Pull up Bobo bumper, bumper, bumper boo, hey everybody come on in I'm just making it over here you can see an will get going in a moment. I want to make sure I don't forget this fake news that I won't mention. There's a lot of fake news today. Most of it is fake news. There's more fake news, real news today, I'm not sure that's different, but here we are. Well? I know why you're here? Yes, I do a long time. That's correct, finally control. So I spent three days in the recording studio. Laying and the audio for my book. Loser think that comes out November. Fifth, those are three very long days, because my voice kind of fails toward the end of the recording and I've gotta take lots of

there's a lot of burping, and now it's just a long day. But let's start this day off right get the dopamine put. Are you ready All you need is a couple more glasses signed. The cellist is a thermistor flaska, Cantina vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee, join me now for the simultaneous up the dopamine hit. That gets your day going the best part of your day until the rest of it go well, there's a whole bunch of interesting things today, so let me just run through them. Is it my imagination, or is somebody's asking about the burping when you're when you're doing an audio book, you're doing a lot of reading out loud. You end up sway. Having a lot of air, so

actually literally part of the process that every half hour, so you have to step away from the mic and just like burp, like crazy, apparently only happens, so that's a little thing you didn't need to know. Is it my imagination or is Elizabeth Warren? She could she not have won the presidency by simply being a ten percent better Hillary, because if you look at her, she she's sort of like a a slightly improved Hillary. Little little thinner little more fit. She looks warrant looks like she's really healthy, which is a really good thing. She seems he doesn't have the baggage. You know she doesn't have the Clinton Foundation, She was never married to Bill Clinton, who is the senator it seemed to Maine

that Warren had pretty good pass to the White House simply by being ten percent better than Hillary once because Hillary came that close, but she's screwed the pooch with her policies, but also by going by, doing so extreme in our policies, I don't know that she can recover it. 'cause, there's not enough room to go back to the middle, so I feel as though she had you know the best chance anybody would have ever had a beating trump. By just being the slightly improved Hillary Okay, Bernie Sanders PATH and tried to be a slightly worse burning you know it was ready point she was. She was deciding under strategy and said: look I can be a better Hillary who won the popular vote. Came this close to winning.

Or I could be worst worse birdie, so I think she took the wrong strategy there. Alyssa Milano had an interesting tweet today you know she met with TED Cruz. To talk about guns, you know that she is in favor of gun control, but here's what you didn't know they own two guns, so listen Milano and her husband. I guess they have two guns in the house legal and there are pro second amendment. Did you see that coming So once again, I'm going to give props to Alyssa Milano. I know you don't agree with her. She is, she is a true fan who, in her other opinions and stuff, but every now, and then you have to just stop n appreciate things that are good. You know just the fact is

that they work their sincere their well meaning, even if it's not exactly what you would have done, even if you have a different preference, sometimes we're stopping so here's what I'm going to give her props for. She has inserted herself into the conversation about guns and in a very effective way, as evidenced by her meeting the TED Cruz, as evidenced by her social media, as evidenced by the fact that I'm talking about her. So that's number one number one step of persuasion and effectiveness: get people's attention. Aplus man does she? Does she got people's attention right? So, on that dimension, a plus, you can't beat that that's that's AOC level, that's trump level! That's good stuff can take that away from her next, I believe she is. She is sincere. I believe she has no profit motive. I mean

would be ridiculous. I believe that she wants to help the country aplus right. You can't agree with your fellow citizen on everything, but you can certainly hope that they have the best interests of the country in mind. That seems to be the case, her opinion of how to get to the Best place might differ from yours, but is there any question that she has your best interest in mind your best interest, like actually your best interest, in addition to her own, an addition to the country? I think so now, of course, everybody's got a different risk profile and prince, so some people would not get what they wanted if she did get what she wanted. But that's how the whole world works. You can't hold that against it uhm and then. Thirdly, uh she's doing

