Rubbed a alone la da da da da da da da da round bump of bone good morning. Everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. You've probably wondered: It was it's here. It's the best day of your life. It's going to get better. If you like to take this experience up to a level that nobody can, Explain with human words: all you need is a cup or mug or a glass I'll, take your jealous or styling, canteen, jug or flask of vessel of any guide.

It with your favorite liquid. I like coffee, join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip happens now go it has been stipulated. Well, I have a feeling something big is about to happen. Does anybody else feel it? You know you just sort of feel something's brewing the last time I said that was right before october. Seventh, some of you might remember, I just like felt like some big thing was brewing, but I'm having that same feeling again doesn't mean it's bad or not. I'm not gonna say it's bad, it could be

a new invention, you know a breakthrough could be a peace deal could be anything I feel like something big is about to happen. We'll talk about that, so condolences to the trump family, because Donald trump's oldest stir marianne s best way at age. Eighty six issues and judge for many years did hear about her much and much a little confused with Mary tromp was the niece, but he had a sister who was very apt and she was a good one. I guess the nieces orders problem

writing the anti john books, but does she passed way to eighty six was is important. Well, so dull job is seventy seven and his sister died at eighty six. He would go into office said if you won at seventy eight and he would complete at so me too, I'm so. Eighty two do you feel and then, given that women have a longer life expectancy, does. are you any pause about terms age? You should that's exactly what you

and this is exactly the reason that I endorsed vick, because as much as I like many things about him trump, he is a troublemaker I mean he uses expensive president because he gets people riled up, but that's probably going to happen with any republican, so I'm not sure will that against them, but it he's really knocking on the actuarial door by the end of a four year run and did.

Did I, or did I not warn the world? The Biden would be too old by the end of his even first, or did I not tell everybody? Did I not say that loudly and clearly, and often too old, too old, too old, and now here we are the entire world says too old? How is that going to be different for job? Honestly, I mean if you, if you let your bias down just a moment, do you really want the guy in his early eighties, to be president now to be fair, he does look like he is one hundred percent. I don't think he's lost a step, in fact he looks you know maybe refreshed from when he was in office, so he doesn't show any signs of that. In my opinion, I guess he's used is called Biden and obama few times when he's talking about him. But doesn't everybody do that.

Do you know anybody who is not called somebody obama accidently haven't I done that have not done that and this I think I've done it on this life story about I've, said obama when I met some of the present at least once, but there's nothing unusual, but that does not really a sign of age. I wouldn't say yeah. It just feels like a natural dislike. Anyway. It's certainly a wake up call about age and not taking you seriously got us where we are you get that right, not taking age seriously, got us where we are. Do you want to do it again? So that's that's the vague question. The vague question is you knew you made a mistake last time the country not use specifically, you know you've made a mistake. Last time you elected somebody who was just simply too old, you want to do it again.

I dunno we're heading that way and we all wonder how ai will handle troubling. You know sensitive topics, everything in the woke category, one wondering and I was asking the amazon digital system, which is So given a engine now I remember when I don't want to use the word for it, but you know the the digital assistant from amazon that sits on your desk. If you have that, if you have one, so it is I q hereditary, because I knew that would be a sensitive topic and I didn't know if food given

if the actual answer, if it would dance around it a little bit, but the answer was that I q is forty to eighty percent hereditary. Does that sound true to you and then I checked the object to the internet, and that does seem to be the estimate. The science is giving us forty to eighty percent vegetarian. Now are they doing a little weasel thing with us, because hereditary is different from genetic? Isn't it and if it, and if you weren't careful what are your language, you would think that there were the same, for example, to siblings, could have even indifferent according to twenty three may

You can have a different ethnic max you now here's your someone could have a little more in all of german than you have. Maybe you ve got a little more neanderthal or southern, so we know that to children from the same parents grab a little different max, but once been born, you have what you have do you think it changes after you're bored and how much.

Well, here's what I think. I think that the answer that I q is forty to eighty percent ready. Terry is a socially acceptable way to present the science, but also misleading is socially acceptable because it would say everybody can be smart and you can even be born in a bad situation, but educate yourself up to a real, useful level and that's a good message for society. If you're trying to keep society, cohesive melting pot and all that stuff, that's a good take, but is that compatible with the fact that what you're born with is what you're born with, because that's sorta different you're, going to have two siblings or one was just born smarter than the other one? Doesn't that happen all the time and yeah but who's smarter according to one very specific measure of intelligence, which does not measure artistic until the

Hence a chemist advocate intelligence, all kinds of different intelligences, but it but it s one one narrow type. So here's where I think I do believe your environment, lower your your natural, like you know the words or someone someone is born and raised by wolves, and then you give them an iq test. They did not do so well. If someone is raised in a well our family with two teachers for parents and they

raise them to go to an ivy league school. Although the environment is doing the best they can. Maybe that would raise your perceived. I q, but I'll tell you my observation. My observation is this: my useful, I q, which is a term I'm making up so this doesn't exist anywhere else. My my practical, like you, the part that gets me to navigate the world is determined much by what I was born with, but probably as much by my talent stack. So I've told you this before, if, if it appears to people have been watching me for awhile that I have clear views on some topics is because of the specific background training I have, for example, if you want to understand what people will do and then he'd given

