Episode 1807 Scott Adams - Who Is Trying To Brainwash You This Week And Largely Succeeding

and welcome to the highlight of your life and civilization itself sort of a bright glowing spot in this big universe of darkness but where you are things are looking up things are looking up and all you need to take it to another level is a copper mugger glass of tanker shelves to sign a canteen jogger a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid you're right dennis that's scott adams is one bad dude true fact check true and now will you join me for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine here today the thing that makes everything better in the entire world it's called the simultaneous sip and nothing's ever been better go i would like to start with a checklist for the golden age you ready i think i might i might put this on paper thinking about i was thinking about all the things which have somewhat subtly turn positive while we're in this environment of everything going to and you can lose you can lose sight of anything that's maybe getting better because our focus is always on you know the latest disaster number one there have been no major forest fires in california this year now knock on wood right but i believe that's because of the helicopter rapid response team i think we're actually getting on the fires faster in other words we adjusted we found a way to make a difference we're not talking about it right you know why is nobody talking about california on fire i it could be luck it could be luck it could be weather it could be chance right but i feel like maybe we got on top of it or at least at least there's a substantial improvement how about climate change and nuclear energy which is really the only solution to it all positive all positive everything in the nuclear energy field went from super negative i don't know five years ago to super positive so you got your climate change your nuclear energy now in the short run in the short run we've got a lot of challenges with uh power etc now let me ask you about let's talk about inflation energy prices seem to have maybe stabilized and dropped a little too soon to be happy but but it looks like inflation at least on the energy part the biggest part looks like it might have slowed down and then the energy cost if it slows down will ripple through the the rest of the product stuff we might have seen something closer to the top of inflation i guess some of the core stuff is still going to be higher for a few months but that should get pulled back they should get pill pulled back because they're now let's take china i just saw another article it's all it's hard to speculate what's happening in china right we don't know but it looks like china is an actual recession already if you read the tea leaves right they don't report that but it looks like they might be and it looks like china as the growing power that we have to worry about may have taken quite a hit because i think their manufacturing base will be i would say drained forever i don't think people are going back so in terms of how we deal with china even though it's hard for our supply chains and stuff i believe we're probably moving our pharma back because if anything scared us straight i would imagine big pharma has plenty of money am i right does big pharma have money of course they've got all they need so they can move their plants back to wherever they need to get it out of china so i believe that our our position in the world relative to china is better what do you think i mean you can easily be wrong we could all be wrong about this stuff but even though we both took a hit i believe the united states took will take less of a hit going forward about russia our two biggest competitors in the world right russia and china i feel like russia is taking a step backwards relative to the united states at the same time the united states is not doing you know terrific but relatively i think we opened a gap so i would say that the united states has improved its position maybe maybe with russia and china its two biggest competitors i think we'll get past inflation what about that risk of nuclear war with russia i haven't worried about it lately have you i feel like we're past it and i feel like there's some kind of a stalemate situation happening there that's expensive but i feel like you're the end point of ukraine is looking a little more clear looks like a stalemate where russia will control what they control and ukraine will complain about it forever right how about a.i now ai is either going to be the greatest thing or the worst thing but it's going to change everything you know whatever you think about the change that ai will bring you have no idea there's nothing that will be the same after virtual reality and ar hit ai if you combine ai in virtual reality what life looks like in 10 years is completely unpredictable you there's just no way to know it's going to go i mean it's gonna be really interesting but it might be better there's a whole segment of the world that literally can't find happiness because the resources don't exist right there are people who can't find a a mate which is sort of important for happiness right and i think people will just you know take a drug put on the vr helmet and go into their other life and that other life will be fully satisfying even if in the other life they're in love with an ai in an npc or something driven by an ai it'll be a relationship and it'll be somebody that's not you know treating them poorly so i think that for i don't know 60 to 80 percent of the public they would be better off with an ai partner eventually and everybody who disagrees with that 100 of the people who disagree with that statement are thinking of current technology which couldn't come close to that but future technology and it's not that far in the future if you in the future there will be a better version of a human for your for your enjoyment than any human could ever compete with it won't even be close in the long run it won't even be close right it'll take a while for the crossover we're not there people still better than robots still better but that that gap is just closing like crazy there's no question where it's going i mean it can only go one direction can they do plumbing and electrical probably probably all right um i made a claim on twitter i got a slight adjustment to by paul graham if you don't know paul graham you can google him but he's one of the high value accounts you know tech founder generally considered one of the smart people in in california or silicon valley or i'm not sure where he lives now but anyway the part of that is he's real smart so when he says stuff you should pay attention and i had said provocatively that the most valuable words for success are be useful that if you didn't know anything else about anything else and you're just like well how do i be successful just focus on being useful and the more useful you are the better off you'll be right more is better but be useful if you focus on that things will go well now a lot of people agreed uh paul graham added this twist he said that if it's business that's effectively making what people want so basically if you're in a business being useful translates to making products that people want and here's the part here's the part that gets interesting i'm not sure that's exactly right it's like close feels like a like an 80 sort of situation and here's why i think there's a difference but help me think this through right this is like preliminary thinking in my opinion if you focus on what the customer wants you can get a good good result if you focus on making yourself useful i think you could also get a good result if you focus on making yourself useful via the process of making a product that somebody wants well then i think paul graham's point makes a lot of sense like the being useful and giving them something they want ends up being pretty much the same thing but here's where i disagree a little bit and i'm not sure if my thinking is clear on this yet i feel like what you focus on makes a difference even if you say well you know the outcome is going to look about the same i don't know i think what you focus on makes a difference for the gray areas of which you would expect money i think if you focus on being useful you're always going to win but if you focus on giving people what they want sometimes they don't know what they want you know what i mean useful being useful is a little bit more objective okay this is useful or not this is more useful than that you could usually kind of suss that out what is more useful than something else but i don't know if you can deal with what people want people's wants are not necessarily tethered to what they need or what's good for them or they even know how it's going to turn out they've got short-term wants that that are in conflict with their long-term needs right so i feel as if focusing on anybody's wants is going to give you some problems sometimes the difference is mind-reading maybe all right uh apparently there's a class-action suit against the candy skittles because there's some ingredient in there titanium dioxide that i think in europe it's already banned and there's there's some indication that it might not be good for you but when i saw this i thought you know i don't have too much of a thought about skittles because i have a rule i i don't eat things which don't don't seem to have any food in them so that's just my rule if you're putting something in your mouth and digesting it and it doesn't have any food related quality that you can determine well i feel like you're you're really asking for trouble there probably just food and medicine is the only thing you should put in your mouth okay you've got a dirty mind go ahead make your dirty jokes okay we're done but otherwise the only thing you should put in your mouth is food medicine and dirty stuff and naughty stuff um but this brings me to my macro point uh our foods are food supply um not just maybe it's more the united states or the industrialized countries but let me tell you something that's really really obvious in america i i want to see if there's anybody who'll disagree with the following statement our food supply is poison you just look around people just look around just go to the mall and just look around and you tell me our food supply is not poisoned it's obvious it's obvious and and somehow the food industry got away with blaming us think about that the food business is getting away with blaming us for being unhealthy because we ate the wrong food i don't think so if if you're selling you know crack to children i don't think it's the children's fault if they get addicted is it if you sell crack to children it's your fault it's not the children's fault and in this analogy we adults are the children we don't know any better you give me a french fry i'm gonna put it in my mouth right do i know that eating french fries is not my optimal health related thing oh i do i do but if you put a basket of fries in front of me do you know what i'm going to say in about a second and a half well one basket of fries doesn't hurt me right i'm gonna rationalize it in a heartbeat because they're really delicious we don't have a chance this food is engineered to overwhelm our our whatever you think is your willpower which is an illusion so you're really you're operating against something that's scientifically designed to be you if you're fighting every day against a a let's say a an enemy who is scientifically designed to beat you every time well don't be surprised if you lose because it was scientifically designed to beat you every time that's that's the sugar fat salt combination if you manipulate the sugar fat salt which is the name of a book you should read it's addictive right there's a reason you can only you can't eat more than one potato chip right that's real i really can't eat one i've tried have you ever tried to eat one potato chip if you're all alone and you keep the potato chips in your room and you're still hungry you you just can't do it i i would say that on the if you were to rank me against you know other human beings in terms of willpower i think it'd be pretty high up there like i would say my track record of life suggests that i can put off pleasure for a long time to get some larger gain i have pretty high emotional intelligence as you know objectively measured but i can't resist the second second potato chip that's crazy i will just talk myself into an rv so um i think we have to come to some kind of a realization or awareness our food supply is killing us it's not even close to adequate it's not even close it's not even in the general zip code of food have you ever met somebody who ate clean like really clean now you you think you have because you you have a friend who's a vegan or something like that no i'm not even close the difference between eating clean like really eating clean no additives no preservatives all that stuff if you meet one of those people they're not like you are they they're not like you their their bodies and their health is really different and it's very noticeable yeah i once i once uh briefly dated a woman who was this just the cleanest eater and didn't use any like unnatural shampoos or you know didn't even put things on externally and it was so obvious that that human being was operating at a different level of health it was just really obvious and i don't think i don't think she started as the healthiest person in the world i think it's what she eats i think it's just that now i couldn't i couldn't do what she did it was just too extreme it was just really extreme but no question it worked no question that worked all political movements of any scale are fake in terms of protests you know like big movements whether it's your antifa's or your january 6 events or your or you're fine people marches or you're antifa um i think they're all fake and here's what i mean i don't mean that the individuals who are marching don't have sincere feelings they do but they wouldn't be there except that some artificial entity funded it and organized it right now here's the thinking you could imagine a time in the 70s i don't know if it's true but you can imagine a time when maybe spontaneous large-scale protests did happen right maybe but probably not even then and here's the reason it's that the organizers have too much to gain they can monetize it if it's possible to monetize leadership of an organization well you're down here right follow the money what what's going to happen if it's possible just if it's possible to monetize leadership of a political movement somebody's going to buy it right there's somebody who's going to buy your loyalty because the cat is for sale you can monetize it now without going into a log argument here's the short version if you follow the money it has to be in the long run that all major uh organized political movements are all artificial in other words somebody just funded them to look like a grassroots movement but it's the organizers that are getting everybody spun up in the long run they all become owned by a bad entity because they're all for sale ultimately in the short run maybe not in the short run you can imagine people spontaneously running into the street to protest something and i think maybe the abortion situation on day one was probably just organic right on day one probably just people just said oh they just got up and made a sign and walked outside but wait a little while whoever has the most money and influence will eventually get to whoever the organic leaders are and say you know you're doing well as an organic leader but you're not making any money you're not paying your family you're not feeding your family how about i give you a bunch of money make you much more effective they say yeah you're on my side i mean what's there's no downside right i just get more money and i do the same thing but people give you money on you no matter what your original motivation was as soon as you start taking money you got a boss right so basically every leader who might be organic in the beginning ends up getting owned by somebody who has enough money to do that so i can't see any situation in which a large-scale protest on either side for any reason would ever be organic in the long run i just can't see it so i from this point on i assume all large protests are fake a little bit doesn't mean the people the people might be very sincere but in terms of what got them all there probably always fake from now on i don't think we live in a world in which it it can't rapidly go fake because follow the money the money will always be there there's always going to be somebody on that side even if there's nobody in the united states who wants this protest there's always china there's always some there's always another country that wants some trouble here so you can always get it funded npr has launched a what they call a disinformation reporting team so a group of people who will tell you what's true and what isn't here is uh what i invented today i call it the adams law effect fact checkers the adams law of fact checkers and it goes like this all fact-checking organizations are liars by omission and it isn't fixable all fact check organizations are liars by omission that's their job their job is to lie by omission if you don't know that's the real mission so the job of a fact checker is to say well obviously there are too many things in the world you can't look at every every fact and try to check it right so you have to pick ones what happens when the fact checkers pick the facts to fact check well they're not going to pick the one that's bad for their team so they just lie by omission they simply leave out a fact check because it would be inconvenient to have one and then when you look for the fact check it as well nothing there so and if you've read any of the fact checks so far the ones that are obviously fake fact checks and you you know which ones i mean right you've seen it yourself there are ones that are just obviously fake fact checks um you can tell what they left out you just look at it you go well you know you've left out like a main variable you haven't even ruled on it like you've just ignored a main variable that's a lie if your fact checking ignores what is obviously a major variable in the decision that's a lie by omission so in the long run i don't think they can go in any other direction so all political organizations become you know corrupted eventually by money and all fact checkers eventually become liars by omission now i don't think that they usually lie directly there might be a case of that but i think that would be rare you don't see the fact checker say oh this happened on this date when it didn't like that the fact checking tends to be right but they lie by leaving out other facts right if there's a fact that the other side just don't mention it there you go so do you think that the fact checkers could ever act independently they're not even it's not even designed to do that do you think that they look for the most independent fact checkers to form the you know do you think npr said you know we are a left-leaning organization but for fact checking that's exactly the kind of bias you want to get rid of so rather than just maybe promoting our obviously left-leaning people into a job of trust and fact-checking we're going to scour the world and find people who are famous for being able to disagree with their own team that's the people you want with your fact checkers because that's people who have a track record that says i don't care if my team says this is true it's just not true and then they hired those people who could go against the grain because that's who you could trust no nothing like that's happening they're hiring leftists and what do you think the leftists would do if they got a situation in which let's say for hypothetically let's say there was a left leading person who legitimately wanted to do fact checking and let's say this left-leaning person said you know i'm going to seriously try to be objective here i know i'm left-leaning but i'm being hired to be objective i'm going to be objective and let's say some facts came to that person they showed that the fine people hoax was a hoax and maybe