How do you say that leading us, as was pointed out on twitter by by stating that she's pro second amendment, and then she has two guns? The first thing is: it's a really is an entry surprise and surprises are very powerful for persuasion. In other words, you you had this impression of her and then she she throws system there. We have two guns and were pro second amendment, do you like well? Well, I didn't see that coming, and it's it's called pacing in in the world of persuasion. She's, batching at least as much as you can. It's not a full match, but she is matching the people she's trying to persuade so yeah. I'm basically on your side and she adds in a tweet that ninety, percent of the countries in favor of some whatever they would call common sense, gun restrictions,

so she's saying basically I'm exactly where you are and she's not too far off I mean she would differ on the you know a rs and stuff, but it's a good play so and then she's got the respect of TED news and gaining people's respect and creating the conversation. Becoming well known for the thing having passion having it's it's great. I could not be happier about Alyssa, Milano and TED Cruz, so everything I just said about Alyssa Milano, just say well, also: TED, Cruz, pot, here's the thing Ted Cruz is a frickin senator it's a little bit easier for him to get it tension and have his impact be felt Alyssa Milano is coming into a game that she doesn't play politics and she's hitting home runs on.

For she doesn't even play so give it up for we'll see what happens so I will try. So twitter user jumbo shrimp, jumbo shrimp tweeted this interesting question, And until you hear this question you're going to say why are we talking about it like this? Why is this the first time somebody asked this question here? Is the question China, we know to target republican areas of the tree with their terrace, so that it would put more pressure on President Trump because he needs to win reelection and it would be bad if the parts of the country that were the swing, States were mad at him because of chinese tariffs, and jumbo shrimp asks quite reasonably. Why isn't that election interference right,

It wouldn't you say that China targeting specific areas of the country industries really but those trees are concentrated in different places If they're doing it to affect the election, it's election interference and that's war. Am I wrong? That's war. If you interfere, let me say it is clearly as possible if another country interferes with our election in a meaningful way, that's war now that doesn't mean we shoe bombs at him and you know shoot missiles at him, but it is an act of war. Now I don't know if we're doing anything similar to China, so maybe

in some ways it might be a tip for tat, but why are we not at least talking about it? In those terms, uh somebody says yes, you are wrong. Usa interferes all over the place. I accept that we do, but we don't say to Russia or Russia. It's ok that you into in our elections, because we do it too. I mean everybody. Does it? No. I do agree that we do it too, and I do agree. Everybody does you know even to allies, etcetera, but that doesn't give you a free pass. Is that if you catch someone else, do it yes still they have to deal with it right. I guess the Pentagon is some list of army linked businesses that China has links to to make sure that their technology in our technology doesn't

doesn't get connected because they can steal secrets. I guess now, I don't know the whole details, but it's it's meaningful that we're putting pressure on the technology part of China, the technology For stealing park- and it made me wonder, are we going to get to the point where all the major powers just have to create their own technology. Will we get to the point where it will be too dangerous even to have communication links between american technology and say chinese technology. You know same for other countries, but let's just use China's example. Could we be safe all the time, knowing that their technology even had a communication link to our technique, lab, much danger with IBM wondering if we're at adding to a point where China can't use american chips and weak.

Can't use anything that comes out in China because we, always know if we can secure it We might be heading toward that. Here's a suggestion. You've noticed that there are countries in the world who have free and open internet, and I can look at anything and then there are some totalitarian countries that are limiting what their people can see in their country on the internet We've got IRAN, N, Korea and China I don't know how many others, Russia, I think Russia is trying to build their own internal internet too. And here's what I would say about those I think they need a name. I think they need a label. Because labeling is powerful when you label something that before you label it with something was simply a concept You don't get much persuasion power from sort of a concept. You need to put a label on it and then people think of it based on the label

and then the label gives it power watch me do this right now, ok, so that the concept is that some countries are limiting their inter and others not not here's a the label. All the countries that, Limiting access to their internal internet or limiting their citizens on the internet. I would call them failing digital states failing digital States and the thinking behind that is that any country that is trying to limit Mmhm citizens from the internet will fail one hundred percent of the time, because at that means that their system think about this. If you're limiting the internet, it means that you're, system of government handle information, Information alone would bring it down if your country is codependent