innovation, a good thing to know, would be persuasion. So if you haven't, if you're an expert in persuasion, you're going to see people and their motivations a little more clearly would that seem like you have a higher I q in a practical sense, I would because you could be talking to someone who's much smarter, but if they don't have that understanding be different, so Well now suppose you added to that the understanding of economics. If he had this understanding of economics, then you also have the follow the money predictive power. It's like wait. Persuasion is predictive, but following the interests of money is predictive too. So what? If you only had one of those things suppose you knew economics, but you didn't know persuasion? Well, you wouldn't see trump coming

inter have the trump was a bigger force. Then he thought if you only knew economics. So when you add economics and persuasion. suddenly you're seeing things more clearly in a practical sense, you have a higher functional like you, because you can navigate your world more accurately and predict better. Now suppose you add, on top of that business skill like business models, knowing how to build a business is different than economics. Economics is more than theoretical. If your new business models, then you could also have another way to predict, because a good business model will beat a bad business model. So that's another predictive of vector. Now, if you add, on top of that, they you've been following the news

Since you were little as I have you, ve got the extra thing where you ve seen your more history, more examples more patterns and then you at all those together. You know persuasion, economics, business models and you ve been following the news

Now? I would argue that anybody who had that stack of talent would be able to predict and even analyze better than somebody who didn't have it is that I q. Well, probably not I mean if I took it, I q tests. I doubt it would be any different than when I was twenty. I took it the first time, but but my ability to function in the world is maybe one hundred times better. It's not even close, so I would say that I you don't want to make too much of I q, but you're definitely born with you know, you're working base and then there's a whole bunch. You can do with it. You can make it worse or better, depending on how much you watch now. I would even extend that to watching the news- and I say this about Democrats all the time. The the weird nature of the fact that Democrats believes they're, seeing the real news, the mainstream news and therefore they would not waste their time to look at the alternative views on the right makes them functionally lower. I q, they don't have bad genes, I'm not saying that nothing about the genes and there's nothing about even their education system. They may have actually been educated, just fine, but if, when you're done with all that, and the only thing you're looking at is one view and you're simply locked down at the other view, you would be functionally dumber than somebody who has similar capabilities, but just had access to both both left and right. And that's what I see to me. It looks like Democrats are functionally lower, I q, but not because of their genes and not because they're educational attainment only because their talents that has not extended to save the other stuff. Now, that's not because some people in the right are wiser and are more interested in seeing the whole picture. Nothing like that. People are pretty similar, but the people in the right are forced to encounter the mainstream narrative. They don't have a choice, it's everywhere, and then they see their own

Is there one set of information and they can compare it and maybe triangulate and say wow that looks like bs on our side this time and it looks like bs on their side this time or it looks like half of us is half bs on both sides that sort of thing, but there's not close. But if you watch both sides, it does make one side look functionally like a lower. I q, even though there's nothing wrong with them other than access to information. Alright, there's a new device by a company called humane, it's called a wearable pin, so it's a little thing you literally pimm dear shirt or your jacket by your breastplate,

It's sort of alive and ai all the time. No, it's not listening all the time, they're, very careful to say it's not! You know it's not alive all the time you have to tap it. So it's more like a star trek, communicator thing: it's on your chest: you tap it once to wake it up, and then you can just tell it what to do so. I guess it as a camera that can see your environment. You could tell it hey. Can I get this kind of soup cheaper somewhere else, look at the care of a soup. Maybe maybe scabbard tell you, there's another place together so basically, and let it be like your little body as always just giving you good advice everywhere, you go

but it also has this little projector in it. So you could hold your your bare hand in front of it and it projects on the problem of your hand, information you could read, that's pretty cool now I told you awhile ago. First of all, don't don't take any investment advice from me. That's not what I do so I'm going to I'm going to mention an investment

it's not a recommendation. It's just a way of explaining my point of view. I sold all of my apple stock recently and it was because of ai. Now, probably probably apple will do a great job on a I. They have tremendous resources are putting dirty right now. Eventually, you'd expect to have a whole different product in your hand, and apple being apple is likely to have the best people working on it and really come up with a good product. Guys think likely, however, what they did loses their monopoly and the reason I the reason I is there. The moat was so large that they could just print money forever and nobody could compete with them. So I was, I was investing in them like a monopoly, not like a company. This just doing a good job.

As soon as a I became a thing that it was obvious, is gonna start to dominate apple losses, monopoly. In the sense that it will lose it's monopoly, it hasn't yet, but it's obvious that it will there'll be some other mechanism to communicate and do all those ap things. So if the app concept goes away so does the iphone advantage completely, and I think that's what ai will give us some kind of device that you can do all the things an app can do without an app you just talk to it and that's that's the ultimate. The ultimate app is just one you talk to and it can do anything you want alright. So, on the way I don't know, this specific wearable pen will be a home run or anything. I don't feel it, but here's the difference when smartphones first came out, you sort of hearing about em