it's the first time they heard it do you think a left leading person working for npr even if they believed it true and discovered that the fine people hoax was in fact a hoax you know the the the hoax part is just that trump called neo-nazis fine people which we know didn't happen because of the video but imagine if you were you had a uh impulse to debunk that could you do it no no you couldn't do it and not and keep your job do you think do you think even if somebody thought it thought they had the facts do you think they could debunk a major left talking point and then keep their job not a chance not a chance they wouldn't be able to go to a party imagine going to a party after you debunked the left's whatever biggest talking point couldn't do it you wouldn't be it would be like alan dershowitz being you know expelled from uh from polite company so by their designs fact checker organizations can't work if they come out of organizations that have a bias or even if you just live in the world you can't be by unbiased about fact checking all right so we saw another robot that is getting close to looking like people nobody has yet solved for making a robot actually look like a person but they're getting closer and closer what happens when you can't tell the difference because that that feels like that's going to happen at least on video right if you just zoom call to a robot someday you won't know the difference and how would you know the difference and i have this suggestion that the way you can spot a robot in the future is the same way you could spot an npc today if in fact npcs exist which it appears they do it appears they do doesn't mean they do and that is that npcs and robots won't have stories they won't have stories so yesterday i was doing a little video from my man cave live stream and i was challenging people to prompt me to tell a story and so there were things like what was your most embarrassing moment or you know what what was the moment that you realized this or that and for each of those i had a story i go well let me tell you the story how i felt and blah blah the surprise ending and i have lots of stories but there are definitely people who can't tell you a story about anything that happened to them and i think robots in the short run a robot won't be able to tell you a story if you talk to a robot about what's happening at the moment well maybe you can't tell the difference but if you say to the robot hey can you tell me a story about like the best thing you ever got for your birthday you're done you know now could you program a robot to fool you about its own biography like maybe a steals from somebody else's backstory probably so you could definitely get a robot to fool you but that leads me to my next observation we really need a law that if something is ai or a robot it got it's got to be labeled right we do truth and labeling you've got to label those robots if you come at me with a robot pretending to be human and i can't tell the difference you and i have a problem all right don't send don't send your robot at me and try to make me think it's human if you do that you and i have a problem you you have you have done something to me that's immoral and unethical you made me think that a robot was a human being and then maybe i interacted with it or made decisions based on it no bueno that needs to be flat illegal and the voice as well we need to have a law that says ai voices cannot be modulated outside a certain parameter in other words we can't let ai be persuasive not by voice you can't let ai persuade you with a human-like voice that's got to be illegal and we got to do it now because the the first ai with a human voice you know that's persuasive and maybe even can modulate the voice and change it that is too dangerous and we know it's dangerous like you don't have to wonder about it is there anybody here who would doubt the the proposition that an ai that sounded like a human enough that you couldn't tell and also could change its voice quality to be more persuasive or less persuasive you don't want that loose in the world you do not want that loose in the world believe me it's bad enough that i'm loose in the world this is my favorite category of things to say one of my categories is things which cannot be communicated they're easy concepts but for whatever reason you can't tell somebody like the boy who cried wolf right the boy who cried wolf cannot communicate that there's an actual wolf he can say the words but it can't be communicated because you already believe that he lies about wolves so there's no way to get from here there but but here's what i like to say sort of in that genre if anybody knew what i could actually do i would be murdered it would be too it would be too dangerous to have me loosen society but the only reason that that i'm completely safe is that nobody has any idea nobody has any idea what i can accomplish through persuasion if you did i'd be in jail because you just wouldn't want it'd be like having a nuclear bomb wandering around without government control that's sort of what i am but i will always be free because nobody will ever believe what i could actually do now what i can do might be only a fraction of what an ai could do eventually persuasion-wise because it would have all the tools instantly it could it could quickly check those tools against the individual and basically everything i do the slow human way is programmable it's all and better in fact the ai will be better at detecting your micro changes than even i am and i'm trained to do it one of the big one of the big skills of a hypnotist is not what you say but it's observing how what you said influenced the person and there's a look there's a look that people present and hypnotists can tell you this when they're in a certain mode right when their mind is entered i know like a maintenance mode or something you can see it now it's easy to recognize if you have experience it would be impossible to recognize if you didn't but an a i could do it right away you would just have to give it okay here's here's 10 pictures of people in that mode you know that mental mode here's 10 people not done the ai would be able to spot it every day after that you know i'm simplifying but that's the basic idea all right so yes let's get some laws about uh robots and ai pretending to be people that needs to be stopped right away because the first one is going to be like a nuclear weapon you got to stop it right away do you know how many uh um social media followers the first robot that's indistinguishable from a human would have as many as it wanted as many as it wanted all right um let's do the january 6 hoax update um i can't call the january 6th thing like anything but a hoax anymore because i i feel at this point is just so obvious somebody says for 9.99 for a super chat it's funny because the chat influences scott more than the influence then he influences the chat it's definitely a two-way street um you definitely influenced me that i didn't know you often fill in contacts but you do also actually fact check yeah um i'm definitely influenced factually but the um the the nature of the uh technology is that maybe i guess i'm like group peer influence or something like that but generally speaking this is not an influential uh platform in two directions it's influential in my direction because you can see me and hear me but i've just got text to look at so that that that handicaps you quite a bit compared to the persuasion that i can apply but anyway um so here's the thing that was bothering me yesterday so we heard a report that one of the january 6 protesters is going to get a maybe 15 years for a list of charges that didn't look to me like a 15-year sentence but i guess they're all these um what do they call them um will you put on top of the charge they're like stimulants to the charge they're extras what's the word enhancements yeah so the judge can add these quote enhancements to the um to the sentence and say oh because of this or that it's extra bad now here's the problem in order for the democrats to sell the january 6 hoax there's one thing that has to happen really long jail terms for at least some of the protesters am i right they really can't sell the hoax unless these people go to jail for a long time these people should be freed immediately they should be freed immediately irrespective of the crimes they committed let me say it again and i would say this if they were democrats right this is not team play well it is team play it's team america this is this is america in america we do not we do not we do not in america if we if we want to stay america like if you really want to be america we do not set our length of sentence based on what the democrats need politically we do not this is happening right in front of you right in front of you it's very obvious that these are going to be long sentences because if they if they were dismissed what would the january six hearings look like if while they were happening the people accused were getting dismissed without charges what would that look like it would look like the january 6th thing was because it is mostly i mean you know let me say the obvious thing in case there's any npcs watching this is just for the npcs right smart people you can ignore this the real humans but the npcs are going to say well what you're ignoring the actual violence of the people no i'm not no i'm not there's nobody in the world who thinks actually violent people should not be you know dealt with by the legal process nobody so the npcs if you're watching oh you're forgetting the violence no i'm not no but uh we're not america if there uh if if we can watch without acting um american citizens who did make some mistakes right no i'm not going to whitewash any of their actions that's that's up to them right their actions are just for them to deal with here's what i have to deal with america right yeah my problem is america and america is a little bit broken right now and it's broken right in front of us and what do we do what do americans do when something's broken and it's right in front of you you fix it there's only one way to fix this you got to vote the democrats out because at least you can pardon people or whatever the hell you're going to do right if if there were no other um well actually let me make a stand i'm going to make a stand right now no matter who the republican well it could be even the democrat but no matter which candidate says i'm going to pardon all the january 6 protesters has my support and i'll even change my opinion if trump runs and says i'll just do that one thing he has my full support i don't think he should be running because he's too old i don't think anybody should run at that age but if he runs and if he says you know i got all these other ideas but i'll tell you one thing i'm going to do is i'm going to fix this problem of people being sentenced based on democrat political needs i'm just going to fix that and this is so important that i could be a single i could be a single issue voter over this i could also be single issue voter over um fentanyl if a candidate said uh i got i got some other policies you might like them you might not but i'm gonna drop a drone on the cartels every time every time fentanyl comes into this country i'm going to make one for every death i'll send a rocket for every fentanyl death we'll send one drone to blow up some in a cartel area every time if you kill a hundred thousand americans we'll send a hundred thousand uh missiles into mexico one missile for one death or something like that i'm just making that up but if we had a candidate who said you know i'm just going to solve this one problem and i don't care if i have to invade mexico to do it and by the way i would support a candidate who said he would invade mexico let me say that directly i'm in favor of invading mexico militarily just to say directly i'm in favor of militarily invading mexico because it's not really a government government it's a it's a narco government they're they're taking a hundred thousand of our people if trump's if trump ran for president on invading mexico i'd vote for him now if mexico wanted to do something about it to avoid being invaded they should do that right away i'd even help them do it help them fund it give them some resources you know let them do what they can to become an independent strong ally but at the moment i would support a candidate who said invade mexico militarily absolutely in a heartbeat i wouldn't even hesitate so those are my big issues freeing the january 6 people who are overcharged again we're not we're not forgiving any real crimes they're just obviously overcharged for democrat political purposes it's just obvious you can't do this right in front of us right it's like it's one thing to americans like privately and i don't hear about it but if you do it right in front of me i'm not i'm not gonna let you americans right in front of me right that's that's going to be noticed here's the other story that i don't know it's just amazing what the public can be sold and i saw kyle becker was responding the same way i would have so there's a story now and i need a fact check on this can somebody verify this is really true so i heard it from one source on twitter so you know use your judgment but apparently there's a story that uh clinton campaign lawyer michael sussman um who allegedly ran three four fraudulent operations against trump in 2016-17 traveled to london and met with with uh you know spies and stuff at the british spy center gchq and the british eavesdropping agency that provided materials to cia chief john brennan so we know that that john brennan said he or did get some stuff from britain we know that christopher steele was a ex-british intelligence officer and we were sold on the concept that there's such a thing as an ex-british intelligence officer or a professional do you think there's such a thing as an ex-british intelligence person no no now i believe he's not on the payroll i believe he's not on the payroll but that's not like being an ex do you think that he could do something that his his masters didn't like no i mean not and hope to have a relationship with him in the future which i'm sure was valuable to him so we we never say directly that it's obvious that great britain was involved in the russia collusion hoax if not completely behind it with hillary clinton but why do we act like it's not it's not there it's right there christopher steele was an xx british spy why don't we call it british interference it's just crazy that we just we all agree that it's russian interference when when the actual reporting is british interference we're looking right at it the news has reached a point where they can put it right in front of you and tell you it's not there right here here's here's all the brits you know being behind this russia collusion thing but it was russia here's all the evidence it was really great britain now let's talk about russia and we can actually do that like right in front of you all of the information is right there it's obvious great britain was involved in some level obvious but we just act like it's not true all right um san francisco is trying to i guess the mayor is behind this they've got a proposal in which the police would be able to continuously monitor um neighborhoods and cities through your personal security system what that's right if you have a ring camera that's connected to a network the san francisco police there's this is a proposal would like to at any time they want look through your camera total access to it at any time and see what you would see if you were standing on your front porch and the idea is that once i had access to all this surveillance yeah what about your indoor cameras you ask quite reasonably quite reasonably and do you think the police would misuse this ability to see what's happening in your house of course of course somehow of course yeah and don't you think they could tell when you're home yeah the police will know in your home do you want the police to know in your home now i'm a big supporter of the police love the police it is however a fact that there's not much difference between a police officer and a criminal now there's an important difference which is one is on the side of the law and one is not but in terms of their personalities not that different you know the ability to do dangerous things for benefit for really not that much benefit you know if you assume they're underpaid which i assume so i don't know if you said what is a group of people you at least want to know if you're home number one would be criminals right the number one people you you want to know you don't want to know if you're home or not is criminals but what is the number two organization the second group that you would most not want to know about what's happening around your home isn't that the police and it's the police because i wouldn't trust them not not because they'd see my private stuff which is a good enough reason somebody says my wife yeah your ex-wife do you think anybody will be a police officer with access to the system who also has an ex who has that system imagine the police officers being able to see their ex-wife or husband and they and their new lover you know visiting the house do you want any of that that the the amount of uh intrusion into your personal life is just through the roof now here's something that i would i would uh be okay with if if the police said optionally if you want to put a separate camera system in front of your house and give us access to it but it's your choice it's got to be a specific kind where we can't get to any of your other cameras or anything so it's got to be you know walled off system if you'd like to have that kind of a system and you agree then we'll be able to look at it but you have to agree and you have to know exactly what they have access to and what they don't i i could ima i could imagine i could imagine having a ring doorbell let's just say and let's say if ring could somehow wall off its software so that you know the police could only look through the front door if you've got other cameras somewhere could you imagine labeling it law enforcement monitored that would be better wouldn't it like if you were worried about your own security and you had a ring camera that's good but if you had a ring camera that you knew the police could look at in real time that's a little scarier right as long as everything you did was voluntary that's a different situation but if they're going to force this uh no i don't think it can get approved do you do you think there's any way that could get approved if if the resident doesn't you think there is i mean maybe maybe it seems like a long shot but maybe all right i could tell you when the ukraine russia war will end if you could give me the following information and i know you can't but maybe someday somebody can it goes like this how quickly can russia find and spin up new ammo warehouses right because their ammo warehouses are being targeted for destruction by ukraine who now has new accurate long-range weapons to get to all their ammo depots and if their ammo depots were beyond that range they also wouldn't be useful right so now ukraine looks like they can get to any useful ammo dumps that that russia would have on russia's side of the territory now the question is this we have x many missiles and rocket launchers that can do that level of accuracy is it that what's the name of them the h-i-m-a-s or something there's a specific type of weapon so they're being shipped to ukraine and i think they have nine high mars h-i-m-a-r-s so i think ukraine has nine of them people are saying can we get a hundred now um carried a gun in the capitol and he threatened to kill his family if they turned him they turned him in all right um so so the warning there was that the uh the person who is overcharged at the capitol there was some extenuating situation there maybe right but but in general the overcharging in general there there will be specific cases where where there's a real argument there all right we're getting back to my point um how many rockets can a high mars one highmar system send per day could could they send a hundred rockets per day what do you think 230.