lies to stay in power and you are you're so dependent. You actually have to control information coming into country. I think you have to be called a failing digital state, and I mean that literally because, if you, if you try to control your digital information, the citizens are going to find out and they're going to find out impossible, that they wouldn't find out, so the citizens will find out what's going on and it's not going to be pretty eventually. So I would say the failing. Digital states should be labeled as such and let them fail please, rather than trying to browbeat around ran into opening up their internet. Let's just say it's a failing digital state, it's up to them what to do about it

or just labeling it we're not telling you you need to change it's, not our business. It's not our country, but you're, a failing digital state and there's no way that you're going to survive in long. Here's something interesting: the Supreme Court Guess held up Trump Administration rule. Or as old as a policy or rule or law. I don't know exactly what it is, but the Supreme Court agreed that asylum seekers from countries that are not on our border can be. You can be banned from that entry or banned from asylum because they went through another country first. So the idea is that they have to apply for asylum in the first country. They can get because otherwise it's not asylum. You know, asylum is the only thing I need is to get out of my country. So if you get into mexico- and you get out of your country, you're done if you want to also gives the United States will.

It's more of an economic decision. That's no longer a silence. That was, I guess, essentially what frustration was arguing, and I guess this Supreme Court upheld it. I think there might be some more fighting on that in lower courts or whatever but but here's my main point: there are several sort of slow motion improvements happening with border security. Have you noticed so the first Slow motion change is that you don't see anymore caravans. No, I don't no. If that has to do with the do, you might be a weather thing just to warm. The other. So we don't see the caravans, so that looks like momentum has slowed, even if it's just because of some

We also know that Mexico's National Guard is getting aggressive in guarding their southern border, which is cutting off the flow, and maybe that's why there are no caravans, but that's you know a major major, the fact and the number of people getting apprehended is way down because fewer people getting through and then you've got this asylum. The secret thing, but there's a fourth thing, which is: why are we not hearing more stories about families being ripped apart. So I don't know the answer to the question. It could be that we just got bored with the story baby but it seems to be far more likely that the Trump administration knew it had this bad stain on its reputation, the separating your kids from parents and stuff and that they've sort of continuously pushed resources in that direction. While everybody is complaining

but things don't happen quickly, so we may be reaching the point where the administration is. Finally, you know being effective in creating better conditions, partly because fewer ' people are coming over, maybe partly because more judges are processing thing would maybe partly because we're getting just more product in there more places to say, but the fact that we're not hearing about it suggests to Maine that every trend on the border is positive. I need a fact check on that, so it's really is sort of the dog, not barking. I'm not sure that I can be confident what I'm saying is accurate, but it feels to me the Trump Administration has finally wrestled this thing you one come at a time just sort of pushing. The whole time to the point. Where is sort of

mobile yeah. Also the wall is being built right. I forgot to mention that so the construction, Wall is likely to be built, will be more legal battles about the blah blah blah taking money from the military. But it looks like I don't know, if my being am I being too much of a team player and my being too pro trump to say that, as far as I can tell, Every single part of the border security issue is going his way right now. Is that not true? he's getting this wall looks like he's. Probably taking care of the family separation thing he's got the assailant thing going on and he's got Mexico, Bring some order and the numbers are way down. Now an plus he's pushing China on fentanyl, which is really also in Mexico problem. It feels to main like the Trump administration. Is winning on every dimension on immigration,

And he's got another year of winning or so before the election. So that looks good. That's the sort of story you won't see in the it was because it's it's sort of a laundry list of things that aren't too exciting on the own. You have to see them all together, say say altogether. There's sort of story story here looks like he's winning on everything. Just none of it is as fast as you. Wanted to be. Apparently, the administration is going to ban flavored e cigarettes and they're going to make the tobacco flavored ones go through the but in the meantime I think the the tobacco ones can stay on the market. While the s t I f, D, a is looking at and as far as I can tell, this is pretty popular big, 'cause, it's you know, gets kids off on and

they're in the news, and I'm I'm a hundred percent in favor of this a hundred percent. I think flavored e cigarettes should be banned at the same time you know, I'm generally don't want anymore laws that we need. I just think we should be. Free to do what we want, etc, but the Israeli are targeted at kids. Let's not kid ourselves. These are products children and they should be banned so good job, is it my imagination or is aides are. What is a is. Ours. Is the health and human services which a cabinet positions Cesar? I want to give him a call out to every time you see something with is our name on it, Secretary Azar, our is something good as something smart as a policy hadn't seen before in some cases, and you go on smart, so he's

