and they make it close enough to

something that's good for the other

person that when they negotiate you know

they're not too far off and you could go

back and forth so Crowder could have

easily said how about way less money

but I'll have full control to say what I

want and if I get demonetized it only

affects me

now they might not have gone for that

offer

but that's the offer

but in every case it's only about the

money

it's only about the money

because the money is what causes the

censorship

so to say it's about the censorship is

honestly that seems disingenuous like I

I don't even know what to think about

that

Jared says wow Scott you completely Miss

Stefan's point

um I bet I don't

his point is that the daily wire would

be

colluding in this in the sentence

accidentally but colluding with the big

tech companies to censor him isn't that

the point

um

right do you I'm just saying it did I

really miss the point I don't think I

did

I think you missed the first part where

I described his point in detail

so

um

how do I do a deal like this

same way

same way

so when I do a deal with a publisher

do you think the publisher says I'll

give you millions of dollars no matter

what you do

of course not

do they say we will give you a contract

if you give us a book we can't publish

because it's so terrible

no in every case people have to perform

performing to a contract is the most

basic thing any contract does so they

just said this is what we expect of you

if this thing happens to you it's going

to happen to us at the same time you

know we're both not going to get that

YouTube money so let's share the risk if

he wanted them to take more of the risk

he could have done it you could have

just offered

something else

all right

so it's always about the money because

the thing he's talking about can be

transferred into money every anytime

anybody says it's not about the money

stop listening to them everything they

say after it's not about the money when

there's 50 million dollars there it's

always about the money

always

you know the fact that he's talking

about it in the public what's that about

it's about the money

right

you know his nose

so I'm going to be strongly on the side

of the daily wire on this they made a

good first offer he didn't counter he

could have there are lots of ways to

counter he didn't

and he recorded them and I would never

even I would never even take his phone

call would you

if Stephen Crowder called you

would you even take his call

if you know he recorded somebody and

then played it I wouldn't even answer

the phone

I don't know how he could ever go

forward and do business with anybody at

this point I mean seriously that that is

an ethical lapse of just Monumental size

in my opinion maybe it's just a pet

peeve

all right here's something interesting

uh on Fox Business on Charlie Payne's

show making money

um this big master of Finance Jeffrey

gun ledge he's the double line CEO

so he's one of the you know Masters of

the Universe in finance and he he's he's

talked about fentanyl

and he says that the lack of action to

shut down Fentanyl

has to be intentional

you said that right on you said that

right on TV

he goes there's no explanation for the

lack of action it has to be intentional

this is this is I don't know if he's a

billionaire he's probably a billionaire

this is somebody who's High credibility

in the business World who's looked at

this and says there's no explanation it

has to be intentional that we're letting

a hundred thousand people die

for what reason we don't know but since

you know what the problem is and you

know what you would do if you were

trying to solve it and we're not doing

the things that you do if you're even

trying

like it would be one thing to try and

fail

but we're not trying

see that part is unexplained

failing everybody gets failing that's

just you know business as usual but not

trying

on one of the biggest problems in the

country that everyone realizes is the

best

that has to be corruption

it has to be it's the process of

elimination

if you could give me one other

explanation I would take it

but it's got to be corruption now it

might not be all money corruption it

might be somebody doesn't want to you

know raise their head and say something

that will get them you know fewer voters

or something but it's still corrupt

because they're not doing the people's

work it's just a different kind of

corruption

all right well it was good to know that

somebody smart and prominent has exactly

the same opinion the first thing I did

was go to his Twitter account and find

out if he was following me

because I haven't heard anybody else say

it have you

have you have you heard anybody else say

that the lack of action

process of elimination it's got to be

intentional

who has anybody else said that

no he doesn't follow he doesn't follow

me on Twitter

so so what's uh that's even more

impressive because it means I'm not the

only one noticing but it means that just

smart observers are saying the same

thing that there's no action and there's

no explanation for the direction do you

know what was the other

time I saw this when Obama reversed his

position when he said he wouldn't touch

the dispensaries and the weed business

in States and then he did exactly the

opposite and he said he would go after

the dispensaries

and he never said why he changed his

View

never said

to which I said if you don't explain why

you changed your opinion is corruption

is the Assumption it has to be

corruption so I assume that that

Obama's a criminal

based on that

yeah

just of that alone I I assume he's a

criminal

um there's a funny story about the

Supreme Court leaker remember with a

that Roe verse Wade thing that got

overturned and Jonathan Turley says that

they on Twitter the Supreme Court's

report uh indicates that they cannot

isolate the culprit

among the over 80 possible suspects so

that's people who had access to the

document and it is an admission that is

almost as chilling as the leak itself

uh 80 people

and then Joel Pollock writing in

Breitbart notes that

uh it appears that the Supreme Court did

not investigate the Supreme Court

Justices themselves

[Laughter]