they could do they could do at least dozens right now how how fast can the russians build ammo warehouses as they're being destroyed now i'm making an assumption here that we're always going to know where they are because we have eyes in the sky and we've got probably just tons of you know local intel because remember russia is occupying an area in which not everybody being occupied is happy about it so in theory the locals should be plenty happy to say you know i saw some ammo trucks heading into that building so i feel like we would always know where they are and i would also say that russia's military capability would basically disappear if their ammo did right now everybody adjusts maybe they'd threaten with nukes or something so we don't know what would happen but in theory the number of hymar missiles blowing up a number of ammo depots if you have enough missiles and you know the number of missiles is increasing as they're getting more of them and the rate at which russia can replace them at some point will be lower than the rate at which they can be destroyed as soon as that becomes a permanent situation which seems very likely the war is over i feel like i feel like we now know what it looks like now of course anything could be wrong right predicting predicting war is sort of silly because it's always based on surprises and adjustments and you know things you don't see coming and the fog of war and who knows if anything we've heard about the war is even true at this point so but it does seem to me that the number of high mars compared to how rapidly russia can build new depots that are functional i think it's down to that right am i right it's down to that and what appears to be what is going to happen is that russia will start to think that they're lucky if they can keep what they've got and they'll make a deal that doesn't make them happy at the same time the ukrainians will make a deal that makes them very unhappy too which is a good deal makes everybody unhappy um somebody asked if i was registered to vote the answer is i don't remember if i'm registered do you register once or do you register every time you move how does that work but but i don't vote i'm not i'm not registered as a republican or well i take that back i might be registered to something i don't remember if i registered as either a democrat or republican it wouldn't have meant anything to me it would not have been an indication of who i was going to vote for i probably said independent wouldn't because i have registered in the past i don't know if i'm registered at the moment and i i don't have a plan to vote the reason i don't vote is different from your reasons it's because i do this publicly i don't think you should vote if you're going to try to be objective about anything right now it's hard enough to be objective about anything and i don't think i hit that standard i wish i did but uh for me there would be a bias that would occur if i voted that would increase whatever bias i'm already operating under and and struggling against right the rest of you you should vote i recommend it if you're talking in public about politics at least give a thought to not voting right i wouldn't want you to give up your right to vote if it makes you feel good go ahead and do it but just be aware that casting an actual vote like acting with your body makes it really really hard later to say that you made a mistake right if i tell you i think this candidate's better than another one then it turns out i'm wrong well it's going to be hard for me to say i was wrong but at least i didn't vote for him do you see it now well okay that candidate i was pretty sure would be the good one turned down poorly but at least i didn't vote for him do you get it that would make me more biased there's no way i would act the same if i had voted for him right if i voted for him i'd feel like i had to defend it to the death even though logically i shouldn't um revolver has a article basically mocking the new york times coverage of the ray epps situation so y'all know ray apps was caught on camera inciting protesters to go into the capital on january 6.

and he seemed to be if not the most vocal organizer certainly one of them i think the most right in terms of going inside the capitol i think he was the most uh vocal i think he had a megaphone and everything else did he not and fact-check me on that did he have a megaphone i i think i may have just imagined that right somebody says yes or are you i'm seeing yeses and knows yeah isn't that interesting so so some of us have faith false memories and it might be me yeah i think i've conflated him with other people there there was a megaphone person there but i don't know if it was him anyway we won't settle this right away but it doesn't matter and here's other things that the revolver story says about the new york times wrote what too many of us our impression is that the new york times was trying to cover for some intelligence agency and and run a cover story that would make their um operative allegedly looked like he was just an innocent citizen so it looks too many of us can't prove it but it looks like the new york times is just working for an intelligence agency to write a fake story about rayapps to cover their tracks that's what it looks like now do i believe that's what happened i don't know but the new york times has been incredibly accused and proven to be you know untrustworthy on a number of topics of great interest to the public from weapons of mass destruction and you know you name it russia collusion i mean they have they have a long record of clearly backing fake news clearly so when they say ray epps is just a citizen and there's nothing to worry about here do we believe them well i will tell you that just this week my my famous democrat friend who i mentioned anonymously a smart person that i often have conversations with about politics or i have in the past and he told me in the context of some other conversation it didn't have anything to do with january 6.

