t they say is not true.

Now on the other side there are two giant lies that the press has been telling. One is the fine people lie that they continue to tell and one is the Russia collusion lie which they continue to sell indirectly as they are today. If you do a search on fine people you get a million hits. Almost every one of those hits is a lie about the president because they would tell the story the wrong way almost all of them. And if you do a search on Russia collusion you get 1.4 million hits on Google. I'm guessing at least a million of them are blaming the president for being the Russian spy or a Russian puppet or something. So if you took those two lies, the fine people lie, and you added it together with the Russia collusion lie that's just two things. Imagine all the lies told about this president. That's just two of them and you have two million lies. Two million.

But here's what I'd like to suggest. I want you to see if I'm wrong on this. In fact check madness it seems to me that the ten thousand lies that the president has told are almost entirely what I would call sales lies. In other words they're there in the service of selling something and for the most part what he's selling is make America great again. So yes the thing he's lying about gets you to a better economy. Do you feel bad about that? If the thing he's lying about reduces ISIS recruiting is that bad?

So let me give you the specific examples. If the president says the economy is doing better or that his administration has done more things than he's really done or that the cutting of the regulations is more important to the economy than he says or that his contribution to the stock price going up is far more than actually the evidence suggests, what is the outcome of all of those lies about the economy? Well the outcome is that the economy improves. That is the point of those lies. The point of saying everything is great is to make people think our economy is great so I guess I should invest and when they invest it makes the economy great. When he says I mean we're hiring like crazy and employment's up and everything's good these are good lies. These are salesperson lies because the salesperson might lie to you but you still could end up buying the thing you wanted.

All right so there are lots of lies that are hyperbole. They're exaggeration or they're overstating but they're for a very clear positive purpose. Now of course it helps him get elected. It helps him be president etc. And I'm not minimizing the fact that there's self-interest involved but the lies are very very positive. They're so positive that you could argue that the president's lies about the economy are the best thing that have ever happened to the country. Think about that. The president's lies about how good the economy is are literally making the economy better. I mean that's not an exaggeration. That is a fact I would die on. You could put a bullet to my head and say Scott say with confidence that the president's lies about the economy are actually good for the economy and I would say I'll say it right now. Our president's lies are good for the economy. Okay I would put a bullet in my mouth and tell you that. There's no frickin' question that his lies helped the economy.

Let's take another topic. ISIS. So the president said you know ISIS is defeated blah blah blah. Was that an overclaim? Absolutely it was definitely more than what was true. It was hyperbole. It was maybe doesn't pass the fact-checking but if you're ISIS and you're watching the news or you're thinking of becoming ISIS do you want to join the group that is being decimated more than estimated? It's decimated technically means 10 percent worse so ISIS is more like 95 percent worse now and heading in the wrong direction. When the president lies about how well ISIS is doing that's bad for ISIS because they can't recruit if the news is saying ISIS is losing everywhere. It's a lie but it's the best freaking lie anybody ever told. I want more of those lies. Let's give us more of those. Those are good lies. All right those are smart lies. Those are leader lies.

Now compare those lies, and again I'm not saying those are the only things that there are lies about but compare them to just the two lies coming from the press. The fine people lie and the Russia collusion. What are those two things done to the moral fabric of this country? So speaking to Joe Biden's campaign theme about you know the moral center of the country what did the fine people lie do to the moral fabric of this country? It frickin' ripped its gizzards out. It's the worst political lie except for Russia collusion. Those two things are the worst political lies maybe of all time. And because if you look at the racial divide in this country so much of it springs from the fine people lie.

Now some of you are gonna say now you could throw that one away and the president has done so many other things that sound racist that that's just one of them. So Scott you're overstating the importance of that one. And I would state that that one lie is the one where they're sure that the president was a racist. All the other ones are ones that even the people who think he's a racist can sort of see that it might be something taken out of context. So that the country thinks even if you're sure the president's a racist for other reasons you hear that whole thing and I think even if you don't say it out loud you're thinking to yourself okay kind of was talking about the country. All right I started to get that it's not as good a spot a clean one but because the Charlottesville one I'm so sure is true and that one he really showed that he's in favor of neo-Nazis that makes me think that all these other things seem truer than the facts would make them seem.