no I don't know this for sure yeah

unless it was done in secret but there's

no mention no mention

that the Supreme justices themselves are

obvious suspects

now here's the funny part

well it's funny or tragic you decide so

the Supreme Court should be in our

system

the most credible entity we have because

it's sort of our final defense against

other entities being corrupt right so so

if if your Supreme Court isn't your best

people in terms of credibility and

honesty you've got a real problem

because that's like you know the cap of

the whole business right

so

here's what's hilarious

uh oh and also some of the people they

talked to admitted they talk to their

spouses

so some of the 80s said no I didn't leak

it to the media but I did tell my spouse

so we now have a situation

where we can't trust the justices

we can't trust at least 80 of their

staff

and I'm not sure we can trust their

spouses

so it turns out that the entity that we

should trust the most

has more suspects to this crime than any

group you can imagine

like if this happened in you know any

retail store that had lots of employees

I don't think they would have hundreds

of suspects do you

have you ever seen any crime

in which there were hundreds of suspects

of the same entity

when a bank when a bank gets robbed it's

an Insider job are there hundreds of

suspects

the the the the fact that everybody is a

suspect is to be as hilarious like just

everybody they're all they're all

untrustworthy

see that's why transparency is the the

only solution you really can't trust

anybody in government

you just have to have transparency it's

the only way

speaking of transparency

um

Rasmussen is reporting did a very

provocative poll

and uh reported that 57 percent of

likely U.S voters

believe Congress should investigate the

CDC

over their vaccine handling

uh but it gets even more interesting

41 don't think it's likely the CDC has

provided complete information

so 22 percent say it's not likely that

they got complete information so

unfortunately I fall into the 22 percent

because I famously always say 25 or so

get every poll wrong in other words they

they have the dumb answer for every poll

but here I am in the 22 percent

I'm in the group that says it's not

likely at all that the the CDC provided

complete information about vaccine risks

do you know why it's not likely they

provided complete information

yeah

because they're not psychic how could

they possibly have complete information

did the CDC know what was going to

happen in five years

you know when any potential problems

might arise no no all they knew is what

the

the manufacturers told them basically

so how in the world could they have that

information they can't tell you it's

safe they could just tell you what

somebody told them that's all they could

do

so anybody who thought that they should

know it's safe how would they possibly

know that that was unknowable

all right uh but then I guess more

interesting

Rasmussen asked people uh how many of

them know somebody they think died from

vaccines or had vaccine injury it's like

28 percent

what

28 percent

how about this

um 68 of the this is from racism also 68

of the 260 million adults

and that would be 177 million adults in

the United States so 177 million

indicate that receives the covid

vaccination and seven percent of those

reported major side effects

now that would translate to 12 million

people

with major side effects

I guess I would include well I I don't

know I guess that doesn't include death

because they couldn't have answered the

poll

but that got picked up in the the other

question

so how do you interpret this let's say

uh and by the way hold hold your

analysis for a moment

right because I've got some I'll go

deeper

so

suppose uh the I think the polling is

probably accurate in the sense that

seven percent really did answer that

they had in their in their opinion major

side effects

let's say you knew that was true we

don't know that's true but let's say you

know it was a fact the seven percent

reported major side effects that they

associate with the vaccination

would you say that is strong evidence

there's a problem

evidence of nothing

or strong evidence that the vaccinations

work

go

a strong evidence the vaccinations are

killing people

doesn't tell us anything

or it's strong evidence that the

vaccinations were a good idea on a risk

reward basis

what's your interpretation

a lot of people say nothing

interesting well remember you know it's

a poll of people's opinions

so you know by by definition that's not

a science but

wouldn't you be worried as the various

report had this how is it different than

the various report

is it less reliable than the Verge