I dunno, if any of you had this experience, but I had an irrational lust for that product. Even when it was terrible like in it's infancy, it really was a piece of crap. You know the very first smartphone, but boy did I want it like it in a way, I can really feel like the lust for a product which is unusual. I don't have

product impulses at all. But when I look at this a wearable pin, I have an intellectual reaction to it. It's like. Oh, that's, an innovative and an interesting way to go, and I can see how it would have some advantages, but I don't feel it does anybody feel it? You feel it the way you felt when you knew there was such a thing as a smartphone. For the first time when you heard there was a smartphone, you wanted it and you know we're all different. So, like you said now, well, eventually you wanted it most of you. Hey do you want to make a podcast to spotify has got a platform that lets you make one super easily then distributed everywhere and even earned money all in one place for free, it's called spotify for podcasters and here's how it works. Spotify for podcasters lets you record and edit podcasts right from your phone or computer. So no matter what your setup is like you could start creating today, then you can distribute your podcast to spotify it and everywhere else, podcasts or video podcasts are also available on spotify with spotify for podcasters. You can earn

money in a variety of ways, including ads and pod gas subscriptions and that's all it's totally free would no catch. Ever since I discovered spot a five report, gases have to say I like all these options. It gives you like a video bike, ass, you and I and poles, and I recommend that you give it a try, download the spot. Five replied gases at or go to w w w that specify that calm, slash, pod gasters to get started There's a narrow, and chronology researcher named roberts, a gay who wrote a book and giving spinner views talk about free will not existing. Now, if you're gonna ask somebody does free will exist. Who is the best person ask? Well,

be looking for a narrow, endocrinology researcher, because you'd have to know the neuro part of the brain bar but you'd, I need to know the endless chronology park. The chemistry you know cause your your cognition and some weird frankenstein monster of a brain action and chemistry if you'd have to both. So he knows both and he's looked at other forever and he was basically year. Human actions are, determined by neurobiology hormones, changes in life circumstances and there's no such thing as free will in any in any practical sense. There's no such thing so he's the expert. Now who told you there was no free will decades before the person who is

expert told you I it I've been tell you forever and you know why I knew it before this expert who study for decades to come up with the same answer, because it's obvious, I knew it because is obvious, because the laws of physics do not stop at the outside your skull. Obviously, the laws of physics apply inside your head as well as outside. So whatever your brain is doing this to save the euro lawnmowers doing just more complicated belong, nor doesn't have ways of turning into a toaster and walking away. It can only do it alone, work work and will that's it? You pull the cord and starts if all this, if its functional same with you So it was always obvious, but since we resisted so much as human

and the reason we resist it and there's somebody who's going to say this in the comments right now I mean I don't have to read them to now, I'm waiting for it. If we didn't have free will, then you shouldn't be punishing people for crimes right and then the whole system falls apart, because we the animals. Is anybody thinking that that the moment you allow yourself to think there's no free will? Well. I guess you can't punish people, I guess guess: there's no laws, guess there's no jail. Do you know why that's stupid? This isn't a matter of opinion that would just be stupid. You know that's a stupid idea because there's no free will, but let's get back to the basics. Do you know either his jail and there is punishment, and you do think that you need them.

because you don't have free, will you don't? I doubt you could believe you do have free will and you'd still have jail or you could believe. There's no such thing as free will and you still have jail. Do you know why? I know that because I don't believe in free will, but I certainly believe in jail and so do pretty much everybody who doesn't believe in free will. Do you think SAM Harris, who also doesn't believe in free will do you think he's opposed to jail? I don't think so now you have any risk at all that things will be exactly. way. They are now whether you think is free will or not, because you don't everywhere- and that should the obvious, but it is. I saw nothing will change with everyone. I saw you, video from abc news, featuring Jenna Alice, who have been won the trumps journeys

and she had a story to tell that will make democrats, cheer and Republican say now, I understand the story, a really really matters. The exact wording. really really matters who is talking to whom And it really really matters where they were and the context to where they were talking right so know that all of that matters a lot in what I'm going to tell you and we might not know all of those nuances, so I'll tell it as best I can in the version that would make democrats happy and then I'll tell you. What I think is really happening, but I dont know so the version that would make democrats happy if I were to

explained in my own words what I think Jenna l sat on the video. It would be something like this. The dance give you know whose very close to trump, I think he was working at the time as the deputy. What do you call it? The deputy chief of staff or something I think that was his role at the time. So scurvy, though, has always been really close to trump, because before that he handled his social media and trump was always tweeted, so he would ask of you know like so they re maximum about half of the day. I think immense gaviria was there all the time because it he was one connecting them to the social media world.

Why the claim is that the general said something like the the path to challenge the two thousand and twenty election, so this was at the believers as some kind of a christmas event for trump supporters. So remember this is a christmas event for trump supporters, but can be a fact check on that. If somebody, I think, I heard that now, if it's a if it's a christmas event, why would you expect to also be true at that event? Alcohol? Would you expect that alcohol?

is involved in any kind of a christmas party. I would assume so alcohol alright. So we don't know if alcohol has anything to do with the story, but we also don't. We don't know that it doesn't so just keep in mind it's an event where alcohol was probably present and that's important, but we don't know if I have anything to do Is it just probably was president, so the claim is that when genocide, basically the the path to challenging the election, two thousand and twenty is complete, there's sort of nothing left. You know, we've we've burnt up all of our challenges. So it's it's time to move on.

