Two Movie Screen

n it. Yeah, there's comments from Rumble, but there's not comments from Locals. I was punching that button to make that work, but I could not. There should be an all option on the live. Yeah, it's on all. It's on all for live chats. Damn it. Well, I tried hard to select the Locals button and I punched it many times, but it did not look like it was registering. So yeah. Damn it. A drug addict would blame everyone but themselves. Yeah. I'm alone at the moment, but a million people are in an

Episode 3043 ChatWSA 12/15/25

that DOGE went away if the reason is they had successfully just integrated into the thinking of the government and I think they did. I mean from the outside it looks like they did. So I would consider that an enormous win if that's what happened. But I'll take a fact check on that too. I guess we've got some video Zero Hedge says of some maybe drones hitting a major power station near Moscow. Now, you have to be careful about all the reporting from Moscow and from Ukraine because it's all subject to the fog of war. But the timing would be interesting if that really happened. And there's good reason to believe it did happen because it would not be unusual for Ukraine to have done a drone attack on an energy facility in Russia. And this would be timed somewhat coincidentally or not by the fact that Marco Rubio just said they had a very productive meeting, actually the most productive. He said the most productive and meaningful meeting to date that is with his Ukrainian partners trying to come up with some kind of a peace deal that they could present to Putin that would have some chance of being negotiated to completion. So as of today, the government is talking in a more, let's say, optimistic way about the chances of peace than I've seen in a while. Do you think that's real? I don't know. Because, you know, we've been disappointed so many times where we're like, "Oh, there's going to be a peace deal in Ukraine any minute." And then it gets yanked away. Well, here's what I feel. And this is going to be more feelings than facts. So if I'm wrong, don't be surprised because I can't give you an argument for what I'm going to say. I'm going to tell you how it feels. Now, my argument, I guess there is an argument, but it's a bad one. My argument is that sometimes you can feel things or smell them before you can see them and touch them. And this is feeling that way to me. So I'm just an observer of the news. I don't have any special access to anything in this topic. But I observe patterns and sometimes I don't know what pattern I'm picking up. Have you ever had that experience? You're like, "Ah, I feel like I know where this is heading, but I don't know why I know it." And it's because there might be some pattern you're picking up. Might be false. Doesn't mean it's true, but it means we're just pattern recognition machines. When I look at the war, here's the first question I ask. What are the odds that the Ukraine Russia war will still be raging for the entire term of Trump's time in office? Do you think this could run another three years? Because that would put it at seven years and it probably would be sitting at the same place at the end of three more years. So I'm finding it hard to believe that either Putin or Zelensky are thinking to themselves, we can wait this guy out, meaning Trump, we can wait him out. I think the days of waiting anybody out are over. And then I would say, what are the odds that it would end differently if you wait three more years? And I think the answer is there's no reason to believe it's going to turn out differently. Might be better, might be worse. But the last thing that Moscow wants is three more years of Ukraine developing better drones. It's just going to get worse. So if you're in Moscow and something blew up and your lights flickered, which may or may not be what happened again, fog of war, you can't believe any reporting from that area. But if you believe it happened, it's going to be a lot of pressure. Could you imagine just going three more years and gaining nothing and it looks exactly the same at the end of three more years? So my first pattern recognition is that if waiting doesn't seem like it's going to get you a better result and both sides would see that that seems obvious from both sides, then why would you wait? What you would do instead of waiting is you would look for some excuse as to why now would be the time. And that excuse is Trump. Trump is the excuse because he won't always be there and you can't count on even, you know, given our politics, you can't guarantee he'll even be there in three years. But he's there now and he's willing to put in maximum effort to get this thing finished. So because there's a Trump and because it's gone four years and because he's going to be here another three and because we can kind of predict that things aren't going to get better and that drones will get more powerful and just more things will explode. You might as well do it now. Now is that a good argument? Not really. Not really. I'm telling you how it feels and what it feels like. I'm going to give you the summary of what I just said. The summary is it just feels like it's time. Does anybody have that feeling? And I'm not sure I would have said that before. Before I would have said, oh, it's logical. You know, both sides could, you know, they'd be better off if they do it. So I would have given you a logical argument before, but now it just sort of feels like the even the words that Marco Rubio chose, the way that Zelensky is sort of sliding into a new position, the way the Europeans are on the hook for the entire bill. It's sort of all those things. The way the technology is improving to the point where it's not a you know it's mostly robots on robots etc. So I think maybe something's coming that could be good. And another way to look at it was it feels like capitulation. If you're familiar with investing, there's a word called capitulation. I mean it's a regular word, but when it's used in the context of investing, it means that people just feel like they're done with some investment position. Capitulation. And capitulation doesn't always have like a logical backing to it. It just people agree that's how they feel. It's like capitulation. I think that's what's happened. I think maybe the way the media will cover it will change. I think that there's also a narrative fatigue. Sometimes you just have to have a new narrative. And in this case, the narrative is the story, and the story is the reality, the thing that's really happening. I feel like we're tired of waking up and saying, "Is Russia and Ukraine at war still? Is exactly the same? Are the lines about the same as they were?" We're just fatigued with that version of reality. So there's also a we are living in a simulation argument, which is we're just tired with that narrative. So our collective consciousness will change the narrative because we're just bored with it. We'll get something else. Then I would argue also that we already know how the story ends. We already know how the story ends. It's a three act movie and at the end of the third act, what happens? You all know how the movie ends. Let me set it up for you. In scene one, Trump is impeached twice and loses re-election. But in scene two, Trump wins re-election against all odds. And then he goes on this series of ridiculously successful presidential actions, which is what at least the Republicans would say he's doing right now. And that's a proper second act. So the first act is something really bad happens to your hero. That's the impeachment. That's the losing re-election. That's all that stuff. That's the first act. Second act is usually the hero of the movie has reached let's say some kind of plateau of how their life could be. If it's an athlete, the athlete is suddenly winning all the competitions, right? So that's happening. And then the third act would be something that looks like, oh no, you could never get out of this. It would be something like the Ukraine Russia war looks like it's unsolvable. At the same time, Trump's popularity numbers are plunging. So he's going to have the lowest popularity numbers in a war that he can't stop and he's going to be accused of being a fascist, whatever. And it will look like maybe it might even get worse. And it will look like there's no way anybody could get out of this situation. And that's the third act. The third act is when your hero escapes the situation that nobody could escape. It's impossible. And then what happens after he does the escape? What happens after he does the impossible? He gets a Nobel Peace Prize. The fact that Trump doesn't have the Nobel Peace Prize and that this is brewing back there, that's a little bit too much of a pattern for me to imagine it's not going to go that way. It looks like it's just going to turn into a three-act movie. It will look like he's doomed pretty soon from some new drama that we don't even see coming. And then he'll find a way out because that's what he does. And then he'll get the Nobel Peace Prize and you'll be watching it in awe saying, "How did that, why was that so predictable?" Because it kind of is. So that'll be fun. Well, Tucker Carlson was quite provoc