report

which is where the doctor's input who

they think got injury

from the vaccinations

all right let me give you some context

so seven percent report that they

believe the vaccination injured it

doesn't mean they're right that's just

their best view of what it was

but in context eighty percent of the

United States believes angels are real

80 percent

60 percent believe in ghosts that go

surreal

60 percent

um six percent of Americans are not

don't believe it but they are sensitive

to gluten

six percent are sensitive to gluten

but 25 percent

self-diagnosed as sensitive to gluten

so only six percent are scientifically

sensitive to it but 25 believe they are

right

um

the placebo effect how big is the

placebo effect if you if you compare the

non-active pill to the real pill in a

study

the placebo effect is 30 to 60 percent

so 30 to 60 percent of people

will report that the pill helped them

Thirty to sixty percent

when it did nothing

or maybe it did because their body just

reacted to their belief

how about how many people believe Elvis

is alive

four percent four percent of the country

thinks Elvis is alive

what percent of the country think

Bigfoot is real

14 percent

um according to an NBC poll this was

taken some time ago how many believe

Hillary Clinton is honest

what percentage of the of the country

believes Hillary Clinton is honest 11 11

percent

all right

so 11 of the country thinks Hillary is

honest but only seven percent think they

were injured by vaccinations

I don't know does that context do

anything for you

so the context should be how accurate

are people's self-reporting

anything

yeah seven percent actually sounds low

to me

it says low

I would I would have expected more like

20 percent

but seven percent is probably exactly

the number of people who had a major

health problem at around the same time

as a vaccination

I I don't know about you but at my age I

tend to have some major health issue

every year

do you

now when I say major I mean like I had

problems with my blood pressure meds and

you know at one point my sinuses were

bad at one point I had some reaction

from some other meds and you know I got

I thought my fitness declined quite a

bit for a while during the pandemic so I

had all these things that

I could have said you know I might have

said we're due to the uh shot but what

if it's something like this it caught my

my eye either six percent of the public

is sensitive to gluten and almost the

same number believe they had vaccine

side effects

do you think it could be as simple as

there's some people who have a specific

allergy and and they did have bad

outcomes with the vacs

yeah I I don't know I don't know if you

I don't know if the vaccine is something

you can have an allergy to because it

has to be alive doesn't have to be alive

to give you an allergic reaction

technically

oh I think it does

it doesn't have to be alive to give you

I think there's like a technical

definition that requires something to be

alive but you could have a bad reaction

to something that's not alive

so it looks the same

all right so here's what I'd say I would

say this is a super alarming in the same

way that the varus reports are

but if you take it too much beyond that

then you'd be into pretty speculative

range

all right

so I'd be worried about it apparently

there's another report on one of the

vaccinations

giving Strokes to even older people

because we know there's some extra risks

with the younger people so one of them

might actually have some older people

risk but they're looking into that

drip drip drip

so I was listening to a spaces that

audio

program on Twitter and there was a

conversation about the vaccine injury

and stuff and Alex Berenson was there

and

there's they were talking about the fact

that there are more vaccinated people

being hospitalized and having bad

outcomes than unvaccinated

and it was an extended conversation and

while I was listening to it I didn't

hear the whole thing I didn't hear

anybody bring up the obvious point

that whether the vaccines work or don't

work at least the way we currently you

know the way the doctors currently say

they work which is not spreading not

stopping the spread but rather helping

you survive whether

uh so here's what here's what they were

not saying how would you interpret the

fact that it's mostly the heavily

boosted more boosters you have the more

likely you have a bad outcome what's

your interpretation of that

your interpretation is that the vaccine

not only doesn't work

it gives you a negative a negative

impact right

because that's not my interpretation

well that seems to be the way everybody

else is interpreting it and I'm trying

to figure out is it me