And the dance Covina allegedly said something like the boss, meaning trump. Everybody would understand him to be the boss and is not going to leave under any circumstance. Now the the Democrats challenging like cheering what we got we got to where we have the smoking gun. We have. We have trump admitting that he's not going to leave under any circumstance, We gotta: do you hear that? How do you hear that. Here's! What I hear hearsay is hearsay. So what janet ellis hears-

Ants given no say about what trump thinks or said is not exactly the evidence that you wanted in the courtroom. What you want is trump saying it or you know some document recording. That would be the best. You know something that record. His thoughts in real time at the time? But we don't have that. I think everybody agrees. There's nothing recorded or nothing written along these lines. Second, you'd want to get directly from dance. Giving, though Dan did you actually say that yes or no, and if he did say it was actually, in your opinion, an accurate representation of what the boss said? What do you think he'd say under oath? Do you think he would say yeah? I did say that jenelle us, because trump said under no circumstances is he going to leave he's just going to take over the country. Do you think he would say

what is that likely? Here's? What I think you would say that was an accurate statement of what he was saying, but I don't know what he was thinking, so it could have been simply a statement that he was going to fight. railway fight, but now literally staying in office once there was nothing left to fight about now what happened in rio? The reality was when the the vulgar certified as it was going to do, he backed up, and he left. Is there any israeli buddy? You said? No, no! You now.

Even though we were packing the boxes, he stayed in the office and we had to drag them out. Nobody said that so so, so the facts on the ground suggest that he did not plan to stay there, no matter what? Because, when no matter, what came he just peacefully packed up and left neither you dance. Do you think the general Ella stake at a party with alcohol, where people are going to say things that you say after a few drinks, just not going to wear the boss as there's. Never a layaway. Doesn't that sound like drunk talk to you and do you think that they could find anything else that would backup the drunk talk? I dunno if it's drunk talk by the way, and I'm just speculating that it was a party where alcohol was involved. It sounds exactly like something you say with a drink in your hand, that's exactly not what you do in the real world, that's how it comes across

but of course everybody will interpret it the wrong way and alright, here's what I think might be a big change and trump went hard. Untrue social today saying that the prosecutors and judges the people trying to take them out are suffering from extreme that trump derangement syndrome. Now, I'm pretty sure he's used the term before write. It trump has used tds and trump derangement syndrome, but if this shifts a major

a major, let's say shift in messaging. I think it would be a smart one, because I've been saying for awhile that the the kill shot is for him to put together the trump derangement argument. That trump derangement argument is all the hoaxes. So what trump's campaign team needs is a nice clean short go through the hoaxes? Here's, what they said: here's how they did the hopes really quick, yet cause cause. You don't want to do one hoax. That would take too long and people are going to be bored by it. You want to hit like every hoax and like ten seconds they claimed. He said this. This is what he actually said that they didn't show you they claimed. He said this: here's what he actually did. They claimed he overfed the koi fish. Here's abe doing the same thing right, so you could do almost every one of them in five seconds five seconds for the claim

five seconds for the de bunk magic. You that's the twentieth thing, none the less and there are twenty like there are twenty. How would you feel if you're somebody on the other side, you would start to understand that as regions and do you remember they said that what he began president? He would turn into hitler. When did this happen? What was it when he peacefully backed up as boxes and lost? Where was the heller bar that the entire, hitler part is based on the one hoax that the the so called insurrection of january six had any intention or ability to take over the united states. There was neither the intention of ninety eight percent of the people or or the ability there was never

building and nobody even bought the resources. Nobody ever brought any resources that would be appropriate to that job. Yes, they had some clubs. Yes, they had some bear spray. Nobody overthrows cut a country where those legs they didn't even brig tools to do it and there are tools. Insurrections have actual tools, weapons, for example, so I think that trump could go directly after from derangement syndrome and make them defend the hoaxes actually make them talk about the hoaxes. Even if their say now, this one was true. Make him talk about a force them into that argument, because they can't win the charm to range men syndrome argument? Is it so well documented? I mean the at this point: science with agrees with them completely,

science recognizes or is in fact a derangement syndrome. It's not it's not imaginary, it's not political, it's actually medical and it matters it does matter. Governor of new york says they're going to do a bunch of new online surveillance. Looking for all the empties, kate online, the city of new york, so that scare you So they're gonna look for the anti semitic people when the right or the left. Interestingly,. I dunno everytime, they do surveillance, it seems scary, but it's going to happen. It's gonna happen. No matter what I mean it's legal to is legal to look at public statements. If you're posting an x is legal for them,

to look at it and get an idea what's going on, so I dunno how worried to be about that. But everytime you were, I wouldn't call it privacy cause, I think, is what you're doing in public, but certainly certainly you gotta watch for it like be alert about these things. protesters around the new york times, building and say

shut it down. Meeting the new york times. I guess- and these are pro palestinian some would say- anti israel protesters now I would say that the easiest prediction anybody ever made- and I don't take credit for this one. You know I made it too, but I think everyone has made the same prediction. It goes like this. If, on the left, you'd have a oppressor oppressed mindset. Where does that end up? There's only one way that can go you you run out of enemies and you start eating your own right. If what's your model that the world is oppressor and oppressed, you have to go after your own people eventually cause they're. A little bit different from you, and maybe some of them have a little more power than you do, and so it's