i don't think but he told me that it was in the new york times and therefore you know it was reliable and i thought what what in 2022 how could you possibly say that in 2022 there's a like an adult human who pays attention who believes that because it was in the new york times that makes it very likely to be true i'm not 100 percent nothing's 100 but very likely to be true because with the new york times to which i say well if you've been alive for the last five years you would know that if it's a political story that favors one side or the other it's not going to be true it's you know maybe facts and dates are true but the political spin i don't think anybody expects that to be true let's spin like everything else um so here's what uh here's some quotes from the revolver article you can see it in my my twitter feed i tweeted it uh the only problem is that reyes didn't go to trump's speech so apparently there's evidence that he planned the protest like he had advanced advanced planning and we know that that he would be part of the protest he went all the way to washington and did not attend the speech trump's speech he went directly to the capitol where he immediately started organizing them to go in which apparently he talked about in advance with somebody all right so the guy who went there innocently didn't even go there for the reason that people went there he had a different agenda all right um and uh it says quote the revolver piece says the times piece attempts to wave off epps january 6th protest participation as negligible similar to those who committed minor offenses and weren't charged yet epps is the key person caught on video with an advanced plan to go into the capital he's the primary person on video organizing people to go into the capitol and we know he had an advanced plan to do it and he's being treated like people who trespassed there's there's no correlation that's not just a person who trespassed that's somebody with a plan um and and even the new york times who dismisses the the conspiracy theories about rey apps this is according to revolver as well refers to apps in its own definitive video documentary so this is new york times against new york times they refer to him as a rioter for whom storming the capital was part of the pala all along so the original new york times reporting was that he's obviously a key member of the plot and and he was you know planned to go into the capitol all along so new york times says has said this directly into reporting and now they're reporting that he was basically a minor person like other people who were released and then according to the revolver this this is more opinionated i think that the new york times uh ominously suggests epps will sue news outlets for defamation if they keep saying things about him so doesn't this look exactly like the new york times is doing a cover piece for an intelligence agency not that they are that's something i can't confirm but it looks exactly like it i know unless there's something i'm missing um here's the most interesting part revolver asks this i wonder if the author of the new york times piece alan fewer could clarify for the record did he ask apps if he had the association within the intelligence agencies or cutouts of such agencies if so what did he say if not why not and i read this and i thought wait a minute the new york times did an article on the topic of whether ray epps was working for an intelligence agency that was the point of the piece and they didn't ask him if he did or if they did ask him they didn't report his answer that being the only point and they interviewed him and they didn't ask him if he's part of an intelligence agency the only question that mattered now here's the funny part if revolver had not helpfully pointed out that he hadn't asked the question i don't know if i would have noticed would you have noticed if you read a whole article about how he definitely totally wasn't an intelligence operator just a normal person would you have noticed that they never asked them the question and then reported the answer i don't know if i would i think that that is so clever that i would not have noticed now revolver has more of a an interest in this because they reported on reps so they're you know they're also defending their own reporting but so they looked a little closer and they noticed and i didn't even notice that did any of you know that that the new york times did that article and didn't and didn't report on whether they asked them if he was a member of an intelligence organization no we didn't notice that didn't we think about that oh you didn't notice all right somebody said says they noticed good for you all right apparently a federal judge blocked the biden administration from some kind of ruling that would allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as their identification but also to allow transgender to join sports teams corresponding with their chosen genders and the federal judge has blocked it now um i would like to reframe this again um i think we have to look at the sports as what's broken and not the athletes and every time that we look at the athlete as is the athlete good you know is that fair for them to do what they're doing or is there something wrong with the athlete every time we're focusing on the athlete we're just looking in the wrong direction there's something wrong with how we organize sports that this is even a question why in the world are people not playing against people of equal ability when was that okay why is it okay that you're you're awkward kid who's not good at sports has to go to a school in which only the gifted physically capable people get to be heroes and you know they get to be lauded for their accomplishments and they get all the boys and the girls and all that why is that fair why is it fair that people of lower ability don't get to play on an organized sport in high school at least the ones with prestige they can play unorganized sports or lesser organized sports so i feel like we should just scrap the whole thing and say how about people who have roughly equal abilities play each other right if you've got a high school and the high school team you're playing against has shaquille o'neal you know young shaquille on the other team is that fair should you even have a game what would be the point of playing let's say you're your tallest guy in your team was 6'1 and you're playing against you know shaquille o'neal's team in high school are you going to win no because you kill for whatever reason he's not like you he's not like anybody else so what would be even the point of playing those games it's like it's like what's the point of swimming against you know leah thomas if you're a woman what's the point because you know how it's going to turn out so we don't have a problem of just you know trans on sports we have a problem with wildly uh out of the norm athletes playing on sports the problem is athletes that are way out of the normal playing on the wrong team and the wrong team in this case just means ability it doesn't mean gender why in the world do we care the gender of who's on the team now the whole idea that women need to get awards it's just a woman thing sorry because if it worked the other way it probably you wouldn't see any change if women had always been the athletes you know this is true if women had traditionally been the only ones who played sports and and socially we had adjusted to that you know to a time we adjusted that was right but then we got more aware and said hey men are playing sports how about get some men into these sports do you think anybody would give a no nobody would give a if if sports had always been about women and men wanted to get it no but nobody would change the law for that of course not it's only because men were you know and boys were playing sports unfairly i'm not saying that was a good deal it was very unfair for the women but the reason it changed is because there was women asking for it i don't think it works the other way and i don't think that it was ever a good change because what women ask for is hey can't women get their own awards to which i say well why can't shitty male athletes get their own awards why isn't there a varsity team for a short basketball with short male basketball players why is that wrong why is there not a varsity male basketball team for people under five eight why can't why can't they win an award well you say well scott they're just bad athletes you don't give awards to bad athletes for whatever the reason you're sure they're 5-8 but you know you want to reward the good athletes to which i say but i wasn't born where i can compete with shaquille o'neal look at me what uh am i gonna stop is dunk so why in the world should i let's say hypothetically i had no sporting ability why should i be like you know glorifying the people who were good at a random event sports are completely random rules and and i as a person who just you know wouldn't be good at some of those sports i i have to go glorify and my tax you know some of my tax base goes to support their awesomeness you know why am i paying for some athlete that i'm not so first you got to figure out how we got here how we got here is that women complained i would have too perfectly reasonable and they worked to get you know sort of equal treatment but it wasn't what they should have asked for they got what they asked for but it's not what they should have asked for it was good for good for girls and good for women so i can't fault them for asking for what's good for them that's the way it works you do get to ask her for what's good for you i'm not going to criticize people asking for what's good for them but if we had re-architected the whole thing from scratch we would have said you know that's a good point uh maybe we should just have teams that are based on ability and the the best female players who are on teams mostly with men would still be superstars wouldn't they could you imagine if a female made it onto a high-end team in which the only other people who could play for that team were male wouldn't that one woman who could actually legitimately make the team be like really it'd be danica patrick right danica patrick probably made more money than 99 of all male race car drivers why because she was interesting she was interested she was pretty that helped but she was interesting because she was the highest level female in a largely male dominated sport what's wrong with that model do you think danica patrick thinks oh i've been so discriminated against in this male sport or does she think that she is world famous and has a you know great opportunities because of it i know um so really the trans the trans topic has everything to do with the fact that women are treated as a little bit more special than men and we've agreed that that's just we're okay with that and then the trans thing just messes up the whole model just messes up the whole model but i'm going to leave you that with this one thought that i'm not going to change you'll never talk me out of this the trans are not broken trans people are not broken sports are broken just fix the sports i know it's not going to happen i'm just saying look in the right place for the problem you're it's not the trans people all right so you know the who was it the trump's secret service people testified for the january six people and uh here's an interesting fact that you would never notice if if i were not here to bring it up you know i always notice i always mentioned when cnn runs a opinion piece often by chris silessa seliza i hope i'm saying that right and he's one of their superstar opinion people and he'll do a story this sort of anti-republican by its nature and does a good job um and there's a couple others uh um collinson i think is the other one who are their their standard go to i think they have like three or four big name opinion pieces who always jump in when you need to rescue a democrat problem right if there's something in the news that's skewed a little bit too republican you know one of their big names jumps in and squashes it down well i noticed with interest and maybe it could be just summer vacations or something but they've got a what i think is an unknown at least to me somebody named jeremy erb who writes the opinion piece to say that the house january 6 committee corroborated key details involving former president trump's heated exchange with secret service when trump was told he could not go to the capitol okay so so the they corroborated key details about that exchange let me think what did that story include let's say there was a there's a story about him throwing food against a wall which he denies there's a story about trump allegedly grabbing the steering wheel of the the car he was in to try to you know encourage the driver to go toward the protests and but yet the reporting by jeremy erb is that the key details were corroborated what do you think were the key details which part was corroborated you see what's missing here's a fact that was corroborated here's another fact that was corroborated here's the fact here's the corroboration it doesn't have that it just says that key things were corroborated were the key things the actual things that you think are the key because i think if trump grabbed the steering wheel of a moving car that would be i'd like to know that did did he say that happened i don't think so i don't think that was one of the key details i've got a feeling that no key details that you care about were confirmed at all and i got a feeling that this is just a feeling this so so i can't prove what i'm gonna say now it feels as if it's probably just summer vacations but it feels as if the the big name opinion pieces people couldn't do it they're just like seriously you want me to act like he corroborated the thing he didn't mention i feel like the ones that do the big pieces have a little more pride it's like i can spin this but i'm not going to just ignore the key detail and say that other key details were corroborated and just lie about it i think they had to get somebody who is new who would go this far again this is pure speculation right i can't read any minds i don't know what cnn is really doing it could be just it could just be that the bigger guys run and bigger women are on vacation so they had to find somebody to fill in but he hilariously fills in by doing um just the most ham-handed job of spinning this in an illegitimate way he'll probably get a permanent job there it's it was so good all right well it turns out that that was the end of my notes because i thought i had a third page but it turns out that my printer decided all it needed was that little line there so it printed that little line and that's all i needed to do now have i changed your minds or anything um nope i don't change too many mines on here except the skittles might not be a food group if you think skittles is a food group i hope i changed your mind uh you agree on the sports good you know part of it is because i played uh co-ed intramural sports quite a bit and it was just better it was just better to have a mixed group if i could have played at the highest level of soccer and college for example i probably wouldn't want you know anybody on my team who couldn't keep up but that was not the case when i played when i played soccer with you know women on the team they were they kept up with me you know maybe they couldn't keep up with the best male players of the team but they certainly kept up with me all right um oh you know about hartwick yeah the the tiny college i went to hartwick college um recruited european soccer players before that was a big thing so so one year that i was there we had the number one soccer team in the country one won the country tiny little school that was quite exciting for us all right um should your theory on sports carry over to intelligence in the classroom well it does i mean that's being reversed a little bit but ideally you want people of equal capability to be in the same class don't you isn't that obvious you can't always get that there's practical reasons why you can't do it but you'd want it if you could get it what if music were treated like sports well i don't know where that's going um don't take criminal questions oh how about the interview office in town you know what um i had a thought this morning let me run this by you so i told you i was thinking of starting like an actual podcast studio maybe maybe something in town where people don't have to come to my house you know something small very small but professional and maybe something like i could have an audience so i could bring in an audience sometime but i realized that maybe what i have to do is host debates i feel like i feel like everything has sort of lined up that i'm the only one who can do it now i'm not the only one who has the skill that would be lots of people but i might be the only one who has the minimum amount of skill and the willingness to do it because there's nobody willing to do it it doesn't matter how much skill they have so i don't think i have the highest level skill i think i have like just enough but now to do this i would have to do it on a video though because i don't think i could get people to come where i live it's it's just not it's not like in la where people are going to go there anyway if you had an office in new york you could get everybody because they're in town anyway but people are not in my town anyway so i think i'd have to do a video and i might set it up so there's like three videos you know two of the two of the competing people and then me but i would be live if anybody wanted to be there in the audience and my model would be heavy interruption so it wouldn't be a regular debate it would be a debate in which i interrupted both sides uh you're ignoring the question that sort of thing medical software more evidence new golden age oh oh and interesting julia shear says corporism c-o-r-p-u-s-i-m is a thrilling useful new open source medical software open source medical software hello open source medical software how much do i want that that that's either the worst idea or the best idea imagine if you will that everybody who wanted to i have no idea what this product is so what i'm going to talk about don't assume that has anything to do with this product but imagine if just people could contribute their experience of what they did all right i had this problem i did this for it eventually wouldn't it turn into a giant ai and you wouldn't need doctors anymore except for the physical manipulation of things i don't know i think it would go in that direction uh who would be the first and second debaters so who i i don't know i'm not sure that i would bring in necessarily the politicians so the trouble with politicians debating is that they're professional liars and we don't expect much more from them am i right like having a debate between two politicians feels like a complete waste of time having a debate between experts there i can imagine the model where i could make that work but any debate between pundits or politicians would be just complete waste of time do both i just think it's a waste of time to do the politicians it really is i mean the only reason to do the politicians is that you get more audience because they're noticeable and you can you know embarrass somebody and maybe there's a gaff but it would be the least useful thing to do you know if i did their actual debate on policy nobody would watch probably is rand paul a professional liar quote yes yes now i do i have a high opinion of rand paul and i think he he's probably one of the most honest people but you don't think that uh that he's ever left anything out do you think he provides all the context for the other team or maybe just shows his side right i i don't feel like you can be in politics and give complete let's say complete respect to the other team's argument before you state what your opinion is and without that i'm not sure that's really honest that's doing a good job as a politician i love rand paul as a politician by the way i think he's a national asset there are a few politicians i think have um let's say they've surpassed congress in terms of who they are like there's some people who are just members of congress you've never even heard their names if they're not from your state and even them but yeah tom cotton's one he rises above and rand paul's one so i believe there are some people who have risen above their limited role that they get elected for and he's won in a good way well speaker of the house is a special case you know ted cruz yeah now often there's people who have ambition to be president yeah ted cruz i think for sure yeah and mtg yeah some other people thomas massey good example thomas massey and i do not agree on everything but whenever we disagree his reasons are good which bothers me frankly i hate to feel disagreement with people whose reasons on the other side are actually solid like oh that's actually a pretty good reason and thomas massey does that to me all the time i think probably three or four times i've had an immediate disagreement with something i thought he said and then you hear the larger argument you go oh okay maybe i don't agree with it because i'm not quite as you know my politics don't line up exactly with uh some of his stuff but when he gives his reason i usually say okay that's the reason yeah he's more libertarian than i am but he's consistent you know being consistent is worth a lot and there are there are libertarian arguments that you say to yourself well i don't know that that would work but i can't rule it out you know discuss them it's got some logic behind it you'd pay good money to hear that now that's somebody i would debate i would definitely debate thomas massey because like you said he doesn't operate like a traditional politician oh here's here's the biggest compliment i'll ever give a politician you ready for this this is literally the biggest compliment i will ever give a politician i'm positive that if i had a debate with thomas massey on some topic which we disagreed and i made a better argument he would change his mind right in front of you now i'm not saying i have the ability to do that or that there's any topic which is you know stands out as the one that i would do that however it is my opinion that if i gave him a better argument in public that he would have the capability it's the capability that's important right because others would just cowardly retreat to their their team i believe he would actually tell you in public they changed his mind under the unusual condition that i made a better argument and you know it had some weight i don't know that anybody else could do that do you would you trust anybody else to change their mind in public when faith i would but i'm not a politician right so but a politician i don't know name one other person you think would be capable forget about willing you know just capable i mean joe rogan would but again not not a politician what co-punt is that a word if trump and desantis debated it would be horror yeah that would be a weird one wouldn't it imagine trump and desantis debating i can't see that ever happening yeah i see some support for dan grenshaw over on youtube um conservatives have a real mixed feeling about him don't they i forget what the issue is yeah he uh crenshaw's is interesting because he's smarter than um than he lets on i don't know if you know that but crenshaw is super smart and i i think he's smart enough not to let you know just how smart he is because i'm not sure that would play right so he's very smart whether you disagree with him or agree with them you know i'm not going to have that conversation right now oh somebody's calling him a rhino is that what's happening well i don't know about any of that um he did i did an interview with him and you know i'll tell you my first impression was all positive so i had only positive feelings um so it's mostly the anti-war versus not anti-war enough thing that people have a complaint about yeah i don't know i'm not up to date so i don't have anything to disagree with them about but maybe i would who knows um but you like bill gates too well i think bill gates the shine on bill gates is coming off a little bit here's what i like about bill gates unlike you i believe he's operating in the best interest of humanity i don't know that you could ever talk me out of that because if you think he's operating to get power like there's no indication that he's after power like he could have had all the power he wanted he just there's no indication he wants it and there's no indication that he's in there for money i don't see any indication of that now i could be wrong right because we're all just reading minds i can't read his mind but i would say the indication of anything except good intentions now does he get everything right no does anybody no but if you were to bet consistently on what he predicted versus what other people predicted i think you'd come out ahead going with what he predicted all right well we're running a little long i see and today i think we've nailed it uh it's sunday so it's the best show ever on a sunday and yes i am better at predicting you're right and uh oh i don't think card carpool duty will recommence so uh when school starts i will be in a different living situation so i won't be carpooling and that's all for now ladies and gentlemen and uh thank you i'm just reading your comments and getting transfixed by them but goodbye youtube for tonight we'll see you tomorrow

