C (5:59)

There was.

A (6:00)

Oh. Oh. And how happy are you that Marcella didn't ask you to read that?

B (6:05)

When I saw that, that's exactly what I was thinking about. I'm like, oh, my God.

A (6:08)

I don't know.

B (6:09)

I want to read that whole thing because it was. This is a wall of text thing, and it was just going on and on and on.

A (6:16)

Oh, hey, that was. That was amazing. And imagine Scott reading it. I know. We all are. Imagine Scott reading that for us. It would have been the entire show of tears and tissues and flying back in his chair. Holy cow. That was amazing.

C (6:37)

I'm imagining Owen reading it too.

A (6:41)

Oh, bless. And I'm also imagining all the people mentioned reading it. Okay, so there's really nothing more to say on that. That was just, you know, chef's kiss, Trump's amazing tweeting skills. I mean, what can you say? Owen, do you think that was a doozy or what?

B (7:01)

Oh, it was. I. You know, the only thing I didn't like was just that it was that wall of text. Like, he didn't have any paragraphs even, like, they had on the Star wars thing, they separated it into paragraphs. That would have been much better, made it more readable. But otherwise, it was the classic Trump, you know, insult humor. And I'm not really sure what he's going for. You know, maybe he's just stirring the pot again. But, yeah, I mean, it was. It was good.

A (7:28)

He stuck a boat motor in the pot with that one. What do you think, Marcelo? Amazing persuasion. Typical Trump. What are we doing?

C (7:36)

I just love how what he says, you know, obviously, you know, the people that were involved, I'm sure they woke up or they saw this, and they. They very much didn't like it, but. And they reacted to it, and some of their reactions were funny. Like, Candace reacting to it says, like, oh, it's time to put grandpa in the home. It's just funny to see how he talks about CNN at the beginning of, like, I got 100%, you know, my MAGA support. CNN's reporting it, and then later on, he talks about fake news, CNN and New York Times. So it's just, you know, he's like.

A (8:20)

And you. And he's like a drunk wine mom who's like, telling off everybody that's made her mad that night. Oh, it's amazing. All right, so that was that, you guys.

B (8:30)

The Trump Festivus.

A (8:33)

It was the. What do we call that? Airing of grievances.

C (8:37)

I mean, I just wish it wasn't happening because, you know, I want to keep everybody together, but at least it's. It's entertaining.

A (8:46)

Oh, yeah. No, we are very much not together. That is for sure. Entertaining was, you know, five star, a plus plus for entertainment. Okay, so you guys, yay. We have a great Scott clip for you guys today. I mean, is any clip of Scott not great? No. So this one's about eight minutes. So if some of you are wondering where things came from or about the hoaxes or where a Rupar came from, we're gonna just listen to Scott and then we'll come back on the other side. Okay, Enjoy this.

D (9:22)