If you have that oppressor or oppressed mindset you eat around, and so now the new york times surrounded by it's own and tried to eat them, and I laid that cognitive dissonance trap I already talked about in which I was cheekily, suggesting you make your your family mad at you on thanksgiving, never a good idea. So I hope you took that as not serious, but the idea of who is would be. If you have some Democrats relatives, you could ask them some questions anyway. That would trap them into cognitive distance, but the I don't want to talk about the topic again, just a reaction to it. The people who fell into cognitive, dissonance just reading my post responded that I didn't know what the definition of cognitive dissonance was. Does that sound like something that might be true? Do you think I've written three books on it in which is like a major component of three books talk about it continuously, even with doctors and experts, and that I don't want the definitions, but that's that is cognitive dissonance than other people dismiss me as a cartoonist, as if that have anything to do with the point. So those are both cognitive dissonance. So look for look for people

So here's the point a good tell for cognitive dissonance is somebody has to change the definition of a word to something you've never heard before. You'll see that one a lot by the way, they'll just change the words to something weird definition to allow them to maintain their original point of view. Alright, at present she's come to san francisco, which you all know was, amazingly surprisingly, immediately cleaned up as soon as president. She was going to visit, which makes all the smart people say. Why couldn't you do that before? Of course they could, but they haven't told us where they put those street people, because I feel like they're coming back. If you think san francisco is cleaned up, I don't think so. I think-

release all those people know wandered back to where they were what they want. They tell us where they are. Have you noticed an insane them out of lack of curiosity about world history? People went very I'm curious how many worthy of europe the numbers. So if we had a real press, you would know the number if people roughly that they took off the street, you would know where they are and what they're doing with them, and you would know if the plan is to allow them to come back, I if we had a real press, those would be simple questions. They ask and simple to answer, because obviously the people who moved them know where they are and not going to be a secret. So this is one of those cases where you can see that you do have a press

You don't have anything, not even you don't even have like the illusion of a press does not even trying to give you the illusion. Letters in like useful, lose The most important part of the story where the hell are they is left out of the story. And you don't even see any curiosity about it, except by the poor people who can't find that where it is now there might be some news on it, but it doesn't, it hasn't hit the kind of national level. Yet alright

so the the thing he is that there might be some kind of a new agreement from china about cracking down on sentinel, because the precursors come from chinese companies and, of course, we've asked them before and they've said it before that they'd do it. But here's what I think was a big negotiating mistake for Biden, and I asked the following question: would trump have made the following mistake, so bite him, and maybe he didn't order it, but you have to assume that Democrats were on the same page,

When democrats cleaned up the street people in San francisco, many of them were there because of fentanyl, where he's going to negotiate with president XI about the effects of fentanyl on the united states was at the most dumb fuck thing everybody anybody ever did. Let me tell you how I think trump would have handled this. I think he would have been in the car. Was she and he would have taken him right through the homeless people that he left that are intentionally and he would said- and he said you see this- that's because of you, and we know that every one of these people and the fentanyl that's because

you personally, it's not about anybody else. It's about you and you know what else we're not going to stand for it. So, whatever else we're going to negotiate about whatever else, we will talk about you're going to fucking fix this, and, if you doubt everything else is off the table. This is not one of the things we negotiate. President XI. This is your ticket to negotiate we're going to close your fucking embassy. If you don't shut this down in an hour, I need you to make a

I am call right now you need to shut it down before we start negotiating. This is not a negotiation. This is the ticket to the negotiations. You do this first, it's not part of the negotiation, because, if you, if you do this, we're going to respond as strong you're not going to like it, don't ask what I'm going to do you're not going to like it. Then I'd cancel tech, doc wallet in the car just so he knew I was serious. I basically make a call and say alright, fuck congress. This is a commander in chief's decision shut down tiktok by this afternoon commander in chief no argument. This is, this is not about

congress. This is not about a legislation commander in chief are making the call and you can take it to the supreme court, go ahead, but it's going to be shut down while you're arguing now, I think some version of that is how is how trump will handle it? Here's how Biden handled it he cleaned up the city so when she pulls up and Biden says, but about this fentanyl she is going to say, say to himself and accurately doesn't seem too important to you looks like you took care of it. Breezily just cleaned it right up. There doesn't look like it was a problem at all. So how seriously am I going to take it?

So I think cleaning up the street people was the biggest negotiating mistake in the world, because there's no way that she knows how serious we are about this. He cannot know how deadly serious we are about fentanyl and he also doesn't know, there's something about the american character, which is we will we will bend and will bend and will band until we don't and you're not going to see the point where we stop, bending until you're really really going to fuckin regret it. That's that's. The american character we'd like to be flexible, would like to work things out, but once we know it's not going to work out, you're fucked,

Just know that I do yeah so there's an argument for tiktok. That is free speech. You've heard the argument of excessive. I think that does not have a veg says we should just use it, but there's a free speech argument. I think Thomas massie makes it here's what's wrong. With that argument. The free speech argument for tiktok his word thinking is not thinking as in reason and logic, and facts is word thinking, in other words, you're you're, making a decision based on the definition of a word and thus not thinking. So, if you say tiktok is free speech, then you're already done with the thinking, but there wasn't any. You just said definition, free speech, tiktok free speech,

a free speech carriers, all the qualities of protection. So we're done when the conversation that is not logical, that is now a reasonable and that is well below the thomas messy level of intellectual investigation. Here's what would be more accurate if you can do tat she herself from the definition of a way of thinking. You say to yourself are eight definitions aside. What is this what's happening and you would say well: ok, there is definitely a free speech element to the conversation.