all right here's my interpretation

what group of people are most likely to

get boosted

the people who spend the most time

around people in crowds because they

would have the most chance of getting

infected and the people were weak and

old and have co-morbidities

if you took just the group of people who

have comorbidities and around lots of

people

and compared to them you know forget

about vaccinations just compare the

people who are weak and around a lot of

people to the people who are healthy and

not around a lot of people would they

have the same amount of

um outcomes it should be hugely

different right the old people are dying

like crazy the young people is just a

sniffle

right now which group is more likely to

get the most shots and the most boosters

the ones who know they have no real risk

to begin with

and they're not around people all the

time

what are the people who are around

people

and also have the highest risk they

should the ones who are around people

should be the most vaccinated the ones

who are also have comorbidities or

they're old

so if you took that group and you

decreased the risk by half I'm just

making up a number if you decrease that

the the vulnerable group I have it

should still be way higher than the

people who never got vaccinated at all

even if

the vaccination worked great

so these numbers tell me

the vaccination could be working great

if it reduced the risk by half but it's

still like you know two or three times

more than the healthy people that's

exactly what I'd expect

so the numbers are exactly what I'd

expect if the vaccine

did protect people

I'm not saying it yet that's not my

claim because we don't know right we

could be surprised tomorrow you know

tomorrow we learn all kinds of new stuff

who knows and it hasn't been tested for

long enough that you can be sure about

anything

but

here's my problem

I don't know if that's a good point

and here's a here's what I would need to

know

when they do these studies of who's

hospitalized

are they looking at people with the same

comorbidities

vaccinated versus unvaccinated or are

they looking at healthy people who

didn't get vaccinated much

compared to unhealthy people who are

around a lot of people all the time who

did get vaccinated

because that's probably what it is

if all they did is look at the outcomes

then they didn't do the study right it's

just a dumb study

now

I always mentioned Andre's back house

you know because he's better than I am

by a lot in looking at data and figuring

out if at least the analysis is correct

or they've you know confused correlation

and causation and I believe his exact

um his exact comment

on the of this stuff was lol

I don't know exactly what he's thinking

but I don't think it was worth more than

an LOL

because there's no way that they've

sorted out causation from correlation

I don't think so

and and there was nobody on that spaces

call who would even bring up the

question now again I'm not sure it's the

right question because if they really

controlled the study somehow

and then maybe maybe they controlled for

it but I doubt it I don't think they

could

it's proven to Scott no it's the data

might be proven

the data might be proven

but the interpretation is sketchy

now is it cognitive dissonance if I

allow that both possibilities are

entirely

entirely possible

cognitive dissonance is almost always

when you've made up your mind I'm

telling you explicitly both

possibilities are alive

can you hear that or not Edith Eve is

yelling cognitive distance Edith your

incognitive dissonance you're

experiencing it you're totally you're

totally having a hallucination because

I'm the one saying either one is

possible and the data allows both

interpretations you're saying I'm having

cognitive dissonance that's cognitive

distance you are experiencing it because

you have some certainty about something

that couldn't be certain

no you are no you are you projected

person

laughs

people think they could read my body

language and determine that I'm being

disingenuous

okay

all right here's the problem I keep

having when I bring up the same point

everybody goes quiet

what's wrong with you today

why does everybody go quiet when I bring

up that point every time

some people are just triggered into

cognitive dissonance but the rest of you

are just sort of commenting you know

indirectly

in general

I don't see people saying Scott I agree

with your interpretation

do you agree with my interpretation or

no

that my interpretation is well my

interpretation is that there are two

interpretations and they're both alive

at the moment

okay

so I think that needs to be at least

part of every conversation on this or it

doesn't feel

doesn't feel real