Episode 3028 CWSA 11/24/25

ers on a romance in 2018. Summers was married at the time. And the men exchanged a trove of messages. Where did I get this from? Colin Rugg had a good summary of this on X. So apparently they had a lot of messages. So these two were really good friends. So is Trump smart by throwing Larry Summers under the bus? Probably because it looks like Summers had a lot of interaction. So now let's add Larry Summers to the victim list. Again, I understand completely if you say, "No, Scott, he's that other list." Well, I don't have any evidence he broke any laws, but I can see for sure there's plenty of evidence that he's having a bad year because of Trump, because of Epstein. So and by the way, none of this needed to happen. Don't you think that Trump warned everybody? It's not like he didn't warn everybody, and it's not like he didn't give them an out. He gave them an out. They could have essentially just said, "Let's go on everybody. No harm, no foul. Your team won't be attacked. My team." They could have worked it out somehow. I mean, you might not have liked it, but they could have, but now those two are victims. Let's see who else. All right. We'll get back to that in a minute. So apparently Trump is going to meet with Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on Friday. And Trump is teasing him because apparently his middle name is Kwame. That's so Trumpian to emphasize his middle name so that you remember he doesn't have an American sounding name. Now, he doesn't say that that's a crime or that you should like him less or that he's less qualified because his middle name is Kwame. He just makes you think about it, which is really a dirty trick. Like I can't say I endorse that method of persuasion, but you can't argue it doesn't work. It totally works if it just takes your head to a place where you're like, I don't know. He doesn't seem that American to me, even though he's obviously American. Anyway, so he'll be meeting with Trump. What do you think Trump's going to get out of this? Why would Trump meet with Zohran? Now, they have a lot that they need to work on. So there might be a few things he wants to coordinate with them. But don't you think Trump wants Zohran to fail? So if somebody comes into your office and you want them to fail and they want to succeed, what exactly is the middle ground? There might not be any middle ground. How in the world do they work anything out? Well, we'll see. But I wouldn't hold my breath for a good outcome there. So Elon Musk was at that Saudi Arabia convention-looking thing. I don't know what the event was, but he says something interesting about engineering and poverty. So here's his quote. Elon Musk, I see poverty as more of an engineering problem than an unsolvable social issue. Have I said something like that? I've never said that. But haven't you heard me say that certain things are engineering problems and they look like they're something else? They look like social problems, but they're really just engineering problems. We just haven't engineered well enough. And the example would be as Musk points out that with Grok and Optimus, so that's the AI plus the robots, we could solve the labor shortage, drive cost to near zero, and create a future where poverty is statistically irrelevant. Musk says the scale of what's coming over the next decade is really easy to underestimate. Yeah, that's really easy to underestimate. Now I've said the engineering thing about homelessness and I think a few other things that those are engineering problems not resource shortages and to hear the smartest engineer say that well makes me feel good. Sam Harris has come back on the scene. So whenever Sam Harris does a major podcast, then all the right leaning podcast universe, including me, we've got stuff to talk about for two weeks because we'll be like, "Ah, Sam Harris, what happened to you? You used to be so smart, but now we don't know. What's wrong with you?" Well, he did it again. And I'm not sure that I care too much about the opinion as I am amused by the drama, you know, just the human drama of it. So Sam Harris goes on the Triggernometry podcast, which you should all sign up for and follow and watch. It's one of the best ones. Triggernometry. So the first part is like a gun trigger. Triggernometry if you're looking it up. Always good stuff. So follow them. Anyway, I guess Sam Harris believes that around the time of Charlie Kirk's murder, like right around the time that Elon Musk might have posted something that encouraged violence as a response to the murder. Now, I said to myself, what are the odds that Elon Musk encouraged murder? What I feel like I would have heard of that. So I wondered what the