No doubt about it, but is that all no? It's not all. It is a military weapon that if china has not yet used it in a military way, and it feels like they are, they probably are they certainly could they just have to push one button literally one button and it's actually labeled heat and tiktok, has told us this. They can make anything trimmed by pushing one button called heat, so the chinese, of course I have control over chinese companies. They could make them push that button on any topic they want. Have they already pushed it on the question of the the west and the israeli situation and Hamas probably it looks like it. So if you say to yourself, this is a homeland defence question there.

As a free speech element to it, you can get to the correct decision whose now you consider the entire universe, the safety, the free speech- and you said, ok, given both those balance,

Well, those two competing things given that we have american made products that could do the same thing you know could get you the same level of free speech, etc. You should treat it more as a military threat or a threat to the cohesion of the society, which would be a military problem. Does we'd fall apart now? This is rare that I would disagree with Thomas massie on a logic question and I get that he's being pure to the constitution. But the mistake is to say it's a free speech, question and then be done with it. It is free speech, it's also a military question and the military always overrides free speech. Would you agree with that statement? A military necessity,

should, if you're being smart, override free speech. Now it's dangerous it's dangerous, because then somebody can say it's a military necessity. Well in the time of war, do you think all the soldiers soldiers get to tell you what they're doing? Let me ask you more specifically: in a hot war: should the soldiers in the fields have their smartphone, because they've got free speech, remember and should they be able to call the new york times and tell them what battle the read and what they plan? Next, with their free speech, now, there's not a single person who thinks that a soldier has free speech during a battle. Why we love free speech? Why don't you like it or something people say? Yes, the soldiers should tell you where their troops are seriously, really that this is the really tests. Give me give me a moment I going to do the really test. Really you think the soldier in a battle should be able to tell the other side what they're doing raleigh know. You don't believe that.

So, let's take it out on the free speech realm, because, while it is free speech, there's a far bigger question there and we're getting that question wrong. That's what word thinking gets you there's a new poll that found that ninety percent of women find bald men attractive. They did not ask. Do you find bald men who wear corrective lenses especially attractive? I think the answer is obviously yes, but they're say that the women like give some examples, so pretty william. They like him, despite if ted and vin diesel and named some others, and I'm not going to doubt science or doubt to such a well made and constructed survey. But I have to ask myself this question. do women like bald men who don't have power and money, whereas only the bald men.

Or a really rich and powerful cause I feel like if they only liked the bald men who are rich and powerful. It might not be about the hair exactly just putting that out there yeah, the rock. Did they liked the rock? Would they like him if he were were not successful and didn't have muscles like hell yeah, like Jeff Bezos yeah, I saw Lewis I'm a relationship person on instagram who was saying that men pick based on looks it was meant men are just dudes looks but looks are not if you think about it looks are highly correlated with health, as the men are looking for. A health signal. Attractiveness is a pretty good health signal, so that makes sense from a biological evolutionary perspective, but then women, pig men, the this was one person's take on it and based on how men interact with his environment, they they say. The most important thing is how they interact with their environment and species.

Exactly how their environment interacts with that. So the the the belief here is that if a woman starts to date, a guy and then she notices the way, the guy's friends sort of react to them and do what he wants, and you know kind of listen to them and stuff and and maybe even other women. You don't want to be around him, and maybe he can, you know, make things happen in the business world or he has some influence in politics or something like so, so the more a man can control his environment. To do so is preferences the more attractive is that sells write to me because it gives you more.

In just the rich people, because there are non rich. You know cult, leaders and stuff like that that just seem to be able to influence their environment and that makes them attractive. Trump should shave his head. I've been saying it for awhile. I said it before the first election in twenty six days. If he shaved his head he'd win easily, although he might, he might look more scary. Actually it might might make him look scarier so,

yeah, the devils skinhead problem, then yeah, maybe not alright. Rasmussen says that in a two way, contest according to polls to a contest to that Biden and trump would be pretty close trump would get less aged donald trump would get a forty six percent of likely. Voters and Biden will get. I'm sorry opposite. Forty six would be for Biden and forty two for trump. Now, that's where the general vote. So if you look at just the overall vote, which is not what makes the president at the swing votes are the only ones that matter in our system, but the overall vote would put that.

By an above drop. You right now that still not tell you win said that just tells you the overall vote, but that reverses, if you throw or if gay junior into the mix and the isn't the mix So in a three way, election Kennedy would get well preserved of vote and trumped would be Biden in the popular vote by one percentage point now. Imagine if trump one the popular vote

no in a three way race. That would be a hell of an argument, wouldn't it because if he loses the popular vote but wins and in the electoral college it never looks legitimate to the team that lost they kind of need to win. You need the president to win both the popular and the electoral college to feel completely legitimate, and he might do it. There's there's a path there, so we'll see But, let's a little bit more about that, you saw the other day Van jones was on cnn and there was a stone, in was said, the trump would we.

it over Biden with black man by three points. Let me say that again, current polling suggests the trump would win the blackmail vote if they held the election today. Dunning is right now, do you know anybody who predicted this outcome and did anybody predict this outcome? I did in two thousand and sixteen I predicted that he would someday win the black vote now. At the same time, I was I was predicting that the Democrats would become more the the female vote of all females and the republicans would be the male vote of all males. So if you put those two predictions together,