all kinds of stuff like speeding up access to generics, approvals of generics, so Azores, sort of turning into a superstar in the admin? situation, so you sort of a sleeper because he's doing doing the on stuff. You know that the bureaucratic improvements that are not sexy, but it looks like he's killing it. Health and human services yeah so shout out to secretary, is are for killing it good job there. Have you noticed that the people who are opposed to Trump's a trump strategy, if you could call it that IRAN and N Korea and, in fact check me on this- I'm not sure that this next thing is true, but it feels like it's true is, For anybody who has a different strategy that they're putting forward? Who is also criticizing trump strategy?

with either IRAN or N Korea, are you aware of any because you do hear people say blah blah? The president will be impulsive or blah blah? The president? Will you make bad deal or blah blah that the nukes are not going away club in North Korea, blah blah IRAN, starting up, as you know, pushing towards going to here again, blah blah, but in all those complaints? Those are mostly factual complaints right. So it's a fact that N Korea is testing some missiles and it's a fact that they haven't given up their nukes, etc: But I don't know anybody who saying okay, President Trump, instead of what you're doing you should do this other thing Is there any alternative? I mean I haven't seen one: have you

There's nobody saying we should start you ignoring those countries or attacking them, or what the hell is the other thing you're supposed to do. I think everybody wants economic pressure on everybody wants us to talk to them. Everybody wants their nukes to go away. I feel as though on some of the biggest issues in the world ran in North Korea. The trump doesn't have opposition. Am I wrong about that? And how about the economy, the socialist candidates for president the ones were more about the Conversely, healthcare and paying for college and stuff, they have different economic ideas than President Trump. But does anybody think those economic ideas will be good for the economy in general? I don't even think that Warren and Sanders

are saying that the economic policies they favor would make the GDP go up right. It is there anybody on the democrat side who is making an argument that they would improve the GDP. I don't think so right, because it looks Trump is doing that better than maybe anybody could do it now. You could argue, don't like the way he's doing it. You can say he's relaxed the regulations too much. I don't know if that's true, there's no good reporting on that. I would guess that he's relaxed regulations were marginal or obviously bad ideas. Maybe there are a lot of those. I don't know I'm worried about it. Just like you are. I do not feel safe that a bureaucracy, any bureaucracy, doesn't matter Republican Democrat. I do not feel safe that my

earth men is good at making regulations about the environment and I'm not sure they're good at removing them either. So I'm not comfortable with that situation, but it has to do with the lack of reporting that I would trust I so it seems to be on national defense and the economy. There isn't really even another plan out there That looks like it would boost GDP and make us safer from IRAN and N Korea he's. Actually not running. He's running unopposed on the biggest issues. Well another big issue, nuclear, so nuclear power? I've told you that I'm trying to be helpful or in one minor way on the question of climate change and nuclear energy, which is to help people understand the nuclear energy.

Potential and I came up with a new visual for that here. It is here's a graph that shows the risk of nuclear energy versus climate risk. Now this assumes that climate risk Israel. So if you don't think Climate risk is real. You can talk among yourselves It doesn't actually matter if it's real from the point I'm going to make. The point is that if you look at risks overtime, the risk of climate being a catastrophe according to scientists, you don't have to agree, I'm just I'm just graphing what the scientists would say that the climate risk is rising and it could be rising quite quickly at the same time, this is the part. People don't understand that because of newer technologies and smarter people etc the risk of a nuclear power plant. If you were to build a new,

who won today so we're not talking about the risk of existing plants were talking about. If you were to build one today, generation, three or newer technology, you would be nuclear risk is just dropping to vanish. Only small, because we know how to do this stuff now we're getting better at it. So I would argue that we've reached the point where the climate risk has exceeded the nuclear. Our risk. So if you believe that scientists are both of those, I remember I'm not saying I'm not going to try to convince you. The climate change is a big risk or a small risks, because I don't I mean literally. How would I know I'm not a scientist and I don't even believe the scientists know it because I think scientists work in their little areas. Really have visibility over the entire field. So