examples were. And sure enough, there were some examples. Now, let's say if you see if you think the examples are as Sam characterizes them sort of encouraging people to act out or is it just a way of talking? Here's the examples. Elon posted right about the time that Charlie Kirk was assassinated, he posted on X, the left is the party of murder. Is that the first time that Sam Harris heard a notable person say that the left is the party of murder? That's such a common thing that maybe it's just that he doesn't hear it. But if you lived anywhere in the sort of universe that I do, you hear that all the time. Some of it's about abortion, right? They just treat abortion as murder and you say one side's in favor of abortion. We call it murder. So that would mean that that side is in favor of murder. Now if you didn't know that the entire right, well not the entire right, but most of the right considers abortion murder and that that's the first thing they think of in this domain. Well, you'd be a little confused by that language, wouldn't you? And it would seem extreme. It would seem extreme. But there are other examples. We could go through the news and we could argue, well, that seems a little too friendly to murder. For example, is it the left or the right who is more likely to let somebody out of jail before they've served a full sentence? Which one would more likely do it? The left probably. And would that create more murders than if they didn't release these people who may have done some bad things already? Of course, it would create more murders. So you can make these arguments, and I'm not making the argument, by the way, but you can make the argument pretty easily that the one side is the party of murder. But in any case, does that seem like a call to

Episode 3024 CWSA 11/20/25

I mean it's a tax collection process too. But the Constitution doesn't say anything about collecting taxes, but we do it. So yeah, I'm just concerned that it's the wrong branch of government handling the most important thing. It's just the wrong branch of government. Anyway, three Chinese nationals from the University of Michigan have been arrested, it looks like, and charged for smuggling what they call biological materials into the US. Oh no. Turns out it was their lunch. Just their lunch. Joking. I'm joking. It wasn't their lunch. It was biological materials. What kind of biological materials? I don't know. I don't like the sound of it. Hey, Bob. What's that in that bag? Uh, nothing. No, seriously. What's in the bag, Bob? Wait, what? Speak up. Biological materials. Say it. Can you say it a little more clearly? It's biological materials. Ah, and then I would start running out the door holding a mask, double masking. That would be the first time I ever double masked if I heard that. I got a big bag of biological materials. Would you like a handful? Well, here's something I found out today. Apparently Russia has a persuasion expert. Yeah, Russia has a persuasion expert. Turns out that that Lavrov guy that we always see, you know, he's he seems to be their head diplomat guy, Lavrov, he's sort of a hard ass. And by being a hard ass, he's sort of guaranteed that nothing got done, you know, that there was no peace, no nothing because he just asked for too much. He asked for things he'd never get, like the dismantling of the Ukrainian army. Who's going to say yes to that? So Lavrov was worthless if the goal was to end the war. We don't know if that was Russia's goal. Maybe they just wanted him to be the guy who extended the war, in which case he did a good job. But now there's this new guy, Kirill Dmitriev. He's a special envoy for now, but he's high up in the influence part of the government. So Putin must like him because he's sort of putting him in charge of figuring out what to do with Ukraine in terms of not ending the war because I just don't know if Putin is even wanting to end the war. But this guy is taking the lead. But here's what this guy's doing. He's definitely not trying to end the war. But he's one of the people claiming that Russia and Putin in particular are going to uphold traditional conservative values. I think he just calls them traditional values. So he's trying to confuse the US into thinking or at least this is one take from Mark Toth and Jonathan. It's an opinion in The Hill. So let me give all credit to them for the story. Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet. So the idea here is that this guy is just going to mess with us and he's going to act like oh those conservatives, you know, we agree with the conservatives basically. We like their conservative values. So Russia and the Republicans, you know, we should be getting along. And that would rea