and welcome to the highlight of your

life and civilization itself sort of a

bright glowing

spot in this big

universe of darkness

but

where you are

things are looking up things are looking

up and all you need to take it to

another level is a copper mugger glass

of tanker shelves to sign a canteen

jogger a vessel of any kind fill it with

your favorite liquid

you're right dennis that's scott adams

is one bad dude

true fact check true

and now will you join me

for the unparalleled pleasure the

dopamine here today the thing that makes

everything better in the entire world

it's called the simultaneous sip and

nothing's ever been better go

i would like to start

with a checklist

for

the golden age you ready

i think i might i might put this on

paper

thinking about

i was thinking about all the things

which have

somewhat subtly turn positive

while we're in this environment of

everything going to

and you can lose you can lose sight of

anything that's maybe getting better

because our focus is always on you know

the latest disaster

number one

there have been no major forest fires in

california this year now knock on wood

right

but i believe that's because of the

helicopter rapid response team

i think we're actually

getting on the fires faster in other

words we adjusted we found a way to make

a difference we're not talking about it

right

you know why is nobody talking about

california on fire i it could be luck

it could be luck it could be weather it

could be chance right

but i feel like maybe we got on top of

it

or at least at least there's a

substantial improvement

how about climate change and

nuclear energy which is really the only

solution to it

all positive

all positive everything in the nuclear

energy field went from super negative i

don't know five years ago

to

super positive

so you got your climate change your

nuclear energy now in the short run

in the short run we've got a lot of

challenges with

uh power etc

now let me ask you about

let's talk about inflation

energy prices seem to have maybe

stabilized and dropped a little too soon

to be happy

but but it looks like inflation

at least on the energy part the biggest

part

looks like it might have slowed down and

then the energy cost if it slows down

will ripple through the the rest of the

product stuff

we might have seen something closer to

the top of inflation i guess some of the

core stuff is still going to be higher

for a few months but that should get

pulled back they should get pill pulled

back

because they're

now let's take

china i just saw another article it's

all it's hard to speculate what's

happening in china right we don't know

but it looks like china is an actual

recession already

if you read the tea leaves right they

don't report that but it looks like they

might be

and it looks like

china as the growing power that we have

to worry about

may have taken quite a hit

because i think their manufacturing base

will be

i would say drained forever

i don't think people are going back

so in terms of how we deal with china

even though it's hard for our supply

chains and stuff i believe we're

probably moving our pharma back

because

if anything scared us straight

i would imagine big pharma has plenty of

money am i right

does big pharma have money of course

they've got all they need

so they can move their plants back to

wherever they need to get it out of

china so i believe

that our our position in the world

relative to china

is better

what do you think

i mean you can easily be wrong we could

all be wrong about this stuff but even

though we both took a hit

i believe the united states took will

take less of a hit going forward

about russia

our two biggest competitors in the world

right russia and china

i feel like russia is taking a step

backwards relative to the united states

at the same time the united states is

not doing you know terrific

but relatively i think we opened a gap

so i would say that the united states

has improved its position maybe

maybe with russia and china its two

biggest competitors

i think we'll get past inflation

what about that risk of nuclear war with

russia

i haven't worried about it lately have

you

i feel like we're past it

and i feel like there's some kind of a

stalemate situation happening there

that's expensive

but

i feel like

you're the end point of ukraine is

looking a little more clear looks like a

stalemate

where russia will control what they

control

and ukraine will complain about it

forever

right

how about

a.i

now ai is either going to be the

greatest thing or the worst thing but

it's going to change everything

you know whatever you think about the

change that ai will bring you have no

idea

there's nothing that will be the same

after virtual reality and ar hit

ai

if you combine ai in virtual reality

what life looks like in 10 years

is completely unpredictable

you there's just no way to know it's

going to go i mean it's gonna be really

interesting

but it might be better

there's a whole segment of the world

that literally can't find happiness

because the resources don't exist

right there are people who can't find a

a mate

which is sort of important

for happiness

right

and

i think people will just you know take a

drug put on the vr helmet and go into

their other life and that other life

will be fully satisfying

even if in the other life they're in

love with an ai in an npc or something

driven by an ai it'll be a relationship

and it'll be somebody that's not you

know treating them poorly so i think

that for

i don't know

60 to 80 percent of the public

they would be better off with an ai

partner

eventually

and everybody who disagrees with that

100 of the people who disagree with that

statement

are thinking of

current technology which couldn't come

close to that

but future technology and it's not that

far in the future

if you in the future there will be a

better version

of a human for your for your enjoyment

than any human could ever compete with

it won't even be close

in the long run it won't even be close

right it'll take a while for the

crossover we're not there

people still better than robots still

better

but that that gap is just closing like

crazy there's no question where it's

going

i mean it can only go one direction

can they do plumbing and electrical

probably

probably

all right um

i made a

claim on

twitter i got a slight adjustment to by

paul graham

if you don't know paul graham you can

google him but

he's one of the high value accounts you

know tech founder

generally considered one of the smart

people in

in california or silicon valley or i'm

not sure where he lives now but anyway

the part of that is he's real smart so

when he says stuff you should pay

attention

and i had said provocatively

that the most valuable words for success

are be useful

that if you didn't know anything else

about anything else and you're just like

well how do i be successful

just focus on being useful

and the more useful you are the better

off you'll be right

more is better but be useful

if you focus on that things will go well

now a lot of people agreed

uh paul graham added this twist

he said

that if it's business that's effectively

making what people want

so

basically if you're in a business

being useful translates to making

products that people want

and here's the part here's the part that

gets interesting

i'm not sure that's exactly right

it's like close

feels like a like an 80

sort of situation

and

here's why i think there's a difference

but help me think this through right

this is like preliminary thinking

in my opinion

if you focus on what the customer wants

you can get a good good result if you

focus on

making yourself useful

i think you could also get a good result

if you focus on making yourself useful

via the process of making a product that

somebody wants

well then i think paul graham's point

makes a lot of sense like the being

useful and giving them something they

want

ends up being pretty much the same thing

but here's where i disagree a little bit

and i'm not sure if my thinking is clear

on this yet

i feel like what you focus on makes a

difference

even if you say well you know

the outcome is going to look about the

same i don't know

i think what you focus on makes a

difference for the

gray areas of which you would expect

money

i think if you focus on being useful

you're always going to win

but if you focus on giving people what

they want

sometimes they don't know what they want

you know what i mean

useful being useful is a little bit more

objective

okay this is useful

or not this is more useful than that you

could usually kind of suss that out what

is more useful than something else

but i don't know if you can deal with

what people want

people's wants are not necessarily

tethered to what they need or what's

good for them or they even know

how it's going to turn out they've got

short-term wants that

that are in conflict with their

long-term needs right

so i feel as if focusing on anybody's

wants

is going to give you some problems

sometimes

the difference is mind-reading maybe

all right

uh apparently there's a class-action

suit against the candy skittles

because there's some ingredient in there

titanium dioxide that i think in europe

it's already banned and

there's there's some indication that it

might not be good for you

but when i saw this i thought you know i

don't have too much of a thought about

skittles

because i have a rule

i i don't eat things which don't

don't seem to have any food in them

so that's just my rule

if you're putting something in your

mouth and

digesting it

and it doesn't have any

food related

quality that you can determine

well i feel like you're

you're really asking for trouble there

probably just food and medicine is the

only thing you should put in your mouth

okay you've got a dirty mind

go ahead make your dirty jokes

okay we're done

but otherwise the only thing you should

put in your mouth is food medicine

and dirty stuff

and naughty stuff

um but

this brings me to my macro point

uh our foods are food supply

um not just maybe it's more the united

states or the industrialized countries

but let me tell you something that's

really really obvious

in america

i i want to see if there's anybody

who'll disagree with the following

statement

our food supply

is poison

you just look around

people

just look around

just go to the mall

and just look around

and you tell me our food supply is not

poisoned it's obvious

it's obvious and and somehow the food

industry got away with blaming us

think about that

the food business

is getting away with blaming us for

being unhealthy because we

ate the wrong food

i don't think so

if if you're selling you know crack to

children

i don't think it's the children's fault

if they get addicted is it

if you sell crack to children it's your

fault

it's not the children's fault and in

this analogy we adults are the children

we don't know any better you give me a

french fry i'm gonna put it in

my mouth

right do i know that eating french fries

is not my optimal health related thing

oh i do

i do but if you put a basket of fries in

front of me

do you know what i'm going to say in

about a second and a half

well one basket of fries doesn't hurt me

right i'm gonna rationalize it in a

heartbeat

because they're really delicious

we don't have a chance

this food is engineered to overwhelm our

our whatever you think is your willpower

which is an illusion

so you're really you're operating

against something that's scientifically

designed to be you

if you're fighting every day against a

a let's say a an enemy who is

scientifically designed to beat you

every time

well don't be surprised if you lose

because it was scientifically designed

to beat you every time that's that's the

sugar fat salt combination if you

manipulate the sugar fat salt which is

the name of a book you should read

it's addictive

right there's a reason you can only you

can't eat more than one potato chip

right that's real

i really can't eat one

i've tried have you ever tried to eat

one potato chip

if you're all alone

and you keep the potato chips in your

room and you're still hungry

you you just can't do it

i i would say that on the

if you were to rank me

against you know other human beings in

terms of willpower i think it'd be

pretty high up there

like i would say my track record of life

suggests that i can

put off pleasure for a long time to get

some larger gain i have pretty high

emotional

intelligence as you know objectively

measured

but i can't resist the second second

potato chip

that's crazy i will just talk myself

into an rv

so

um i think we have to come to

some kind of a

realization or awareness

our food supply is killing us

it's not even close to adequate it's not

even close

it's not even in the general zip code

of food

have you ever met somebody who ate clean

like really clean

now you you think you have because you

you have a friend who's a vegan or

something like that no i'm not even

close

the difference between eating clean like

really eating clean no additives no

preservatives all that stuff

if you meet one of those people

they're not like you are they

they're not like you

their their bodies and their health is

really different and it's very

noticeable yeah i once i once uh

briefly dated a woman who was this just

the cleanest eater and didn't use any

like unnatural shampoos or you know

didn't even put things on externally

and

it was so obvious

that that human being was operating at a

different level of health

it was just really obvious and i don't

think i don't think she started as the

healthiest person in the world i think

it's what she eats i think it's just

that now i couldn't i couldn't do what

she did it was just too extreme it was

just really extreme

but

no question it worked no question that

worked

all political movements of any scale are

fake

in terms of protests you know like big

movements

whether it's your antifa's or your

january 6 events or your

or you're fine people marches or you're

antifa

um

i think they're all fake

and here's what i mean

i don't mean that the individuals who

are marching don't have sincere feelings

they do

but they wouldn't be there

except that

some artificial entity funded it and

organized it right now here's the

thinking

you could imagine a time in the 70s i

don't know if it's true but you can

imagine a time

when maybe spontaneous

large-scale protests did happen

right maybe

but probably not even then and here's

the reason

it's that the organizers have too much

to gain

they can monetize it

if it's possible to monetize leadership

of an organization

well you're down here right follow the

money

what what's going to happen if it's

possible just if it's possible

to monetize leadership of a

political movement

somebody's going to buy it

right there's somebody who's going to

buy your loyalty because the cat is for

sale

you can monetize it now

without going into a log argument here's

the short version

if you follow the money

it has to be in the long run

that all major uh

organized political movements are all

artificial in other words somebody just

funded them to look like a grassroots

movement but it's the organizers that

are getting everybody spun up

in the long run

they all become owned by a bad entity

because they're all for sale

ultimately

in the short run maybe not in the short

run you can imagine people spontaneously

running into the street to protest

something and i think maybe the abortion

situation on day one

was probably just organic right on day

one probably just people just said oh

they just got up and made a sign

and walked outside

but

wait a little while

whoever has the most money and influence

will eventually

get to whoever the organic leaders are

and say you know you're doing well as an

organic leader but you're not making any

money you're not paying your family

you're not feeding your family how about

i give you a bunch of money make you

much more effective

they say yeah

you're on my side

i mean what's there's no downside right

i just get more money and i do the same

thing

but people give you money on you

no matter what your original motivation

was as soon as you start taking money

you got a boss

right so basically every leader who

might be

organic in the beginning

ends up getting owned by somebody who

has enough money to do that

so

i can't see any situation

in which a large-scale protest on either

side

for any reason

would ever be organic in the long run

i just can't see it so i from this point

on i assume all large protests are fake

a little bit doesn't mean the people the

people might be very sincere but in

terms of what got them all there

probably always fake from now on

i don't think we live in a world in

which it it can't rapidly go fake

because follow the money

the money will always be there there's

always going to be somebody on that side

even if there's nobody in the united

states who wants this protest

there's always china

there's always some there's always

another country that wants some trouble

here

so you can always get it funded

npr has launched a what they call a

disinformation reporting team

so a group of people who will tell you

what's true and what isn't

here is uh what i invented today i call

it the adams law effect fact checkers

the adams law of fact checkers and it

goes like this

all fact-checking organizations are

liars by omission

and it isn't fixable

all fact check organizations are liars

by omission

that's their job

their job is to lie by omission

if you don't know that's the real

mission

so the job of a fact checker is to say

well obviously there are too many things

in the world

you can't look at every every fact and

try to check it right so you have to

pick ones

what happens when the fact checkers pick

the facts

to fact check

well they're not going to pick the one

that's bad for their team

so they just lie by omission

they simply leave out a fact check

because it would be inconvenient to have

one and then when you look for the fact

check it as well nothing there

so

and if you've read any of the fact

checks so far

the ones that are obviously fake fact

checks and you you know which ones i

mean right

you've seen it yourself there are ones

that are just obviously fake fact checks

um

you can tell what they left out

you just look at it you go well

you know you've left out like a main

variable you haven't even ruled on it

like you've just ignored a main variable

that's a lie

if your fact checking

ignores what is obviously a major

variable in the decision

that's a lie by omission

so in the long run i don't think they

can go in any other direction

so all political organizations become

you know corrupted eventually

by money

and all fact checkers eventually become

liars by omission now i don't think that

they usually lie

directly

there might be a case of that but i

think that would be rare you don't see

the fact checker say oh this happened on

this date when it didn't

like that the fact checking tends to be

right

but they lie by leaving out other facts

right if there's a fact that the other

side just don't mention it

there you go

so do you think that the fact checkers

could ever act independently

they're not even it's not even designed

to do that

do you think that they look for the most

independent fact checkers to form the

you know do you think npr said you know

we are a left-leaning organization

but for fact checking that's exactly the

kind of bias you want to get rid of

so rather than just maybe promoting our

obviously left-leaning people into a job

of trust and fact-checking we're going

to scour the world

and find people who are famous for being

able to

disagree with their own team

that's the people you want with your

fact checkers because that's people who

have a track record that says i don't

care if my team says this is true it's

just not true

and then they hired those people who

could go against the grain because

that's who you could trust

no

nothing like that's happening

they're hiring leftists

and what do you think the leftists would

do if they got a situation in which

let's say for hypothetically

let's say there was a left leading

person who legitimately wanted to do

fact checking

and let's say this left-leaning person

said you know i'm going to seriously try

to be objective here i know i'm

left-leaning

but i'm being hired to be objective i'm

going to be objective and let's say some

facts came to that person

they showed that the fine people hoax

was a hoax and maybe it's the first time

they heard it

do you think a left leading person