I have trouble even trusting the scientist, but I don't discount that there could be a gigantic climate risk and they Guns are a big push around, but I don't discount it. I just don't know, however, since nuclear power would be the solution weather, not climate risk is a big problem. 'cause you would want to do it for pollution reasons. You'd want to do it for cost reasons. Here's another framing. Let me let me toss out another nuclear energy, framing nuclear power is for the poor think about it. Nuclear power is for the benefit of the That's literally true, because if you, if you put milk Renner where they only had other sources. You're very likely going to lower the cost of energy so substantially the poor people would effectively got a major raise because they be paying is much for their power.

People would also get a benefit, but it's not gonna feel the same. You know if, if my, if my power yeah as speaking as a number of the of the wealthier class, if my energy costs went down at my house well, I noticed it would be pretty big number, but it would change my life in any possible way. But if I were a low income person and nuclear power plants came into my state and my energy costs drop by half or whatever it is. That would be real money in this difference between you know being able to sign up for a class of daycare. We could be a big big, big numbers. So that's enough on that point. So let's talk about all the the fake news. Do you remember yesterday, those of you who were here, I told you that you would be hearing it from me. First, a

we'll see how I did so. I said I'll be the first one to tell you that I think the boltons departure from the White House is related to wanting to make a deal with me, Maria and I said it makes sense for him to leave now, instead of when we get closer to actually negotiating the next round with North Korea, which they're planning, because because North Korea clearly is not going to agree to any kind of security guarantees from the United States, well boldness the major member of the administration, it just those are impossible. You know, I wouldn't even ask N Korea to sign a deal saying we're going to guarantee their security while John Bolton still, the job of the administration. I mean even I wouldn't recommend this site that deal. Does that would just be a stupid deal. You know that they should at least negotiate better than that, right, even my enemies. I want to negotiate better than that 'cause. You want to deal that's kredible

there's no point going through all the work to sign a deal that both sides don't think the solid So, in my opinion I think Bolton was, I think he was an asset. In the sense that he represented My point of view? That's always good to hear, and he very experienced and connected and stuff so he probably was an asset while he lasted, but because the situation changed and the President Yeah maybe thinks he can. He can feature deal now, he had to go, and I told you that it would be related to North Korea. You've already seen. Maybe some by now you in some other reporting that says the same thing So there are some insider reports and I think actually, the president sent it directly yeah. The president said it directly, that Kim Jong Moon was no fan of Bolton

so I'm going to call first, first pundit to make that connection correctly. So there's a story in the news that President Trump, reportedly and allegedly considering allegedly reportedly considering possibly noodling at least flirting with the idea of extending a fifty billion dollar credit to IRAN in return for some kind of good negotiated deal. Now. What are the fricking odds that that's real news, the odds of that being real news? Franken Searle come on the fake news, just stop trying! Please fake news. Try harder to fool us, you know I saw the article and it was from. Some of

so called reputable organization, I didn't have to read the article: did you if you saw the headline? You probably did you know Trump? Schering giving fifteen billion dollar line of credit to IRAN. Did you even need to read the article that is the fakest of fake news? I've but we're not done with the fake news, The story about the the alleged american spy in the Kremlin, who had to be exfiltrated, had to be removed. Because they're worried that the president would blow his cover, what about that story s sound true to you! that doesn't even sound slightly true, not even a little bit and what happened to that story. The story, just sort of die out, 'cause, remember Pompeyo, said, is factually inaccurate, didn't happen and then