So the point is that Charlottesville is the alpha lie for all of the other lies. And the reason I'm taking it out is because it's the third leg of the TDS stool. So the TDS stool, the thing that supports people's insanity about the president are three legs: Russia collusion, fine people hoax, and racism etc. And the thought these literally crazy he's got a mental problem. All right as time goes by and the results in this country continue to be stellar the he's crazy mentally incompetent one is starting to fade on its own. You know you have, you noticed you don't hear that as much? Have you noticed that the headlines are not full of the president is crazy and impulsive and all that? That just went away. That's one of the legs of the stool. Russia collusion went away. The fine people hoax is the last little brittle leg that is also going away because it's not true. And I think my blog post should kick that leg out because it will give you a link and by the way you should save it. You should save my blog post link and you should turn it into a bitly and you should put it on a note file so you always know where it is and then forever on social media when somebody brings up that lie send them a link to my blog post and it will take them all the way down the hoax funnel down to the question and get rid of that leg.

So I would say if you were going to compare the destructive power of lies the Russia collusion and the fine people lie were destructive lies and they got 2 million hits. That is the biggest lying I don't know if we've ever seen bigger lies maybe a world war two or something they were bigger lies but feels like the most powerful super lie situation we've ever seen. The president has told 10,000 salesperson lies and the result is a better economy less recruiting for ISIS. And what happened when they said is there a rise in white supremacy and the president downplayed it and they fact-checked him and said yeah but there are like two dozen people killed this way but there are two dozen plus three people killed this way in a context where more people die in swimming pools and on bicycles than are killed by white supremacists. I mean literally and it's not even close. There are far more people who drown in the backyard swimming pool than are ever killed by terrorists in this country. So the president downplayed it partly because he's the one being blamed for the rise in white supremacy. If somebody is blaming you for something are you gonna say there's a lot of it? If somebody said hey Scott you're to blame for pollution do you think there's a lot of pollution? I might be tempted to say there's not too much because I don't want to take the blame because I know I'm gonna get the blame. So of course I'm gonna minimize it anyway.

So the president's lies if you want to call them that are seemingly all toward a greater good. The lies against the president are not for a greater good. The fine people hoax had no good intentions. It was just to change who was in power. Same with the Russia collusion stuff.

All right did I cover all of my topics? Is there anything I didn't talk about yet? So I watched a clip of Don Lemon talking to I forget who but it was some Trump supporter who was just annihilating him until the point where Don Lemon had to just shout it over him and until the guy couldn't talk and that was funny.

Oh nuclear. Let's talk nuclear. So I hope you enjoyed my interview with Michael Shellenberger yesterday, a world expert advisor on the subject of nuclear energy. And you saw a little bit of a disagreement and that's your disagreement that might be too strong of a word but there was a different view let's say on older nuclear technology versus generation four. But I wanted to put that in context now. So there are two points of view roughly. So Shellenberger is saying that generation three nuclear which is the type France has and not the type of the United States has, I don't think we might have a few I think we have mostly generation one which were the relatively more dangerous designs. France has generation three and I'll be looking for some fact-checking on this because I'm out of my depth here, has generation three very successful and as far as I know zero nuclear accidents. Somebody or at least of any consequence. So fact-checking on that. I don't believe there's ever been a generation three nuclear accident. Can somebody fact check me on that? I forget what Fukushima was but certainly Chernobyl was a different thing. Three Mile Island none of those were generation three.

So Michael Shellenberger is saying quite reasonably why would you mess around with these new generation four stuff that would take a lot of work and testing and there's a lot of risk involved on the unknown versus generation three where we have such a long history and no problems and we've refined it to the point where we've taken out all of the opportunity for problems. Why wouldn't you go with that and you know worry less about generation four because we already have a solution? And my take on that was you know I certainly get that if you're gonna start today you have to start with generation three because generation four is not quite there. All right so that part we agree on.

But what I disagree on is that the potential for generation four isn't better than gen three. And the reason I say that is some of you saw I did with the person I call the smartest person in the world and Naval Ravikant. It was a founder of AngelList and generally considered one of the smartest people in the world and certainly specifically smart in the world of startups and entrepreneurial stuff. That's really his greatest area of at least what the public thinks of his expertise is. His brain's pretty big but we would recognize him as maybe one of the smartest people in the world on that topic.

Now when he talks about nuclear he says yeah talking about it as startups the way you would talk about it as startups is that nuclear you can't iterate designs because if something goes wrong and there's a long approval process and blah blah it's hard to quickly test things the way every other technology is developed. So other things can be tested quickly and then you can get to a better point because even if things go wrong you know it doesn't matter if your smartphone doesn't work it's not like a nuclear meltdown. I've got something in my eye now.