working for npr

even if they believed it true and

discovered that the fine people hoax was

in fact a hoax you know the the

the hoax part is just that

trump called neo-nazis fine people which

we know didn't happen because of the

video

but

imagine if you were you had a uh impulse

to debunk that

could you do it

no

no

you couldn't do it

and not and keep your job

do you think do you think even if

somebody thought it thought they had the

facts do you think they could debunk a

major left talking point and then keep

their job not a chance

not a chance they wouldn't be able to go

to a party

imagine going to a party after you

debunked the left's whatever biggest

talking point couldn't do it

you wouldn't be it would be like alan

dershowitz being you know expelled from

uh

from polite company

so by their designs fact checker

organizations can't work if they come

out of organizations that have a bias

or even if you just live in the world

you can't be by unbiased about fact

checking

all right so we saw another robot that

is getting close to looking like people

nobody has

yet solved for making a robot actually

look like a person but they're getting

closer and closer

what happens when you can't tell the

difference

because that that feels like

that's going to happen at least on video

right if you just zoom call to a robot

someday you won't know the difference

and how would you know the difference

and i have this

suggestion

that the way you can spot a robot in the

future is the same way you could spot an

npc today

if in fact npcs exist which it appears

they do

it appears they do doesn't mean they do

and that is that npcs and robots won't

have stories

they won't have stories

so yesterday i was doing a little video

from my man cave live stream

and i was challenging people to

prompt me to tell a story

and so there were things like what was

your most embarrassing moment or you

know what what was the moment that you

realized this or that and for each of

those

i had a story

i go well let me tell you the story how

i felt and

blah blah the surprise ending

and i have lots of stories

but there are definitely people who

can't tell you a story about anything

that happened to them and i think robots

in the short run

a robot won't be able to tell you a

story

if you talk to a robot about what's

happening at the moment well maybe you

can't tell the difference

but if you say to the robot hey

can you tell me a story about like the

best thing you ever got for your

birthday

you're done

you know now could you program a robot

to fool you

about its own biography like maybe a

steals from somebody else's backstory

probably so you could definitely get a

robot to fool you but that leads me to

my next

observation

we really need a law

that if something is ai or a robot it

got it's got to be labeled

right we do truth and labeling

you've got to label those robots

if you come at me with a robot

pretending to be human and i can't tell

the difference you and i have a problem

all right don't send don't send your

robot at me

and try to make me think it's human

if you do that you and i have a problem

you you have you have done something to

me that's immoral

and unethical

you made me think that a robot was a

human being and then maybe i interacted

with it or made decisions based on it

no bueno

that needs to be flat illegal

and

the voice as well

we need to have a law that says

ai voices cannot be modulated outside a

certain parameter

in other words we can't let ai be

persuasive

not by voice

you can't let ai

persuade you with a human-like voice

that's got to be illegal and we got to

do it now because the the first ai with

a human voice you know that's persuasive

and maybe even can modulate the voice

and change it that is too dangerous

and we know it's dangerous

like you don't have to wonder about it

is there anybody here who would doubt

the the proposition that an ai that

sounded like a human enough that you

couldn't tell

and also could change its voice quality

to be more persuasive or less persuasive

you don't want that loose in the

world

you do not want that loose in the world

believe me it's bad enough that i'm

loose in the world

this is my favorite category of things

to say

one of my categories is things which

cannot be communicated

they're easy concepts but for whatever

reason you can't tell somebody like the

boy who cried wolf

right the boy who cried wolf cannot

communicate that there's an actual wolf

he can say the words but it can't be

communicated because you already believe

that he lies about wolves so

there's no way to get from here there

but but here's what i like to say sort

of in that genre

if anybody knew what i could actually do

i would be murdered

it would be too it would be too

dangerous to have me loosen society

but the only reason that that i'm

completely safe

is that nobody has any idea

nobody has any idea

what i can accomplish through persuasion

if you did

i'd be in jail

because you just wouldn't want it'd be

like having a nuclear bomb wandering

around

without government control

that's sort of what i am

but i will always be free because nobody

will ever believe

what i could actually do

now what i can do might be only a

fraction of what an ai could do

eventually

persuasion-wise because it would have

all the tools instantly

it could it could quickly check those

tools against the individual and

basically everything i do the slow human

way

is programmable

it's all and better

in fact the ai will be better at

detecting your micro changes than even i

am

and i'm trained to do it

one of the big

one of the big skills of a hypnotist

is not what you say

but it's observing how what you said

influenced the person

and there's a look

there's a look that people present and

hypnotists can tell you this

when they're in a certain mode

right when their mind is entered i know

like a maintenance mode or something

you can see it

now it's easy to recognize if you have

experience it would be impossible to

recognize if you didn't but an a i could

do it right away

you would just have to give it okay

here's here's 10 pictures of people in

that mode you know that mental mode

here's 10 people not

done

the ai would be able to spot it every

day after that you know i'm simplifying

but that's the basic idea

all right

so yes let's get some laws about uh

robots and ai pretending to be people

that needs to be stopped

right away

because the first one is going to be

like a nuclear weapon

you got to stop it right away

do you know how many uh

um social media followers

the first robot that's indistinguishable

from a human would have

as many as it wanted

as many as it wanted

all right um let's do the january 6 hoax

update

um i can't call the january 6th thing

like anything but a hoax anymore because

i i feel at this point is just so

obvious

somebody says for 9.99

for a super chat it's funny because the

chat influences scott more than the

influence then he influences the chat

it's definitely a two-way street

um you definitely influenced me

that i didn't know

you often fill in contacts but you do

also actually fact check

yeah um i'm definitely influenced

factually

but the

um

the

the nature of the uh technology

is that maybe i guess i'm like group

peer influence or something like that

but generally speaking this is not an

influential

uh platform in two directions

it's influential in my direction because

you can see me and hear me

but i've just got text to look at so

that that that handicaps you quite a bit

compared to

the persuasion that i can apply

but anyway

um

so

here's the thing that was bothering me

yesterday so we heard a report that one

of the january 6 protesters

is going to get a maybe 15 years

for a list of charges that didn't look

to me like a 15-year sentence

but i guess they're all these um

what do they call them

um

will you put on top of the charge

they're like

stimulants to the charge

they're extras what's the word

enhancements yeah so the judge can add

these quote enhancements to the

um

to the sentence

and say oh because of this or that it's

extra bad

now here's the problem

in order for the democrats

to sell the january 6 hoax

there's one thing that has to happen

really long jail terms

for at least some of the protesters am i

right

they really can't sell the hoax

unless these people go to jail for a

long time

these people should be freed immediately

they should be freed

immediately

irrespective of the crimes they

committed

let me say it again and i would say this

if they were democrats right

this is not team play well it is team

play it's team america

this is this is america

in america

we do not

we do not

we do not

in america

if we if we want to stay america

like if you really want to be america

we do not

set our

length of sentence

based on what the democrats need

politically

we do not

this is happening right in front of you

right in front of you it's very obvious

that these are going to be long

sentences because if they if they were

dismissed

what would the january six hearings look

like if while they were happening

the people accused were getting

dismissed without charges what would

that look like

it would look like the january 6th thing

was

because it is mostly i mean you know

let me say the obvious thing in case

there's any npcs watching this is just

for the npcs right smart people you can

ignore this the real humans

but the npcs are going to say well what

you're ignoring the actual violence of

the people

no i'm not

no i'm not

there's nobody in the world who thinks

actually violent people

should not be you know dealt with by the

legal process nobody so

the npcs if you're watching

oh you're forgetting the violence no i'm

not

no

but

uh we're not america if there uh if if

we can watch

without acting

um american citizens who did make some

mistakes

right no i'm not going to whitewash

any of their actions that's that's up to

them right their actions are just for

them to deal with here's what i have to

deal with

america

right yeah my problem is america

and america is a little bit broken right

now and it's broken right in front of us

and what do we do

what do americans do

when something's broken

and it's right in front of you

you fix it

there's only one way to fix this

you got to vote the democrats out

because at least you can pardon people

or whatever the hell you're going to do

right

[Music]

if if there were no other um

well actually

let me make a stand

i'm going to make a stand right now

no matter who the republican well it

could be even the democrat but no matter

which candidate says i'm going to pardon

all the january 6 protesters

has my support

and i'll even change my opinion if trump

runs and says i'll just do that one

thing

he has my full support

i don't think he should be running

because he's too old

i don't think anybody should run at that

age

but if he runs

and if he says you know i got all these

other ideas but i'll tell you one thing

i'm going to do

is i'm going to fix this problem of

people being sentenced based on democrat

political needs

i'm just going to fix that

and

this is so important

that i could be a single i could be a

single issue voter over this i could

also be single issue voter over um

fentanyl

if a candidate said

uh i got i got some other

policies you might like them you might

not but i'm gonna drop a drone on the

cartels every time every time fentanyl

comes into this country i'm going to

make one

for every death i'll send a rocket

for every fentanyl death we'll send one

drone to blow up some in a cartel

area

every time

if you kill a hundred thousand americans

we'll send a hundred thousand

uh missiles into

mexico one missile for one death or

something like that i'm just making that

up

but if we had a candidate who said you

know i'm just going to solve this one

problem and i don't care if i have to

invade mexico to do it and by the way

i would support a candidate who said he

would invade mexico

let me say that directly

i'm in favor of invading mexico

militarily

just to say directly

i'm in favor of militarily invading

mexico because it's not really a

government government it's a it's a

narco government

they're they're taking a hundred

thousand

of our people

if trump's if trump ran for president on

invading mexico i'd vote for him

now if mexico wanted to do something

about it to avoid being invaded

they should do that right away

i'd even help them do it

help them fund it

give them some resources you know let

them do what they can to become an

independent

strong ally but at the moment i would

support a candidate who said invade

mexico militarily

absolutely in a heartbeat

i wouldn't even hesitate

so those are my big issues

freeing the january 6 people who are

overcharged again we're not we're not

forgiving any real crimes they're just

obviously overcharged

for democrat political purposes it's

just obvious you can't do this right in

front of us

right

it's like

it's one thing

to americans like privately and i

don't hear about it but if you do it

right in front of me

i'm not i'm not gonna let you

americans right in front of me

right that's that's going to be noticed

here's the other story that i don't know

it's just amazing what the public can be

sold

and i saw

kyle becker was

responding the same way i would have so

there's a story now and i need a fact

check on this can somebody verify this

is really true so i heard it from one

source on twitter so

you know use your judgment

but apparently there's a story that uh

clinton campaign lawyer michael sussman

um who

allegedly ran three four fraudulent

operations against trump in 2016-17

traveled to london

and met with with uh you know spies and

stuff

at the british spy center gchq

and the british eavesdropping agency

that provided materials to cia chief

john brennan so we know that

that john brennan said he or did get

some stuff

from britain

we know that christopher steele was a

ex-british intelligence officer

and we were sold

on the concept that there's such a thing

as an

ex-british intelligence officer or a

professional

do you think there's such a thing as an

ex-british

intelligence person

no no now i believe he's not on the

payroll

i believe he's not on the payroll

but that's not like being an ex

do you think that he could do something

that his his masters didn't like

no i mean not and hope to have a

relationship with him in the future

which i'm sure was valuable to him

so

we we never say directly

that it's obvious that great britain was

involved in the russia collusion hoax if

not completely behind it

with hillary clinton

but why do we act like it's not it's not

there

it's right there

christopher steele

was an xx

british spy

why don't we call it

british interference

it's just crazy that we just we all

agree that it's russian interference

when when the actual reporting is

british interference

we're looking right at it

the news has reached a point where they

can put it right in front of you and

tell you it's not there

right here here's here's all the brits

you know being behind this russia

collusion thing

but it was russia here's all the

evidence it was really great britain now

let's talk about russia

and we can actually do that

like right in front of you

all of the information is right there

it's obvious great britain was involved

in some level

obvious

but we just act like it's not true

all right

um san francisco

is trying to i guess the mayor is behind

this they've got a proposal in which the

police would be able to continuously

monitor

um neighborhoods and cities

through your personal

security

system

what

that's right if you have a ring camera

that's connected to a network

the san francisco police there's this is

a proposal would like to at any time

they want

look through your camera

total access to it at any time

and see what you would see if you were

standing on your front porch and the

idea is that once i had access to all

this

surveillance

yeah what about your indoor cameras you

ask

quite reasonably

quite reasonably

and do you think the police would misuse

this ability to see what's happening in

your house

of course

[Laughter]

of course

somehow

of course

yeah

and don't you think they could tell when

you're home

yeah the police will know in your home

do you want the police to know in your

home now i'm a big supporter of the

police

love the police

it is however a fact

that there's not much difference between

a police officer and a criminal

now there's an important difference

which is one is on the side of the law

and one is not

but in terms of their personalities not

that different

you know the ability to

do dangerous things

for benefit

for really not that much benefit

you know if you assume they're underpaid

which i assume

so

i don't know

if you said what is a group of people

you at least want to know

if you're home number one would be

criminals right

the number one people you you want to

know you don't want to know if you're

home

or not is criminals but what is the

number two organization

the second

group that you would most not want to

know about what's happening around your

home

isn't that the police

and it's the police because i wouldn't

trust them

not not because they'd see my private

stuff which is a good enough reason

somebody says my wife yeah your ex-wife

do you think anybody will be a police

officer with access to the system

who also has an ex

who has that system

imagine the police officers being able

to see their ex-wife

or husband

and they and their new lover

you know visiting the house

do you want any of that

that the the amount of uh intrusion into

your personal life is just through the

roof

now here's something that i would i

would uh

be okay with

if if the police said

optionally if you want to put a separate

camera system in front of your house and

give us access to it but it's your

choice

it's got to be a specific kind where we

can't get to any of your other cameras

or anything so it's got to be you know

walled off system if you'd like to have

that kind of a system

and you agree

then we'll be able to look at it but you

have to agree

and you have to know exactly what they

have access to and what they don't

i

i could ima i could imagine

i could imagine

having a ring doorbell let's just say

and let's say if ring could somehow wall

off its software so that you know

the police could only look through the

front door if you've got other cameras

somewhere

could you imagine labeling it

law enforcement monitored

that would be better wouldn't it

like if you were worried about your own

security and you had a ring camera

that's good

but if you had a ring camera that you

knew the police could look at in real

time

that's a little scarier

right as long as everything you did was

voluntary

that's a different situation but

if they're going to force this

uh

no i don't think it can get approved do

you do you think there's any way that

could get approved

if if the resident

doesn't you think there is

i mean maybe

maybe

it seems like a long shot

but maybe

all right

i could tell you when the ukraine russia

war will end if you could give me the

following information

and i know you can't but

maybe someday somebody can

it goes like this how quickly can russia

find and spin up new ammo warehouses

right because their ammo warehouses are

being targeted for destruction by

ukraine

who now has new accurate long-range

weapons to get to all their ammo depots

and if their ammo depots were beyond

that range they also wouldn't be useful

right so now ukraine looks like they can

get to any useful

ammo dumps that that russia would have

on russia's side of the territory now

the question is this we have x many

missiles and rocket launchers that can

do that level of accuracy

is it that what's the name of them the

h-i-m-a-s or something there's a

specific type of weapon so they're being

shipped to ukraine and i think they have

nine high mars

h-i-m-a-r-s

so i think ukraine has nine of them

people are saying can we get a hundred

now

um

carried a gun in the capitol and he

threatened to kill his family if they

turned him

they turned him in all right

um

so so the warning there was that the uh

the person who is overcharged at the

capitol there was some extenuating

situation there

maybe right but but in general the

overcharging in general there there will

be specific cases where where there's a

real argument there

all right we're getting back to my point

um

how many rockets can a

high mars one highmar system send per

day

could could they send a hundred rockets

per day

what do you think

230.