Did you get? How can the reporters even find out more about such a top secret thing? just sort of somebody says Peter down. That's exactly what it did it petered out, because I don't think it was a true story here. Other one headline today: Israel that Israel, Israel, reportedly put a spy device behind the White House. I don't know how far behind the White House, I'm not sure how far how close you can get your spy device to the White House, but it would pick up cell phone calls within the White House. I guess now. The first thing I asked myself is wow,

is anybody making like public cell phone calls from the White House on official business. We've got to do a better job of protecting cell phone calls from spies, maybe is hard are, are there is no such thing as a encrypted cell phones? I don't know. Well. Here's my take on that. So, of course, Israel has, as they would, of course, they've denied that they would ever spy in the United States or the White House. You- and I know the allies do spy on each other. We know that, no matter how close your relationship is with your allies, we're probably spying on them. There probably spying on us yeah, but it's not necessarily malicious spying. Another words it's Probably this strategic kind like you, need a heads up. You know there, your

is were allies but me nice to have a heads up words where your heads are so I tried to assign an odds to Israel, actually be the do planted that device and I'm going to give it a fifty thousand fifty fifty percent odds that they did is simply because. Well it's what allies to each other and then when they get caught, they did so it wouldn't be surprising in any fundamental way. Any of our allies, weather's, great Britain or just doesn't matter. What is Israel Great Britain if we found that a bug somewhere in a government office. Somebody says: don't trust Scott Adams he's a wolf in Sheeps, clothing and gross well, you won't have to worry about because you're blocked, so

so it wouldn't be surprising if it were Israel, but here's the argument against it being Israel. Wouldn't it be a better play for one of Israel's opponents to put that device there and get caught. So here's the first question: do you think, Israel would put a spying device anywhere near the White House. They had much of a chance of getting caught. I feel like they're better than that w I mean humans, make mistakes and even super spies make mistakes, and maybe we have cool technology. They don't know about where we can detect their device. Maybe it was just a random coincidence where somebody opened the door and found something that wasn't supposed to be there. Maybe, but I feel as though Israel either would have known, hey get away with it, or they want to put that damn thing there in the first place it yeah hypothetically. If it were then, but

if you were an enemy of Israel Imagine you were all right or anybody else who is anti Israel? Do you think you could frame them by finding whatever technology Israel is known to use for this sort of thing. Just put Israel attack near the White House and make sure somebody finds it, I don't know, but I'll give I'll give that one to one thousand five hundred and fifty could go either way. I don't think it's important either way. The debates are tonight. The Democrats will be debating. I may or may not be live. Tweeting don't know I might if it's interesting. So I think this is the beginning of the process where we're going to find out. First of all, who the top three are

I think, there's a pretty good chance that you're going to see at least one of the top three decompose There'S- probably one of them who not going to do well, I guess Biden. So what happens? If Biden takes a dump who do where do Biden's things boats go too well. If they go to somebody, they think is the next best chance of winning. Who is also not hard core socialist. Like versus Warren. I think

does the Harris, because she is the fourth in line she has some chance of winning. She is a lease, not quite as crazy as the full socialist yeah she looks like she could be more flexible in there. So I wouldn't be surprised if you see a Harris's numbers go up and buy things go down after this. All here assesses as to do is show up and and be capable. She just has to show up and not not make a. Gaff? I don't think she necessarily has to kill it. I think she has to be credible and presidential and she will take from biting. 'cause Biden is going to be under attack and he's going to gaffe and he's going to stroke out I mean not literally well, maybe literally you know, had one other topic and assess throughout human history.

There have been allies and and enemies among countries. I feel as though we're entering an age the only rational thing to do is get as many allies as you can on your side, because the the age of wars working it over at least wars among the major powers. Smaller countries are still going to have their civil wars in there. You know the smaller border issues, the wars among major powers- and here I was a major- would be you know, array and north korea- us you know at least somebody's got a series. Military. I think those days are largely over and the Iraq and Afghanistan situation or a big part of because it's obviously you just can't win a war anymore, what earth are no longer winnable because

show me somebody who's going to arm the rebels and they're going to arm them with such good weapons that you just can't hold hold a country. You know that the rebels will be able to blow up here pipelines your railroads I'll, be able to. Good ideas in your streets, so I think the days of conquering a country that doesn't want to get conquered, maybe over, and so we should be smarter than that feels like so it says wrong. Look at history! I haven't looking at history. That's the point. Well, so somebody saying we didn't learn from Vietnam. So therefore it maybe we won't learn from Afghanistan, and therefore we won't learn from Iraq, and then we didn't learn anything from Syria. I guess um, that's the pre slope argument. Well not really. This is more like will never learn argument and I don't think that's the case. I think the better way to see it. Is that even