all right

um

that's about all I had in this I'd like

to say again even though that I think I

believe Alex Berenson is misinterpreting

this data

but I like to say that uh I think he's a

valuable asset to the country

because I do like the fact that people

were pushing really hard against the

safety claims of the vaccines they might

you know they may

be uh overzealous but you need that like

Society really needed you know these

people pushing hard who were credible

people so I appreciate Alex bernson's

service to the country I don't know if

he's you know got every question right

but that's not how I would judge him I

wouldn't judge him by whether he got

everything right during a pandemic

because nobody did right so so I'm not

going to judge anybody for being

wrong during a pandemic I told you in

the beginning of the pandemic I wasn't

going to do it and I'm trying to be

consistent

foreign all right

uh did I miss anything

any uh any stories happening that I

missed

are you going to talk about the

Democrats uh being hunted in New Mexico

now is that the story about the serial

killer who

there was a serial killer who hunted

down some Democrats

I did I did see something like that I I

typically don't talk about uh crime

stories

but if but that's worth mentioning so

the Republicans are always talking about

I'm always talking about uh Republicans

being hunted but there was a case of

somebody who looks like they went out

and just tried to kill some Democrats

and we of course condemn that at the

highest possible level

but yeah that that's a fair comment and

see now that's the kind of criticism

that I appreciate

because that that was first of all

totally fair

that there was something that was

counter to my narrative that I didn't

mention

now again the reason is because I don't

talk about specific crimes too much

that's sort of my thing I don't talk

about them but in that case I should

have you're right that absolutely should

have been mentioned as the

the you know counterbalance so good for

you

I like it when you call me on stuff

that's you know as clearly wrong as that

was

all right

uh what did Crenshaw say

Crenshaw is supporting military against

the cartels

well there we go

is there anybody who doesn't

now

I'm going to ask you a question that I

know I'm going to get mocked for

all right

I sometimes think that one of my special

uh let's say services that I can do for

the Republic

are to take something that you can't

talk about

and normalize it so that it becomes part

of the option set because there's some

things that people just won't say first

because whoever goes first will just get

shot down

and I'm pretty sure I've been the

loudest

public voice about a military

intervention in Mexico

and I said it loudly and clearly I

supported it and I will argue it in

public

I'll argue with anybody who wants and

I'll make my case because it has to be

part of the option set now

I believe that I did enough of it

that it demonstrated that people were

more open to it than maybe you would

have assumed wouldn't you agree there

was plenty of pushback on the Practical

part of it and there should be

like I don't want to I don't want to

recommend a war and have nobody in the

United States disagree do you want to

live in that country no no I always want

a healthy disagreement about war like

yes no that should be the biggest fight

we ever have but it should be a fair

fight right we should we should be

serious about it about whether we ever

use military force but I put that out

there and I think after people ask

questions about you know how it could

work and are you serious and what would

it look like

largely people I think accepted it as an

option

would you agree

now I'm not you know I suppose maybe

somebody else talked about it and I'm

not aware of it

but

um as Lance says you never did that can

somebody tell Lance

that for a long time I've been saying we

should attack the cartels militarily a

long time

and and I've been saying it publicly on

live stream I've said it on Twitter

and I think that helps normalize it

because remember what happened when uh

who was it who talked about uh Trump

brought it up once privately

and one of his staffers basically just

shot him down like like it's not even

something you can talk about

and that's what I wanted to change I

wanted to make sure that Trump could say

that in public

which he did he put in a video saying it

directly because I think he saw that the

the room had been softened enough

that you could say it and you could

defend it

so

anyway

I normalized more war well war is

normalized isn't it

do you think I did that

pretty sure that was normalized a long

time ago we haven't been out of a war