I predicted that black men would start to favor trump over time is that is that one of the craziest best protections you've ever seen in your life? Do you know what people said? Twenty sixteen when I said that absolutely crazy here we are, If you put together the number of things I've predicted that are actually crazy that our current reality, it's a pretty weird surprising list, but that's near the top. How many of you thought that was going to happen? Scott as major white guilt, the ha Karen says Scott as major white guilt. You may have missed the last nine months MIKE

alex, have taken a weird characteristic. They don't know anything about me. You need to do a little bit of research before cabinet at me. You gotta do better than white guilt cause. If there, if there were a poster child for the person who is cured of any white guilt, that would be, I would be on the poster of people who don't have it alright. So maybe you need to catch up are about nine months beyond. so Israel owns the sky is another thing I will tell. You is probably true that

You know I was saying that Gaza doesn't get much cloud cover and given that drones and satellites exist, can't Israel look down on the war thing and have this insane advantage because they can see from above all the time. Well, it turns out that's exactly the situation, so they have a combination of mostly drones. I think but there may be some satellite stuff, they ve gotta control centre. The apparently has good enough software, so they basically we have an above ground, look at everything. They can see every bad guy coming out of every every hole in the ground and so that they can. Basically, Israel is playing chess because they're moving. There are strong pieces based on the board and Hamas is playing whack a mole.

But there are the moors so they're not playing the same game anymore, if you think is like a war. Well scared of a war, kazoo shooting one, but Israel is definitely playing chess and Hamas is playing whack, a mole as the moles now sometimes the moles, when in whack a mole right I mean you, don't always get all the moles. That's why it's hard, but it's weird that they're, not even in the same the same game, much less winning the game and here's. My provocative take that I said today, I'm just going to read this cause. I want to get it exactly right, took me long time to write it the posts later today. I said that men on average and the on average is going to do a lot of work here. So

Forget the on average part were not talk about individuals, so men on average, our protectors and hunters and women on average or nurturers. Are you with me so far that we know individuals are all over the place bought average biologically? We have also. Man, hunters, gill, stuff and protect and women are more nurtures and, of course, individuals to be all over the place. So if you accept that and I said that when the nurturers gave sufficient political power, the system falls apart. The ratio of protecting to nurturing, gets out and that's where we are now

now I'm not saying that women should not vote. That's somebody else's. That's pearl's thing and pearl can say that. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that when you get an imbalance of nurtures to protectors, then your system has problem. Now I would imagine it'd be the same. The other way right, if you had too much protecting and nurturing this this probably a bad societies. Well so I'm say there should be a balance, I'm not saying you should have none of water ones, the good one and once the bad will not. Unlike that, there's no judgment here, no judgment. All I'm just saying that if you take these two things which exist in every society and you get a man whack. It might be the sub optimal combination and I think that's where we are now, whereas suboptimal come.

stations- and I go on I say western women protesting in favor of the palestinian people- is a perfect example. The nurtures don't know how to protect themselves or anyone else. Again, it's an average. You know there are plenty of individuals who are smart and know. What's going on right, who favours the weak on crime. District attorney's aloof. If is a weak border security, mostly women and the men that those women control are called democrats? Now, if you don't, if you don't buy into the fact that democrat women are the dominant force in the democrat party, you need to pay attention a little bit more because they clearly are

and the men are clearly accommodating the women alright, so you could use your insulting. You know beta male blah, blah blah. You know, there's more lgbtq blah blah blah, I'm not making I call on those saying that the only been good or bad or that they are more value, were less value. Unjust describe. It is just a description, and so it's very clear that the level of political power that women have and the control that they have over the men in the democrat party creates this imbalance of nurturing to protecting, and you can see it everywhere. It's obvious everywhere that it's obvious when you see shoplifters, walk in and walk out with goods. Those are men not protecting as because the nurtures are protecting the criminal.

Is there an alters the little over nurturing and so just to make everybody mad? I said, I'll be better off. Now be careful about this choice of words. I chose this fear, carefully. I said we'd all be better off now. you will all be better off with here's one

I would say, but some of you seem to be hearing that you should do this. I didn't say that I'm not saying what you should do right. So this is not a recommendation for what you should do. Just get that clear. I'm saying what would be better but lots of times. You might have a reason to not do the thing, that's better and when I say better, let me be clear about that better for the cohesion of society, not better for the baby in question, not necessarily better for the woman or anybody else, so not for the individuals. So, if you're arguing for the individuals as different argument for a society, wouldn't it be good if we weren't tearing each other

report about the issue of abortion, so I think women should. Let me let me take. Let me re get rid of the should here's. What I said: we'd all be better off. If men abstained from the abortion law, decisions and women abstain from national defense decisions better off now, people said, but Scott, I'm definitely going to have an opinion on abortion, because it's life or death and it's about a dead baby go ahead. Did did you hear me saying not to you may have imagined you heard it, but I didn't say that, because you live in a free country,. and you can have any opinion you want and you can be tried to save babies as or as you want, and I would say, okay, that's you acting on your conscience. Do I have a problem with you acting on your conscience? No, I don't because that's basically a human,

but is it necessarily gonna get you to the best result? Well, that's where we differ, so you can fight on principle to save every babies, life and I would say to you, there's a principle in there's. You follow you your prince. well, I don't hate that I can't hate you have a good principal sticking to it and then acting on your principle. So if you ever think that I said don't do that while you're hearing something I'm not saying everybody, everybody does what they need to do when their situation and there's no free will. Anyway.