Actually, you do learn if you try something and you slapped on the wrist. The first time you might say resolve well, try that one more time, but if you get slapped enough you to change your tactics and I think what's different is we understand now We can't win when we fought in Vietnam. We didn't know we couldn't win. When we fought in Iraq, we didn't know we couldn't win when we fought in. Guinness and we didn't know we couldn't win at least in terms of getting everything we want and pacifying the country etc. We certainly won militarily against the worst people. Somebody saying winning is not the point yeah. In those cases there may be other objectives, because wmd or something something but it's obvious that it's bad for the attacking country and that's different. So I think that here's where I'm going with this, I think the countries that are enemies now,

IRAN, North Korea yeah? You could argue Russia. China is a special case. I feel as though we should be trying to to turn them into allies, as opposed to simply turning them into not enemies. I think, is, is shooting low to say, hey It's just not be at war with a ramp that feels like not even close to where we could And where we should be aiming We should be aiming for full allied situation? Now you might save yourself Scott there's, no way to be a ally, with the iranian regime, they want to conquer the world, etc. The then center, put a timeline on it and you say: ok, it looks impossible today Let's say in twenty years. We would like to figure out a way

To be full allies with an iranian regime that wants to be full allies with us say with N Korea, we don't have to say we'll do it tomorrow, but I think it hell. I feel like it helps to say no we're not just trying to be not at war with you that just feels like losers, Because that's not what you want right. What you want is to be allies. What you want us to make money, what you want is to open their markets. What you, is everybody does better. So nobody thinking about anybody, that's what you want. So why shoot low and just say we don't want to be a war, go right at it say. Look I'm going to spend more and more time explaining to you. What it looks like when we're apiece and of friends Starlight in it.

That's where we're trying to get? If you find this we're going to fight you, if you attack, is we're going to attack you you're not going to like it, but where we like to get is a good place. I think, and I'm not being unreal stick in the sense of imagining that he that would be easy, or even more than one percent likely to to get where we need. I'm talking about a mental mind the mind set of how to approach it. You should you should be asking for for more than you think you can get. And somebody says history repeats I've got a chapter in my book, mocking the idea that history repeats history can't repeat: do you know why. History can't repeat because you never had the same starting point. You have things

It might remind you of other things, but that's a different thing. It's a different set of variables and the current variables have learned a lot from the old. Very, so there are things that remind you of other things, but history can't repeat: it's not a thing. People can be similar overtime. People's preferences could be similar overtime. People's weaknesses can be similar over But these are patterns which are false patterns. Here's why you think history repeats you ready for it. You think history repeats, because you don't see all the history that doesn't repeat if you could see all the things that look like they should have repeated and didn't you would say to yourself. Oh, if you look at everything, that's happening. History, basically almost never repeats, and when it does it's just a coincidence,

pattern that you say. Oh, I thought I saw that pattern before it is uh an illusion, an bad thinking. It is literally a chapter called loser. Think in in my Well, it's within the loser. Think label because it it is a poor analysis. History always starts from the current set of variables. It doesn't is not influenced by some kind of magic from the history of the past. Alright Connie W turned out a tour down. Those little experimental low income homes. He don't. If you heard those stories. Saucony has one of his projects. As he's trying to design working with a design firm. I guess

to design low income homes that are also very cool, because why should poor people have you know unless they poorly designed places being poor? People need places that don't cost a lot of money, but they don't need poor design design is, free kind of I mean 'cause, you amortize your design costs over the entire project, so they're inexpensive, but he had to tear it down, so the neighbors complained- and I guess the local, the city got involved, and they said your construction is not too noisy and there's too much traffic and you Buildings that you build do not meet code so it or a ball down it now did Connie W succeed or did he fail? As the question tell me, did Connie W succeed or fail? He built a bunch of the low income homes. Experimental city can play He just tore mall. Did they succeed or fail