Episode 3010 CWSA 11/06/25

ld be 9-0. But that's the best argument I have. It's not terrible. I just don't think it would pass any kind of scrutiny. All right. Here's more of this. Is the media changing to be more right leaning? So now that Bari Weiss is going to be taking over CBS News or already has, I'm not sure where that is. But somebody pointed out that Margaret Brennan in her interview with Hakeem Jeffries seemed a little more right leaning than what they expected. She was pointing out that Hakeem Jeffries and all the Democrats have been saying forever that Trump is a monster for claiming that the 2020 election was rigged and that if you claim elections are rigged, you can't be a politician in this country because you're just starting stuff. But Jeffries himself is saying that the gerrymandering that Trump and others want to do is rigging the election. Somehow he's ignoring the fact that all of the 100% of the Democrat states have already gerrymandered and that California is going to do some more and maybe Massachusetts too. So his argument is stupid. But Brennan actually challenged him on the fact that he said rigging the election is the worst thing you could say while he says that rigging the election is what's happening. But he's arguing that he's not talking about the election that happened, but rather he's warning that the gerrymandering would be like rigging an election. Is that a good enough nuance? No. It was good to see him challenged on that. I'm not sure we would have seen that challenge before. So that does look to me like the news CBS is moving a little bit to the right. We'll see. Gavin Newsom was on some podcast in which he said that the anti-woke stuff is just anti-Black. Period. Full stop. What have I taught you about people who say period full stop? It means they know it's not true. Do you know why people put period full stop at the end of a sentence? Because they didn't have a reason. If you had a reason, you'd sort of slot that in there. So here, let me give you an example of when you don't need it. If you don't reopen the government, people will not get food and they'll be hungry. Did I need to say full stop period? No. No. Because as soon as you heard people won't get fed, argument is made. I'm done with my argument. But if you say something like this, anti-woke stuff is just anti-Black. Period. Full stop. You're really saying I don't want to debate any nuance of this thing because I don't even believe it myself. I have to say, you know, being completely immersed in the conservative worldview as I often am, I don't really see anybody talk about DEI as being anti-Black. I've literally never heard that. I've never suspected it. I've never thought it was like between the lines. It's entirely stop being anti-white. It's not the same. If you want the world to stop discriminating against, in my case, white men, how is that anti-Black? It's just not. So notice my argument. My argument has a reason that the actual people I know I've observed for 10 years don't have any anti-Black rationalizations even in private like private conversations. Nobody talks like that. Literally nobody talks like that. All they say is I got discriminated against and I don't want to be discriminated against. So I'm not in favor of being discriminated against. I don't want my kids to be discriminated against. It has nothing to do with what black Americans do or do not get out of life. It just has to do with your own discrimination that you don't like it. So Gavin, but I will give him credit that he did reframe that in a way that politically might be powerful. But what I like about any of the conversations about black America and who's getting what and reparations, all that. Have you noticed there's always a Thomas Sowell quote that fits the story? And somebody always puts it in the comments to every one of these X reports. So here are the Thomas Sowell quotes that somebody stuck in the story about Gavin Newsom saying anti-woke stuff is just anti-Black. Th

Episode 3001 CWSA 10/27/25

at do you think of my new habit of reading you a new reframe from my book every morning? Do we like that? Do you want another one? All right. All right. All right. I'll give you one. Here's one I find very helpful. You'll find this helpful in keeping your mental health stable. The usual frame if you're debating somebody is that one of you is right and the other one is wrong, and you usually think you're right and the other person is wrong, right? And then you got to fight. So what would be a good reframe instead of one person's right, one person's wrong? And the answer is we're watching two different movies on one screen. That really helps. If you say to somebody, "I'm right and you're wrong," well now you have a fight. If you say we're watching two different movies on the same screen, then suddenly they're curious. What do you mean by that? Well, I'm looking at different information. If you and I were looking at the same information, we'd probably have a similar opinion. And that calms everybody down because you take it away from the two of you and who's right and who's wrong, and you basically blame social media and the news for giving you two different versions of reality. So that is your reframe for the morning. By the way, Jay Pleman, who's been doing a great job of clipping my show, does a clip on there this morning from my reframe. You might remember the one called "Get Out," where it's a solution to having negative thoughts if you're trying to get rid of your negative thoughts. That's the whole technique. Basically, you can look at the... you probably should look at the video, but all you do is when those thoug

Episode 2988 CWSA 10/14/25