they could do they could do at least

dozens right

now how how fast can the russians build

ammo warehouses

as they're being destroyed now i'm

making an assumption here that we're

always going to know where they are

because we have eyes in the sky and

we've got probably just tons of you know

local intel because remember russia is

occupying an area in which not everybody

being occupied is happy about it

so in theory

the locals should be plenty happy to say

you know i saw some ammo trucks heading

into that building

so i feel like we would always know

where they are

and i would also say that russia's

military capability would basically

disappear if their ammo did

right now everybody adjusts maybe they'd

threaten with nukes or something so we

don't know what would happen

but in theory

the number of hymar missiles

blowing up a number of ammo depots if

you have enough missiles and you know

the number of missiles is increasing as

they're getting more of them

and the rate at which

russia can replace them

at some point will be lower

than the rate at which they can be

destroyed

as soon as that becomes a permanent

situation which seems very likely

the war is over

i feel like i feel like we now know what

it looks like

now of course

anything could be wrong right predicting

predicting war

is sort of silly

because it's always based on surprises

and adjustments and you know things you

don't see coming and the fog of war and

who knows if anything we've heard about

the war is even true at this point

so

but it does seem to me

that the number of high mars compared to

how rapidly russia can build new depots

that are functional

i think it's down to that right

am i right it's down to that and what

appears to be what is going to happen

is that russia will

start to think that they're lucky if

they can keep what they've got

and they'll make a deal that doesn't

make them happy at the same time the

ukrainians will make a deal that makes

them very unhappy too which is a good

deal makes everybody unhappy

um

somebody asked if i was registered to

vote the answer is i don't remember if

i'm registered

do you register once or do you register

every time you move how does that work

but but i don't vote

i'm not i'm not registered as a

republican or well i take that back

i might be registered to something

i don't remember

if i registered as either a democrat or

republican

it wouldn't have meant anything to me it

would not have been an indication of who

i was going to vote for

i probably said independent wouldn't

because i have registered in the past

i don't know if i'm registered at the

moment

and i i don't have a plan to vote

the reason i don't vote is different

from your reasons it's because i do this

publicly

i don't think you should vote

if you're going to try to be objective

about anything right now it's hard

enough to be objective about anything

and i don't think i hit that standard i

wish i did

but

uh for me

there would be a bias that would occur

if i voted

that would increase whatever bias i'm

already operating under and and

struggling against

right the rest of you you should vote

i recommend it

if you're talking in public about

politics

at least give a thought to not voting

right i wouldn't want you to give up

your right to vote if it makes you feel

good go ahead and do it but just be

aware

that casting an actual vote like acting

with your body

makes it really really hard later to say

that you made a mistake

right

if i tell you i think this candidate's

better than another one then it turns

out i'm wrong

well it's going to be hard for me to say

i was wrong

but at least i didn't vote for him

do you see it now

well okay that candidate i was pretty

sure would be the good one turned down

poorly

but at least i didn't vote for him

do you get it

that would make me more biased

there's no way i would act the same if i

had voted for him

right if i voted for him i'd feel like i

had to defend it to the death even

though logically i shouldn't

um revolver has a article

basically mocking the new york times

coverage of the ray epps situation so

y'all know ray apps was caught on camera

inciting protesters to go into the

capital on january 6. and he seemed to

be

if not the most vocal organizer

certainly one of them

i think the most right

in terms of going inside the capitol i

think he was the most uh vocal i think

he had a megaphone and everything else

did he not

and fact-check me on that did he have a

megaphone

i i think i may have just imagined that

right

somebody says yes or are you i'm seeing

yeses and knows

yeah isn't that interesting so so

some of us have faith false memories

and it might be me

yeah i think i've conflated him with

other people there there was a megaphone

person there but i don't know if it was

him anyway we won't settle this right

away but it doesn't matter

and here's other things that the

revolver story says

about the new york times wrote what too

many of us

our impression is

that the new york times was trying to

cover

for some intelligence agency

and and run a cover story that would

make their um operative allegedly

looked like he was just an innocent

citizen

so it looks too many of us can't prove

it but it looks like the new york times

is just working for an intelligence

agency to write a fake story about

rayapps to cover their tracks that's

what it looks like now do i believe

that's what happened i don't know

but the new york times has been

incredibly accused

and proven to be you know

untrustworthy on a number of topics of

great interest to the public

from weapons of mass destruction and you

know you name it russia collusion

i mean they have they have a long record

of clearly

backing fake news clearly

so when they say ray epps is just a

citizen and there's nothing to worry

about here

do we believe them

well i will tell you that just this week

my my famous democrat friend who i

mentioned anonymously

a smart person that i often have

conversations with about politics or i

have in the past

and he told me

in the context of some other

conversation it didn't have anything to

do with january 6. i don't think but he

told me that it was in the new york

times and therefore you know it was

reliable and i thought

what

what

in 2022 how could you possibly say that

in 2022 there's a like an adult

human who pays attention who believes

that because it was in the new york

times

that makes it very likely to be true

i'm not 100 percent nothing's 100

but very likely to be true because with

the new york times

to which i say well if you've been alive

for the last five years

you would know that if it's a political

story

that favors one side or the other

it's not going to be true

it's you know maybe facts and dates are

true

but the political spin

i don't think anybody expects that to be

true

let's spin like everything else

um

so here's what uh here's some quotes

from the revolver article you can see it

in my my twitter feed i tweeted it

uh the only problem is that reyes didn't

go to trump's speech

so

apparently there's evidence that he

planned

the protest like he had advanced

advanced planning and we know that that

he would be part of the protest he went

all the way to washington

and did not attend the speech

trump's speech he went directly to the

capitol where he immediately started

organizing them to go in which

apparently he talked about in advance

with somebody

all right

so the guy who went there innocently

didn't even go there for the reason

that people went there

he had a different agenda all right

um

and uh it says quote the revolver piece

says the times piece attempts to wave

off epps january 6th protest

participation

as negligible

similar to those who committed minor

offenses and weren't charged

yet epps is the key person caught on

video with an advanced plan to go into

the capital

he's the primary person on video

organizing people to go into the capitol

and we know he had an advanced plan to

do it

and he's being treated like

people who trespassed

there's there's no correlation that's

not just a person who trespassed

that's somebody with a plan

um

and

and even the new york times

who dismisses the the conspiracy

theories about rey apps this is

according to revolver as well

refers to apps in its own definitive

video documentary so this is new york

times against new york times they refer

to him as a rioter for whom storming the

capital was part of the pala all along

so the original new york times reporting

was that he's obviously a key member of

the plot and and he was you know planned

to go into the capitol all along so new

york times says has said this directly

into reporting and now they're reporting

that he was basically a minor person

like other people who were released

and then

according to the revolver this this is

more opinionated i think

that the new york times

uh ominously suggests epps will sue news

outlets for defamation

if they keep saying things about him

so doesn't this look exactly like the

new york times is doing a cover piece

for an intelligence agency

not that they are

that's something i can't confirm

but it looks exactly like it

i know unless there's something i'm

missing

um

here's the most interesting part

revolver asks this

i wonder if the author of the new york

times piece alan fewer

could clarify for the record

did he ask apps if he had the

association within the intelligence

agencies or cutouts of such agencies if

so

what did he say

if not why not and i read this and i

thought

wait a minute

the new york times did an article on the

topic of whether

ray epps

was

working for an intelligence agency that

was the point of the piece

and they didn't ask him if he did

or if they did ask him they didn't

report his answer

that being the only point

and they interviewed him

and they didn't ask him if he's part of

an intelligence agency

the only question that mattered

now here's the funny part

if revolver had not helpfully pointed

out that he hadn't asked the question

i don't know if i would have noticed

would you have noticed

if you read a whole article about how he

definitely totally wasn't

an intelligence operator just a normal

person would you have noticed

that they never asked them the question

and then reported the answer

i don't know if i would

i think that that is so clever

that i would not have noticed

now revolver has more of a

an interest in this because they

reported on reps so they're you know

they're also defending their own

reporting

but so they looked a little closer and

they noticed and i didn't even notice

that

did any of you know that that the new

york times did that article and didn't

and didn't report on whether they asked

them if he was a member of an

intelligence organization

no we didn't notice that didn't we think

about that oh you didn't notice

all right somebody said says they

noticed good for you

all right

apparently a federal judge blocked

the biden administration

from some kind of ruling that would

allow transgender

students to use the same restrooms as

their identification

but also to allow transgender to join

sports teams corresponding with their

chosen genders

and the federal judge has blocked it

now

um i would like to reframe this again

um i think we have to look at the sports

as what's broken and not the athletes

and every time that we look at the

athlete as is the athlete good you know

is that fair for them to do what they're

doing or is there something wrong with

the athlete

every time we're focusing on the athlete

we're just looking in the wrong

direction there's something wrong with

how we organize sports that this is even

a question

why in the world are people not playing

against people of equal ability

when was that okay

why is it okay that you're you're

awkward

kid who's not good at sports

has to go to a school in which only the

gifted physically

capable people get to be heroes and you

know they get to be lauded for their

accomplishments and they get all the

boys and the girls and all that

why is that fair

why is it fair that people of lower

ability don't get to play on an

organized sport

in high school at least the ones with

prestige they can play unorganized

sports

or lesser organized sports

so i feel like we should just scrap the

whole thing

and say how about people who have

roughly equal abilities play each other

right if you've got a high school and

the high school team you're playing

against has shaquille o'neal you know

young shaquille on the other team

is that fair should you even have a game

what would be the point of playing

let's say you're your tallest guy in

your team was 6'1

and you're playing against you know

shaquille o'neal's team in high school

are you going to win

no because you kill for whatever reason

he's not like you

he's not like anybody else so what would

be even the point of playing those games

it's like it's like what's the point of

swimming against you know leah thomas if

you're a woman what's the point

because you know how it's going to turn

out

so we don't have a problem of just you

know trans on sports

we have a problem with wildly

uh out of the norm athletes

playing on sports

the problem is athletes that are way out

of the normal playing on the wrong team

and the wrong team in this case just

means ability it doesn't mean gender

why in the world do we care the gender

of who's on the team

now the whole idea that women need to

get

awards

it's just a woman thing

sorry

because if it worked the other way it

probably you wouldn't see any change if

women had always been the athletes

you know this is true if women had

traditionally been the only ones who

played sports

and and socially we had adjusted to that

you know to a time we adjusted that was

right

but then we got more aware and said hey

men are playing sports

how about get some men into these sports

do you think anybody would give a

no

nobody would give a if if sports

had always been about women and men

wanted to get it no but nobody would

change the law for that

of course not it's only because men were

you know and boys were playing sports

unfairly i'm not saying that was a good

deal it was very unfair for the women

but the reason it changed

is because there was women asking for it

i don't think it works the other way

and i don't think that it was ever a

good change

because what women ask for is hey can't

women get their own awards

to which i say well why can't shitty

male athletes get their own

awards why isn't there a varsity team

for a short basketball with short male

basketball players

why is that wrong

why is there not a varsity

male basketball team for people under

five eight

why can't why can't they win an award

well you say well scott

they're just

bad athletes

you don't give awards to bad athletes

for whatever the reason you're sure

they're 5-8 but

you know you want to reward the good

athletes

to which i say

but i wasn't born where i can compete

with shaquille o'neal

look at me

what uh am i gonna stop is dunk

so why in the world

should i let's say hypothetically i had

no

sporting ability

why should i be like you know glorifying

the people who were good at a random

event

sports are completely random rules

and and i as a person who just you know

wouldn't be good at some of those sports

i i have to go glorify and my tax you

know some of my tax base goes to support

their awesomeness

you know why am i paying for some

athlete that i'm not

so first you got to figure out how we

got here

how we got here

is that women complained i would have

too

perfectly reasonable

and they worked to get you know sort of

equal treatment

but it wasn't what they should have

asked for

they got what they asked for but it's

not what they should have asked for

it was good for good for girls and good

for women so i can't fault them for

asking for what's good for them that's

the way it works you do get to ask her

for what's good for you

i'm not going to criticize people asking

for what's good for them

but if we had re-architected the whole

thing from scratch we would have said

you know

that's a good point