Do you remember how many times you've seen Here comes that we need to find 11,780 votes. You've seen that in the headlines, you've seen it from pundits, you've seen it on the news, Right? So that's all true because it's on the news, it's quoted, and you've probably even seen or you probably even heard audio of him saying it, have you not? Well, I found out today that this was always a Rupar and I didn't know it. Now, if you're new to me, a Rupar R U P A R refers to a video, but it could apply to audio as well, in which you delete part of it. And here's the weird characteristic of a root R. Deleting part of it reverses its meaning. Reverses it. It doesn't just take a nuance away, it actually reverses it. So for example, some roopars were the fine people hoax. If you take away the part where he says immediately after he said fine people, he said, I'm not talking about the neo Nazis. They should be condemned completely. If you remove that, which they did, it reverses the meaning from disavowing Nazis, which he said explicitly, to complimenting them and supporting Nazis. It's a complete reversal by removing one part. Likewise with the drinking bleach Oaks, when they remove the part before he talks about it and immediately after, those are the two clarifications. The clarifications were that he was talking about light being brought into the lungs, literally putting a stent down there or something and shining light on the lungs as a possible disinfectant. The news removed the reference of light on both ends and he made sure he put it on both ends so you wouldn't be confused. So they removed it and reported it, and that changed it to he wants you to drink bleach. Now, drinking bleach is not even similar in any way to Shining light down your lungs. Now I'm watching some people who are finding this out for the first time. Imagine you're watching this live stream right now and you're hearing this for the first time and I just saw somebody go, lol. Sorry. This is really mind bending. If you haven't heard it before, here's another one. The overfeeding the koi, the fish in Japan. So the real video showed he was with, I guess it was President Abe or one of the presidents. I forget who it was. I think it was Abe. Right? And the two of them were feeding koi fish by throwing some bread or whatever in. And then when they were done, Abe led by dumping the rest of his fish food in because he was done. And then Trump also dumped his in because he was following the leader. Literally. When you cut out the part where Abe went first, the news showed that Trump was a big old dope. Instead of feeding the fish like a little at a time, he just dumped his fish food in. That's a Rupar. You remember the Covington kids video? It looked like the teenager was getting in the face of some Native American. Oh my God, that kid fooled me. Fooled me for 24 hours. But it's because they clipped out the part where it was the Native American guy who was actually getting in the face of the kid. It looked opposite if you take that out. So the Rupar, remember that the root part doesn't just change like a detail, it completely changes the story to an opposite or something. That's horrible. Horrible. In the opposite direction. Right. So in the drinking bleach hoax, Trump was actually ahead of the scientists because he was aware of a trial that was actually being trialed at that time to see if light would work as a disinfectant in the trachea and the lungs. So he knew something above the scientists and the news reversed it to not only did he know more about that one little thing, but that he was so dumb he thinks you should drink bleach. Now, half of the country actually believed all of those things and still does. Half of the country believes all of those things because a Rupar video is really persuasive. It's really persuasive. So it turns out that this find, 11,780 votes, was just another Rupar. And I didn't find that out until fucking today. Today is the day I found that out. Can you believe it? Now I'll explain it to you because you might not be aware of it. I know, for example, Breitbart did report this when it happened, but I think we lost. If you ever knew it, you probably forgot it by now. I did. Here's his actual full statement. So this is on audio. We know this is his full statement. So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is more than we have because we won the state. Which part do they take out? Because we won the state. If you take out because we won the state, which is a very clear statement that he believes that they're trying to take an illegitimate result, look at it more closely and come up with a legitimate vote because he thinks he won. What part do they leave out every fucking time? Because we won the state. What is. The entire. The entire trial is about his state of mind. Did he really believe he won the state or not? Now, this alone would not be evidence of his state of mind because they could just say he was lying. But it is evidence. Not conclusive, but it's more evidence of exculp. I would say this is exculpatory. Exculpatory. Am I using that word right? It's evidence that we should be given the public and certainly the court, but we should be given this evidence from the beginning because this is the part that gives you context to explain what he's saying. Imagine you heard only this. I just want you to find 11,780 votes. Does that sound like Mafia talk? Yeah, a little bit. A little bit Doesn't. It sounds a little bit like Mafia talk. It's not guaranteed it's Mafia talk. But you could easily imagine it, right? You could imagine it. Now you add because we won the state. Is that what the Mafia guy says? Does the Mafia guy. Does the Mafia boss say, I'd like you to go get that thing that we legally own. Hey, I'd like you to go to the store and get me some products.

B (16:41)

All right?

D (16:41)

I'm gonna steal some products for you. No, no, no. Here's the money. Take the money, go to the store, pay for the products. Bring them to me. And the change too? Yes, the change too. Go to the store, pay for the products, put them in a bag, get a receipt, bring it to me. That's what they're accusing him of. They're accusing him of asking for something he is specifically calling out as legal. That's the Mafia talk. He might go to jail because of a Rupar audio, which basically has biased the entire world so that by the time you reach the jury pool, you're so polluted that it wouldn't matter what you heard at that point. Yeah, it goes to his intention, and his intention is completely different. If he says, I think I won, can you find the evidence of that by looking more carefully? Completely different.

A (17:45)

Love that. I. I just love that brain. So I just think that was a good reminder for us with everything, you know, we see all the time. But, oh, and I'll come to you first, you know, how could we use these past lessons, you know, moving forward, especially with midterms coming and all the summer hoaxes that for sure will be coming also. Oh, oh, and you're on mute.

