at you know we thought that the president did an executive order banning critical race theory training but apparently the CDC is just going to move ahead and do it anyway. So the CDC is going to have training classes on critical race theory. I think they tried to finesse it by not calling it that but it is. And I have to wonder at what point does this go to the Supreme Court? At what point does the Supreme Court say you can't teach this critical race theory stuff because it's just racist? Because it is racist. It's obviously racist. It's gigantically racist. So what is that going to, when is that going to happen?

All right. Would you like to be scared about the future of humankind? I can deliver that. And it goes like this. In my opinion the protests and riots that you're seeing around the country could not happen without artificial intelligence. Now there could have been some protests. There might have been some things. But in terms of the extent of what we're seeing and the way it's affecting the country, we would not have this if not for AI. Here's what I mean.

Now you're going to tell me but Scott, the kind of AI we have now in our algorithms etc. is still controlled by people. People program them. People tweak them. It's people making decisions. They're just using AI as a convenient tool. That I believe is a mistake in perception. What's really, while it is true that the humans are tweaking them in a variety of ways, what's also true is the algorithm forces the humans to do what the humans do. Once the algorithm through trial and error has determined what gets you the most profit the human doesn't have a choice of not following it because the human will be fired if they don't pursue profit. So you say to yourself but the human has a choice. They don't have to do what the AI says just because the AI says let's feed these ads or this news to people because it'll get them all worked up and they'll be angry and then they'll click more. The human, you could say in some technical sense they could decide not to do it but then they would be fired and then the next person would do it. So you don't really in a practical sense have any way to fight the artificial intelligence once it decides that this is how you make money. You're going to do it. That's the way humans are wired.

So we are already at the point where AI controls humanity. You know a lot of people are worried like what happens someday when the AI gets smart enough that you know it's sentient and then it's making our decisions. Well I don't think you could argue it's sentient but it's already making the decisions. That is literally true. AI is determining how mad you are, what news you saw and what you clicked on and that will determine the government because our government has to react to what the news and the public collectively want, right? The government in some cases, you know in limited cases can do something the public isn't demanding but for the most part they have to do what the public demands. And the public is only demanding what the news and social media tells them to think and it always does that because the AI is telling them what to think. So for all practical purposes artificial intelligence is running the United States. It is. It's already done. So there's that.

Mike Bloomberg is going to spend 100 million dollars in Florida trying to make sure that the Democrats win Florida. And I thought to myself, all right I believe in free speech and people should be able to use their money the way they want. But when the founders of this country were designing a system, at what point did they understand that one person could spend a hundred million dollars in a swing state and determine the election? Would that be legal? Do you think if the founders knew that could have happened? I mean I don't think they could have conceived of somebody with so much money. That would have been hard to imagine. Although you could argue that George Washington was one of the richest people in the world if you normalize it. But why is that legal? I understand that it is legal but shouldn't we look into that a little bit? Could you, I feel like there should be some kind of limit on what one person can do. You know if you said to me well Mike Bloomberg can put in up to 10 million dollars, that's still a ton of money but I'd say all right, all right, because there'll be other billionaires that put 10 million the other way. But to have one person put a 100 million into one swing state or one that could be a swing state, that's a big risk to the republic. I'm surprised that that's legal.

All right. That is all I wanted to talk about. Somebody says you don't even vote. So this year I am going to vote. I registered to vote this year. The only reason I'm registering to vote this year is first self-defense because I do think that this year is unusual and I think that anybody who supported Trump would be in a lot of trouble if he doesn't win. There could be violence. There could be discrimination. There could be any number of things that could be bad. So just for self-defense I'll be voting for Trump. There you go.

All right. What does he get in return? What does Bloomberg get in return? Yeah it's a good question isn't it? Somebody says Kimberly's son was from a prior marriage. You mean before Gavin Newsom? We'll do a fact check on that because I might be wrong about her son but there's still a connection with Gavin Newsom even if it's indirect.

All right. The slaughter meter is at about 200 percent at the moment. Almost every day that goes by it looks better for Trump and worse for Biden. And until that changes the slaughter meter sits at about 200.

All right, that's all I got for now and I will talk to you later.