uh maybe we should just have teams that

are based on ability and

the the best female players who are on

teams mostly with men

would still be superstars

wouldn't they

could you imagine if

a female made it onto a

high-end team in which the only other

people who could play for that team were

male

wouldn't that one woman who could

actually legitimately make the team

be like really it'd be danica patrick

right

danica patrick probably made more money

than 99 of all male race car drivers why

because she was interesting

she was interested she was pretty that

helped but she was interesting because

she was the highest level

female in a largely male dominated sport

what's wrong with that model

do you think danica

patrick thinks oh

i've been so discriminated against in

this male sport or does she think that

she is world famous and has a you know

great opportunities

because of it

i know

um

so

really the trans the trans topic has

everything to do with the fact that

women are treated as a little bit more

special than men and we've agreed that

that's just

we're okay with that

and then the trans thing just messes up

the whole model

just messes up the whole model

but

i'm going to leave you that with this

one thought that i'm not going to change

you'll never talk me out of this

the trans are not broken

trans people are not broken

sports are broken

just fix the sports i know it's not

going to happen

i'm just saying look in the right place

for the problem you're it's not the

trans people

all right

[Music]

so you know the who was it the

trump's secret service people

testified for the january six people

and

uh here's an interesting fact that you

would never notice

if if i were not here to bring it up

you know i always notice i always

mentioned when

cnn runs a opinion piece

often by chris silessa seliza i hope i'm

saying that right

and he's one of their superstar opinion

people and he'll do

a story this sort of anti-republican by

its nature

and does a good job

um and there's a couple others uh

um collinson i think is the other one

who are their their standard go to i

think they have

like three or four

big name opinion pieces who always jump

in when you need to rescue a democrat

problem

right if there's something in the news

that's skewed a little bit too

republican

you know one of their big names jumps in

and squashes it down

well i noticed with interest and maybe

it could be just

summer vacations or something

but they've got a what i think is an

unknown at least to me somebody named

jeremy erb

who writes the opinion piece to say that

the house january 6 committee

corroborated

key details involving former president

trump's

heated exchange with secret service when

trump was told he could not go to the

capitol

okay

so

so the they corroborated key details

about that exchange let me think what

did that story include let's say there

was a there's a story about him throwing

food against a wall which he denies

there's a story about trump allegedly

grabbing the steering wheel of the

the car he was in to try to you know

encourage the driver to go toward the

protests

and

but yet the reporting

by jeremy erb

is that

the key details were corroborated

what do you think were the key details

which part was corroborated

you see what's missing

here's a fact that was corroborated

here's another fact that was

corroborated here's the fact here's the

corroboration

it doesn't have that

it just says that key things were

corroborated

were the key things the actual things

that you think are the key

because i think if trump grabbed the

steering wheel of a moving car

that would be i'd like to know that

did did he say that happened i don't

think so

i don't think that was one of the key

details

i've got a feeling

that no key details that you care about

were confirmed at all

and i got a feeling that this is just a

feeling this so

so

i can't prove what i'm gonna say now

it feels as if it's probably just summer

vacations but it feels as if the the big

name opinion pieces people couldn't do

it

they're just like

seriously

you want me to act like he corroborated

the thing he didn't mention

i feel like the ones that do the big

pieces have a little more pride it's

like i can spin this

but i'm not going to just ignore the key

detail and say that other key details

were corroborated and just lie about it

i think they had to get somebody who is

new

who would go this far

again this is pure speculation right i

can't read any minds i don't know what

cnn is really doing it could be just it

could just be that the bigger guys run

and bigger women are on vacation so they

had to find somebody to fill in but he

hilariously fills in by doing

um just the most ham-handed job of

spinning this in an illegitimate way

he'll probably get a permanent job there

it's it was so good

all right well it turns out that that

was the end of my notes because i

thought i had a third page but it turns

out that

my printer

decided all it needed was that little

line there

so it printed that little line and

that's all i needed to do

now

have i changed your minds or anything

um nope

i don't change too many mines on here

except the skittles might not be a food

group

if you think skittles is a food group i

hope i changed your mind

uh you agree on the sports good you know

part of it is because i played uh co-ed

intramural sports quite a bit

and it was just better

it was just better to have a mixed group

if i could have played at the highest

level of soccer and college for example

i

probably wouldn't want you know anybody

on my team who couldn't keep up but that

was not the case

when i played when i played soccer with

you know women on the team they were

they kept up with me

you know maybe they couldn't keep up

with the best male players of the team

but they certainly kept up with me

all right

um

oh you know about hartwick yeah

the the tiny college i went to hartwick

college

um recruited european soccer players

before that was a big thing

so so one year that i was there we had

the number one soccer team in the

country one won the country

tiny little school

that was quite exciting for us

all right um

should your theory on sports carry over

to intelligence in the classroom well it

does i mean

that's being reversed a little bit but

ideally you want people of equal

capability to be in the same class

don't you

isn't that obvious you can't always get

that there's practical reasons why you

can't do it

but you'd want it if you could get it

what if music were treated like sports

well i don't know where that's going

um

don't take criminal questions

oh how about the interview office in

town

you know what

um i had a thought this morning let me

run this by you

so i told you i was thinking of starting

like an actual podcast studio maybe

maybe something in town

where people don't have to come to my

house you know something small very

small but professional

and maybe something like i could have an

audience

so i could bring in an audience sometime

but

i realized that maybe what i have to do

is

host debates

i feel like

i feel like everything has sort of lined

up that i'm the only one who can do it

now i'm not the only one who has the

skill

that would be lots of people

but i might be the only one who has the

minimum amount of skill and the

willingness to do it

because there's nobody willing to do it

it doesn't matter how much skill they

have

so i don't think i have the highest

level skill i think i have like just

enough

but

now to do this i would have to do it on

a video though because i don't think i

could get

people to come where i live it's it's

just not it's not like in la where

people are going to go there anyway if

you had an office in new york you could

get everybody because they're in town

anyway but people are not in my town

anyway

so i think i'd have to do a video

and i might set it up so there's like

three videos

you know two of the two of the competing

people and then me

but i would be live if anybody wanted to

be there in the audience

and

my model would be heavy interruption

so

it wouldn't be a regular debate it would

be a debate in which i interrupted both

sides uh

you're ignoring the question that sort

of thing

medical software more evidence new

golden age oh

oh and interesting

julia shear says

corporism

c-o-r-p-u-s-i-m

is a thrilling useful new open source

medical software

open source medical software

hello

open source medical software

how much do i want that

that that's either the worst idea or the

best idea

imagine if you will that everybody who

wanted to i have no idea what this

product is so what i'm going to talk

about

don't assume that has anything to do

with this product but

imagine if just people could contribute

their experience of what they did

all right i had this problem

i did this for it

eventually wouldn't it turn into a giant

ai

and you wouldn't need doctors anymore

except for the physical manipulation of

things

i don't know

i think it would go in that direction

uh who would be the

first and second debaters

so who

i i don't know

i'm not sure that i would bring in

necessarily the politicians so the

trouble with politicians debating is

that they're professional liars

and we don't expect much more from them

am i right

like having a debate between two

politicians feels like a complete waste

of time

having a debate between experts

there i can imagine the model where i

could make that work

but any debate between pundits or

politicians would be just complete waste

of time

do both

i just think it's a waste of time to do

the politicians it really is

i mean the only reason to do the

politicians is that you get more

audience because they're noticeable and

you can you know embarrass somebody and

maybe there's a gaff

but it would be the least useful thing

to do you know if i did their actual

debate on policy

nobody would watch probably

is rand paul a professional liar quote

yes

yes

now i do i have a high opinion of rand

paul

and i think he he's probably one of the

most honest people but you don't think

that uh

that he's ever left anything out

do you think he provides all the context

for the other team or maybe just shows

his side

right i i don't feel like you can be in

politics and give complete

let's say complete respect to the other

team's argument before you state what

your opinion is

and without that i'm not sure that's

really honest

that's doing a good job as a politician

i love rand paul as a politician by the

way

i think he's a national asset there are

a few politicians i think have

um

let's say they've surpassed

congress in terms of who they are

like there's some people who are just

members of congress you've never even

heard their names if they're not from

your state and even them

but yeah tom cotton's one he rises above

and rand paul's one so i believe there

are some people who have risen above

their limited role that they get elected

for and he's won

in a good way

well speaker of the house is a special

case

you know

ted cruz yeah now often there's people

who have ambition to be president

yeah ted cruz i think for sure yeah and

mtg yeah some other people thomas massey

good example

thomas massey and i do not agree on

everything

but whenever we disagree his reasons are

good

which bothers me frankly

i hate to feel disagreement with people

whose reasons on the other side are

actually solid like oh that's actually a

pretty good reason

and thomas massey does that to me all

the time

i think probably

three or four times i've had an

immediate disagreement with something i

thought he said

and then you hear the larger argument

you go oh

okay

maybe i don't agree with it because i'm

not quite as you know my politics don't

line up exactly with

uh some of his stuff

but when he gives his reason

i usually say okay that's the reason

yeah he's more libertarian than i am

but he's consistent

you know

being consistent is worth a lot

and there are there are libertarian

arguments that you say to yourself well

i don't know that that would work but i

can't rule it out you know discuss them

it's got some logic behind it

you'd pay good money to hear that

now that's somebody i would debate

i would definitely debate thomas massey

because like you said he doesn't operate

like a traditional politician oh here's

here's the biggest compliment i'll ever

give a politician

you ready for this

this is literally

the biggest compliment i will ever give

a politician

i'm positive

that if i had a debate with thomas

massey on some topic which we disagreed

and i made a better argument

he would change his mind

right in front of you now i'm not saying

i have the ability to do that or that

there's any topic which is you know

stands out as the one that i would do

that

however

it is my opinion

that if i gave him a better argument in

public

that he would have the capability it's

the capability that's important right

because others would just cowardly

retreat to their their team

i believe he would actually tell you in

public they changed his mind under the

unusual condition that i made a better

argument and you know it had some weight

i don't know that anybody else could do

that

do you

would you trust anybody else to change

their mind in public

when faith i would but i'm not a

politician right

so but a politician

i don't know

name one other person you think would be

capable

forget about willing you know just

capable

i mean joe rogan would but again not not

a politician

what

co-punt

is that a word

if trump and desantis debated it would

be horror yeah

that would be a weird one wouldn't it

imagine trump and desantis debating

i can't see that ever happening

yeah i see some support for dan grenshaw

over on youtube um

conservatives have a real mixed feeling

about him don't they

i forget what the issue is

yeah

he uh crenshaw's is interesting because

he's smarter than

um

than he lets on

i don't know if you know that but

crenshaw is super smart

and i i think he's smart enough not to

let you know just how smart he is

because i'm not sure that would play

right

so he's very smart whether you disagree

with him or agree with them you know i'm

not going to have that conversation

right now oh somebody's calling him a

rhino is that what's happening

well i don't know about any of that um

he did i did an interview with him and

you know i'll tell you my first

impression was all positive so i had

only positive feelings

um

so it's mostly the anti-war versus

not anti-war enough thing that people

have a complaint about

yeah i don't know i'm not up to date so

i don't have anything to disagree with

them about but maybe i would who knows

um

but you like bill gates too well

i think bill gates the shine on bill

gates is coming off a little bit

here's what i like about bill gates

unlike you

i believe he's operating in the best

interest of humanity

i don't know that you could ever talk me

out of that because if you think he's

operating to get power

like there's no indication that he's

after power

like he could have had all the power he

wanted he just there's no indication he

wants it

and there's no indication that he's in

there for money

i don't see any indication of that

now i could be wrong right because we're

all just reading minds i can't read his

mind but i would say the indication of

anything except good intentions now does

he get everything right

no does anybody no

but if you were to bet consistently on

what he predicted

versus what other people predicted i

think you'd come out ahead

going with what he predicted

all right well we're running a little

long i see and today i think we've

nailed it

uh it's sunday

so it's the best show ever on a sunday

and

yes i am better at predicting you're

right

and uh

oh i don't think card carpool duty will

recommence so

uh when school starts i will be in a

different living situation so i won't be

carpooling

and

that's all for now ladies and gentlemen

and

uh

thank you i'm just reading your comments

and getting

transfixed by them but goodbye youtube

for tonight we'll see you tomorrow