The government has funded and there's at least one test site in the world where they could rapidly test generation four designs and there are a dozen or so startups in the generation four world and Bill Gates is a major investor in one of those. So I say why don't you do both as hard as you can? You know why not build the generation three power plants so we know how to do right now and still keep iterating the heck out of generation four because someday someday they might be better. And it's hard for me to imagine that all of the geniuses, and they would have to be geniuses literally geniuses working on all these nuclear startups, it's hard for me to imagine that they don't know what Michael Shellenberger knows that generation three has been refined to the point where it's the safe smart way to go. How could all of those startups not know that?

Now I'm probably overstating it so I don't want to misrepresent Michael's point of view but I think his point of view has more to do with where you put your emphasis. I don't think he's saying that there's no way we would ever get to a better design through generation four. I think he just thinks that's the bad play statistically and timing-wise which I wouldn't disagree with because I don't have the expertise to disagree with that. But I want to make a case for doing both hard because we don't have a money problem. In other words there is funding for these startups. Bill Gates etc. So it wouldn't make sense not to push them as hard as we can within the safe zone at the same time we're doing generation three if we need to build stuff right away and we do.

And then Michael also had a little I say a more negative opinion about green technology's potential and made a pretty compelling case that the people who are claiming the economics are good are let's say they're leaving things out. Well let's say that their analyses, I'm being as kind as possible, that the people who say the all-green solution is ready now and we can just roll this stuff out and we're all good to go that those people are not quite considering all of the variables let's say. That's the kindest thing I can say and I think he's probably right on that.

But like generation four I will take the Naval point of view which is I don't think you can really know where a green technology mostly solar and wind I don't think you can know what their upper limit is. I think if it's like every other thing in the world people will discover new improvements and ways to optimize that we didn't know. Let's take just the simplest example. One of the things people say about solar is that it takes up too much physical space. Don't you think somebody's going to invent a way to make it more vertical and then physical space is not important? What happens when robots can build solar facilities and you just say okay robots go out there and we'll check back in a month and we want a whole new full solar facility built in the desert? Well what does that do to the cost structure when you can just point the robots in a direction and the next thing you know there's a solar facility and maybe it doesn't take much room. Maybe it's vertical.

I think I tweeted around an article in which there's one plan for turning air conditionings in skyscrapers. Yeah somebody's talking about this already the solar skyscraper. Somebody has a plan and I don't think it's quite as practical as they're thinking but they think maybe they can get there in which an office building would have lots of air-conditioning facilities and those air conditioners create heat. So if you're cooling something you're necessarily making something else hotter because you're just moving the heat. You're not taking heat away. You're just changing where it is. So something's getting hotter in order for an air conditioner to do what it does. And the idea is that heat could maybe be used as to create fuel out of the CO2 in the air. In other words you convert these air conditioners to do two things. One is to cool the building but the other is to use the heat that they generate in the process as part of the solution for dragging CO2 out of the air and converting it chemically into a fuel that could be used where you can't use green energy. So that's usually a ship or an aircraft. They don't run, it's not likely that they'll run on electric energy anytime soon. So you create fuel out of the CO2.

So then you put solar panels all over your building. So if you imagine a building it's got solar panels all the way up and the air conditioning for each building is optimized to create, to pull a little CO2 out of the air and to convert it to fuel that replaces the need for carbon in airplanes and boats. Now can they ever build that? If I said to you in 40 years will we be able to do what I just described? Build a skyscraper that is energy neutral and actually drag CO2 out of the air doesn't require any electricity beyond what it's generating on its own. And oh you're watching the Barr. Damn it I need to go watch that too.

Anyway so the point is nobody can really tell you where solar and green energy are going to be in 40 years. Anybody who says they can I don't trust them. Let me just toss this out right now. The biggest problem with solar is that you can't store it right? We can't figure out batteries. But imagine if you will that we solve instead the transmission problem. Suppose instead of making batteries we figure out how to send electricity over long distances without losing the energy. And right now I think you could do that with maybe superconductivity or something but a breakthrough in that would allow you to network together all of the skyscrapers with their solar all over the world. So even if the sun were not shining where you are you could be networked by super conductive cables to another part of the world where the sun is shining just great. So if you had the entire world networked with superconductivity do you need batteries? That's a question. Would you need batteries if it was dark where you are but you're networked to the other side of the world where there's plenty of sun and there's plenty of solar and it's just sending you the electricity from the other side of the world?

Now you would have to have superconductivity and underwater cables and all that and those are things we haven't solved but if you can tell me, and I'm not suggesting that that exact scenario will happen I'm just trying to stimulate your imagina