So is not a criticism and nobody is telling you what you should do we stop not I'm observing that if we stay with the fight, then you get the fight, but if you let women work it out, would that get you to your preferred outcome? Maybe not! So, if all that matters to you is your preferred outcome, then you would walk men and women to be involved if you're a male, because then your voice gets involved. If, if your interest as mine is, is to have this, this is more of a decision making thing. Then it sounds like a sounds like a preference, but I'm describing how to make a good decision just in general. If you have, if there's something about your decision, that can't change, then you should go to the next factor right, so you're never going to change the fact that half the country think that abortion is murder and half or whatever the numbers are. But you know what I'm talking about and some portion think it's not. If that won't change, then you move to the next factor that matters, because you can't change it. So stop changing the thing that won't change. We will disagree forever about this question, so you move up to the next question. Is how do you live together? How do you reach a decision where you can half the country can hate it and still respect to do that.

What the people who are closest to the decision to have the most skin in the game? To have a dominant opinion, that is, women have the most skin in the game. Now you said it, but but but but they'll make the wrong decision according to who? What where do you get that from? How do you know what the right decision is? The only thing you know for sure is your opinion. That's the only thing you know you have no access to some universal. What is right. you. You have a religious belief which you're welcome to I encourage you. Have you have a principle which you're welcome to an encouraging

And you, then, you could have your opinion which you're welcome to, and I would encourage it, but that won't get you to a good society. None of those things will help you get to living together in peace. What might get you there is trying to convince women to your opinion. That's always good and if they change their mind- and maybe they decide differently on the balkan in your state or otherwise, then you're still very credible process, because if women have them,

skipping the game and whatever way the laws go, is compatible with the you know the bare majority of women, then you have the most credible system, even if half the country hates now it could be in either direction. It could be either pro or anti, but it would still be the most credible outcome and nobody will stop you from saying anything you want about it at anytime. Your opinion full up, but just know that decision making says, stop arguing about the thing that you can't win the argument of whether it's your life or not, it's going nowhere and it will go nowhere. So go to the next thing that matters. How do you keep the society together? That's all I'm saying now those who disagree said but but but it's life and death, and I have to

my my feelings known, to which I say, go ahead. Yeah go ahead, but the same should apply to the war. I think it should be primarily the ones making the decisions where do we go to war? Who do we support? How do we keep the country safe? Do we close the borders? What do we do about crime and the city same problem? I think that women are less credible in that domain, because they're, not the ones who are going to have to clean it up if it goes wrong. So will neither these things will happen in our system, but that would give you better results. another survey of whether trump would win in the in the background states. The newest one says that terms

Amtrak to win two hundred and ninety two electoral college votes compared to Joe Biden to forty six. That's like a big win. That's that's pretty close to a landslide. Would you call that a landslide that, in your opinion, would to ninety two to two forty six be a landslide. I think they would call it that, but we'll say: there's a lot will change and, interestingly, if you're, if you're, not looking at the national vote below

If you got the the key states of the electoral college according to this survey, trump is the only republican who could win. Against any Democrat, let me say that again: according to this, trump is the only republican who can win against any Democrat Biden knew some rain belt. Now, that's not believable, because you know anybody could really be anybody, so you never know who's going to get in, but that's interesting. The santos actually would not beat either harris, or by that I read that right doesn't matter. If fifa is oh trump would be Biden Harris or loosen,

and it looks like the santas and nikki haley would get demolished, no matter who they ran against. I dunno about vague. You can imagine a world in which trump decided not to run for any personal or other reason and endorsed vague, because that seems like really possible. Doesn't it I mean in the worst case scenario where he decided not to run or couldn't run or was a health problem, or something like that. If trump endorse the vague, you don't think he can be the Democrats. I also believes that the santas, whatever problem, although I think he'd, do a lot better than nikki haley and I think Nikki haley would have a problem, but they don't have his skill. They don't have a veg skill and they don't have his compatibility with trump supporters. I think, if you think the vague doesn't have a path. He really does. I mean he's he's operating as the emergency

Backup spare to trump now to be fair, he's not running to be vice. President he's not he's not running to be anybody's. Backup is running to be president and that's exactly the mindset that position he should have, but in reality you know things happen. What do you think Tucker Carlson could ever be the vice president? I think that trump is wisely and smartly. Just saying good things about talker cars are working well at the moment together. So I don't think I don't think Tucker as any interest in being vice president, that that would be like the worst idea in the world really- and I I like tucker- I just don't think vice president is where he would serve the country best. I doubt he thinks that either alright, I believe I've talked about all the interesting news and that concludes

the livestream of the day the lifestream lifestream, the best thing you've ever experienced in your life volcanoes in iceland yeah some are saying: there's lots of volcanoes at the moment, and then I saw some experts say no, it's not true. It's actually a low volcano year, but I guess the volcanoes are just in interesting places, so we're talking about, I don't think trump as president would serve the president country best. Somebody says vp under Biden or trump is a bet on death in office. That's true yeah, so TIM Scott is out of the race and as cobleskill is speaking without saying anything, that's funny. Alright. That thanks you too, for joining, and I will talk to you and tomorrow and it'll be another wonderful newsday. I just feel like something's about to happen. There might be some big news brewing, we'll keep an eye on that bye for now.