since I can remember

yeah I would love whoever said that was

crazy to say that to me

do you think they would

say so

I mean

I would I would just eviscerate anybody

who said that it just would be it would

be just destruction on camera

all right

oh he also implied to many rallies

earlier too yeah but I think the direct

the direct statement that special forces

will go in and obliterate the the

cartels operation that was the part that

he he says directly Trump does and it's

the reason that I'm going to back him

because I'm a single issue voter I'm a

single issue voter on fentanyl so

whatever Trump does that you don't like

not my problem

yeah he can defend that as himself

all right

would politician families be targeted by

the cartels if we bomb them probably

the Virginia Merit scholar story oh yeah

yeah

is the story that in Virginia

um some students were not informed that

they'd won the National Merit

Scholarship

they were not informed in time to put it

on the resume which would have helped

them get into a better College

they were told after but only the white

ones

so somebody held back the white people

now if that's true that's a horrible

crime

like this isn't one that

was was it all agents yeah maybe it was

just basically anti-asian and anti-white

mostly Asians all right well so what

whatever whatever group was uh held back

there that is huge

that when I heard that story like I

almost couldn't believe it

like we did get to the point where that

would be done intentionally

yeah that's somebody should go to jail

for that don't you think

I would think that's I don't know if

it's a crime but it ought to me

13 schools God

that's just amazing

yes for over a year oh my God

yeah

uh life after death life after death

would just be the end of the simulation

for you

but it might mean that you're you know I

also think we might be inhabited by

another species

who just uses this when we're awake

so they would it would just be like a

video game where you turn off the video

game

that's all it would be

yeah they should lose something for

doing that all right is there any other

story I missed

I think I'm all good

uh

uh all right

it would be the only fish on the other

hand when you asked it about marriage it

was clearly they can't do complex math

analysis how would you be judging when

to trust it and when oh so chat GPT this

is a good question you know when would

you trust that to do searches well it's

not connected to the internet

so right now all it is using basically

everything it knows about language

to create intelligence as soon as it's

connected to the internet then we'll be

able to check its answers against the

manual search and then you'll either be

comfortable with it or not but I think

it'll take a while to evolve to where

it's better

um

all right

just looking at your

classified documents

oh what do you think of Trump's claim

that he kept hundreds of classified

documented folders

empty folders because they were cool

souvenirs

believe it or not

do you think you would keep them as cool

souvenirs

I thought of one situation in which he

might

right my first reaction was that doesn't

sound like a good explanation

who would keep empty folders and I

thought to myself

imagine if he wanted to create a piece

of art

in which the wall was just all the empty

classified folders and I think maybe

some of them had different fronts

so imagine a display of empty folders

it's just you know the flat folders on a

wall and you would know what was in

those folders

they wouldn't be in there but but you

know somehow like this one was about

North Korea and this one was about

nuclear weapons and stuff because it

would be like a like a visual

representation of Trump's job in office

his job in office was hey look at this

secret file and let's make some

decisions and then that would be like

the tapestry of his of his uh term

and there wouldn't be any details it'd

just be a visual representation of how

many Secrets a president has to do now

if he had said that I don't think

anybody would believe it but when I

thought about it I thought you know that

would actually be a really cool display

wouldn't it be

like you know a wall of just of just the

folders the empty folders it would be

kind of cool I I would stop and look at

it and I would also think oh those

folders

every one of those folders was touched

by the president of the United States

and had a state secret in it

which would be kind of cool

I have a request for a parting sip for

the YouTube people

and I think I will comply

here's your parting sip

for this great live stream I'm going to

talk to the locals people after

join me now in the party except

ah hi YouTube thanks for joining I'll

see you tomorrow