You succeeded. You succeeded yeah I don't see that you don't understand Connie and you don't understand how creation works. You haven't read my book had to fail at all. Everything before winning big Kanye knows now what he can do and what he can't do. He knows where he can't build a place. He knows what problems will run into a few bills is somewhere else. He knows because they built the they built those structures. He knows about working with the design firm. He knows what they can and cannot do. He knows what people's reaction to them were because the pictures are in the press. He knows what it was like to walk around inside these things. Kanye just went from not knowing a whole lot about

holding low income homes to being one of the experts in the country on building low income homes. That's a success now, if he never did anything again in this realm you'd say: oh, ok! Well I guess that didn't workout, but they don't expect that. I expect him to say well that didn't work watch. This try another one, maybe try a little harder to get permits or some kind of permission. I would love to see the government. I don't know if this is a federal thing or how this would work, so somebody smarter left it in. For me, I would love love to see the government state or local or whoever needs to do. It say that they will designate some construction projects as experimental, for it is assuming that there for the benefit of low income people and then I would add this. There might be a requirement that, let's say an engineer, has to be involved

So it's not enough that you've got an architect and a builder. You have to also have an engineer but the engineer will not be bound by maybe every rule the engineer will be bound by common sense, engineering. So the engineer will make sure that the roof doesn't collapse. You know so you'll be safe enough but it might not hit every point for the the city requires because it's experimental, if you did that, suddenly all kinds of all kinds of of entities say whoa, I can get an exemption. I can build anything I want and test it out. That would be amazing, That would be amazing can tell you from having worked in this this realm for awhile the realm of low cost housing. And the light is already etc. There's

in money and plenty of creativity and plenty of interest in experimenting in low cost shelters that are high high design, the low cost. All we need is to get some regulations out of the way. I just don't know who does, all right! Those are the things I think I wanted to mention today and how about that? looks like we're keeping oh there's one one big thing: I'm sorry there's one big thing that I forgot to mention, and I should have as it's real lesson on confirmation bias. So are you ready? Most of you know the story that I've been trying to debunk the fine people hope, and I links whenever people mention the fine people hoax. I put a link to my blog page debunking it. So

The whole internet will have links that anytime. Somebody reads the hoax from anybody important. They will also see in the comments linked to debunking. So you know it's not true um and my link to the fine people hoax broke this week, which meant that every link I would ever put out for maybe eighteen months all broke. So my entire strategy of blanketing, the internet with that link all disappeared in the same day, and of course somebody says my prednisone is making me talk faster. I think that's true.

But also I was doing voice recording all day yesterday, so yeah, my my talking rain is probably up a little now in lots of technical people. Here were quick to help out and there was set. My security certificates had expired, but of course we look into it and that didn't seem to be the case. So here's what we got wrong and here's Confirmation bias could do to you, so the situation was that my blog had been a separate site connected with Dilbert, dot com, and then we move the blog to yet a third site and cut the link. But all of the links to the old blog were redirected. The the redirection didn't work because I think it was the. I may have this a little bit wrong but I I think the intermediair the inter immediate site, the one

used to host the blog, but now just doesn't exist. I think that certificate was expired. Somebody says that's what I said. Yes, some of you were we're on to this. So when we checked Dover dot com, that was fine and when I checked the blog directly, that was fine and I kept saying well how can they both be fine if you go there directly, but the link doesn't work how's. That possible is because the intermediary site needs a correction that has been corrected, so all of those links are, now live here. Is the lesson? Here's a lesson. I could not imagine any other explanation other than bad actors. I could not imagine and the x. Relation other than some kind of shadow shadowbanning. You know

criminal, tory actions against my accounts, but that was not the case I mean, as far as I could tell it was not. The case was a simple technical bug. So keep that in mind, because I think uhm. I think when we look at the conservatives being shadowbanned etc. I am convinced there's something real to that, but there's also a whole bunch of it is not, and it's hard to sort out what might be real from what not. But I can confirm- and this is a perfect example, but a lot of it. What you think just just has to be it just has to be somebody up to no good. It just has to be a hack. Let me find out it's just a bug, all right, uhm, oh yeah. I still I need to schedule with.

Jack Dorsey, if he's still willing to come on here, I think I'll, send him a message as soon as we get off and see if I can schedule that, and that would be fun- and I will talk to you all tomorrow have a great day best day ever by