souled penguin. And then they said hey that's no fair you can't identify as a penguin. And then Piers said why not? If everything's in the conversation why can't I identify as a penguin?

And the answer is that's not logical. No you don't see a difference there. You don't see a difference. You're talking about people who actually believe that they you know their identification versus someone who doesn't seem the same to you. Now certainly the rules have to be the same like the law has to be the same. So if the rules are you can identify as anything to get benefits then Piers is right. If identifying as a penguin would get you a college degree absolutely I encourage you to identify as a penguin if you can get money for doing it. Of course I'm on your side. Be a penguin if it pays.

But I don't think that's the same situation. I do believe that you know you could characterize it as mental defect if you want. That's not my position. But would you disagree that the people with these identifications is because they're actually trying to identify themselves in a way they're comfortable with that makes sense? That's completely different than Piers Morgan being a penguin. You. That's such a bad argument for Piers and I'm surprised that he wasn't called out for it. Because while I think you know the identifying as stuff yeah it probably went too far but that's not the argument against it.

It's a learned ideology. Does that change anything? That doesn't change my point. So I think that the push back here is that people are not necessarily born feeling these confusions or identifications. They may be encouraged into it by the way they're socialized and that's true. But that doesn't change my point. It doesn't matter how you got there, right? If you got there because somebody influenced you or you got there because you're genetically there you're still there. That's what you feel. And in a free country should you be able to feel like somebody else's gender and then ask people to treat you that way? Sure. Sure you could ask. But again you're asking does not obligate me. Asking is fine. I'd like to know what you think. I mean if nothing else it tells me what you're thinking. I like that.

So I'll tell you what I'm thinking. I mean no harm. Sometimes I'll get the pronouns wrong. Sometimes I just won't accept that that's the right thing to say. But I'm not going to take any criticism about it because I'm going to let you live your life. You're going to do the same for me whether you like it or not.

It's all clownish and embarrassing behavior that makes society look stupid. Is that important? I see your point. Like I can see why you would see it that way. But is that important? Is it because it's not a society it's just individuals isn't it? Dude do you think it makes like America look bad? Maybe to some people yeah. But has America looked bad every time it moved toward greater acceptance of people? Did America look bad when it gave women the vote? Probably to a lot of countries. Did it look bad when it freed the slaves? Probably to some countries. So I'm not sure we should be running things based on what looks bad to countries we wouldn't want to be. Oh we we'd hate for Saudi Arabia to have a bad opinion of us so we better be Muslims. Yeah other countries opinions of us have to be put in a little box.

Yeah we make fun of Trudeau all day long. Doesn't matter to him probably not.

Let's see. LGB acknowledges sex transition. Don't know what the point is.

Did I see Timcast last night? I did not. Was there something on Timcast that you wanted to call? Watch Bannon on Tim Pool last night. It was legendary. What was legendary about it?

Oh yeah yeah it's funny. Tucker Carlson is saying a couple things on television that looks like it's amazing that there's not more pushback. So he flat out says fuck you to the deep state. Are you a Bannonist? Yeah okay. Bannon wore a penguin suit? No he didn't.

What can we do about no accountability? How can we accept that? Government accountability. Well you know the changes at Twitter might be a big part of it and maybe some of the changes at CNN will be a big part of it. So I do think that ultimately the public can turn the battleship. It's just not fast. Turds talk.

All right so the other thing that so Tucker Carlson was saying that he knows for sure now from his own source that he doesn't tell us that the CIA was involved in killing Kennedy. So basically Tucker Carlson tells you that as a newly discovered fact because he's got a source but we don't know who the source is so keep that in mind.

Now the other thing he said he just like dropped it in when he was talking to a guest. He said that he knows that members of Congress are being blackmailed. And he said it like he totally convinced me that he knows members of Congress are being blackmailed. Now by who I don't know but blackmailed. The FBI says Tucker is lying of course they do.

Right. Jillian says in all caps wish Scott would admit he pushed mandates and vaccines etc. Now Jillian are you a troll who's just here like to make trouble? Are you actually stupid? Because that would be the most stupid thing ever anybody ever said on this livestream. Like are you actually that ignorant and confused? Well it doesn't matter. We'll hide you on this channel. You're heading now Jillian. Goodbye.

Yeah who isn't? Yeah yeah you're right. Saying that the CIA was involved is a very generic word so it could be that the CIA is involved in everything you don't like but not necessarily in a way that is illegal or unethical. Scott critically argues both sides. Well I show the costs and the benefits. It's amazing how many people believe that you should not consider the costs and the benefits of decisions. Like actually believe that.

We think everybody's a low-level CIA. You know I was watching Glenn Greenwald tweeting this morning and he brings up AOC for her non, let's say non-criticizing of the CIA. And he's wondering why AOC is not criticizing the CIA. What does that suggest? Why is he calling her out by name? What does that suggest? I feel like you're suggesting AOC as a CIA concoction. What do you think? Is AOC a CIA asset? Do you think that they created her? Like is she a creation? Because she's a media creation, right? And who controls the media? The CIA.

So if somebody is a media creation for the Democrats like a superstar has been created artificially who did that? Do you think CNN talked to MSNBC and they talked to ABC? They said hey let's get together and push this on our own maybe? Do you think they all just thought the same and that's why it looks like they coordinated? Maybe. Maybe the public was interested so they just followed the public's interest. Maybe. But when was the last time Glenn Greenwald was wrong about who's coordinating with the CIA? So far not wrong. So far not wrong.

Now he doesn't come out and say it but the context doesn't leave much doubt. And it doesn't seem, let me ask you this. Does it seem believable? Does it seem believable that AOC would be a CIA preferred candidate or they helped her somehow? Yeah totally. Yeah that would be easily within the ordinary line of business. There wouldn't be nothing even uncoordinated about that. That would be just typical business, sure.

And if they're not, if they're not trying to influence her why not should be the obvious one. You would try to influence because she has influence. You're not going to influence people who have no influence. So yeah. Do you think she's ever met with any agents for the CIA? Think they've ever had lunch? I think anybody associated with the CIA is a restaurant lunch. It's Washington. Of course they have.

Am I the CIA? Somebody else foreign. I don't know. I don't know. Is that a scary answer? It's an honest answer. I don't know. Yeah I can tell you for sure that the CIA or people associated with it have tried to influence me but I'm not aware of anybody on the CIA payroll who has ever tri