B (18:15)

Yeah, it's definitely a good thing to. To use as a different lens to put on things and to understand that you can't believe what, you know, what you see, what you hear, just because it was reported that way. And I think now we're in the age of AI, where you might end up seeing a lot more fake videos, fake pictures. You know, you really can't know if it's real. It might look real, but it may not be. But I think Scott's lesson was more about the framing or the leaving out of context or leaving out parts of video clips and things like that. So that's certainly going to happen again. I mean, you see it almost every day where, at least on the left, especially places like MsNow and the really biased ones. But even the mainstream media, they'll frame things in a very negative way that leaves out all sorts of context. They'll try and paint things in the most negative light. You see that in all these press conferences. So it's still going on and it's still going to go on. And the CNN fake news and all the other stations like that, they're going to keep going. So I think we definitely need to keep that in mind and get out there as the army we were last time around to help debunk these things and make sure people know what actually is true and what's false. Maybe we need a new hoax quiz like the one Scott created before, and just keep putting it in front of people. I know American debunk is probably on top of that. And it's been doing a great job analyzing Trump's persuasion and other things, so he's a good source for some of those debunks, but otherwise, just learn how to spot it yourself. And when you see a clip that looks bad, don't just take it for granted that that's the whole story, you know, look into it a little more and see if there was something that was left out on the other side. And I would say that's on both sides, you know, not just the left doing it to the right. Because I think the right does the same thing, frankly. They'll, they'll pull out a little statement that sounds inflammatory and they might leave out all sorts of context. So do the same thing there, just so you get both sides.

A (20:21)

I agree. I think we're seeing a lot of that on from everywhere now. And oh my gosh, I question every freaking video and story I see now with the AI stuff. I actually. Oh, my apologies. I showed you an AI video of the moon and it was not labeled AI and it came out later that it was AI but it's the one that was the moon with the earth behind it, that was AI so my apologies. But even the AI moon plays that spa music, which is nice. So Marcella, remember, like, remember this clip? I just, I just remember these days of. I remember the day he realized the Covington kid scenario was bs. And I remember also because, you know, for those of us that watched it in real time with our own eyes that were like, oh no, like, that kid was totally fine, that guy got in his face. The kid just stood there respectfully. And then you watch the news spin it. And so for people who probably didn't watch it live, they're seeing clips and they're hearing, you know, little, you know, story that they wanted to tell. And you're just like, what? So I was so. I'm always so happy when somebody realizes that they were being rupau or hoaxed or whatever, because then it's like you get so mad that that happened to you. So what do you, what do you think we should do with, you know, rehearing this and moving forward into these crazy times?

D (21:46)

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with

A (21:48)

a message for everyone paying Big Wireless way too much.

D (21:51)

Please, for the love of everything good

C (21:53)

in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month.

A (21:58)

Of course, if you enjoy overpaying.

D (21:59)

No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway.

C (22:05)

Give it a try.

A (22:05)

@mint mobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mint mobile.com I mean, you

C (22:19)

just have to know what you're looking at. The contacts, Grocket or you know, you know, even can basically hallucinate and, or lie to you. But the, the interesting part is to this day, I Talk to people. Yes, I talk to people in California and they will cite the fine people hoax still as real in despite you as a person playing it to them and showing them, hey, no, after that he said this. They still cannot. It's like there's, there's, there's steam going up in there and they just like can't compute. So it's, it's really interesting how the human mind works because even despite showing the video and showing the entire part, they have been assigned their opinion. So this video connects to Scott's idea of how we are assign our opinion. So much so that our brainwashing does not allow us to get new information. And I know some big names in Silicon Valley and anywhere else basically, you know, believe the fine people hoax. And then later on, because of Scott and Steve Cortez and, and Joel Pollock, they were able to figure out that it was not true. But it took a while, you know, So I think that's what's so alarming is that regardless of us being able to find the context, a lot of other people still don't understand this.

A (24:09)

Yeah. And then when you still see people like Obama, who, you guys, the all ever, just so you know, every news reporter knows that's a hoax, every politician knows that that was a ho. The fine people hoax that they were, they were pushing a hoax on us. And I mean, even when Biden was running again, Obama said the hoax again on stage, like right before the campaign ended. And I'm like, wow, like, you've got to be like a special kind of POS to be the former president lying like that on stage when you know, the majority of people know is a hoax, like you're really showing us who you are. So, yeah, that's, that's pretty amazing.

B (24:49)

And I would, I would just add one more thing that I think the reason they do these hoaxes or stick to these hoaxes is because they are resonating with their base. It's not based on how true or false something is. It's based on what kind of thing, what kind of impact they think they can have by pushing it. So it's very common that just like Scott has talked about with persuasion, that you might need to try all sorts of different things to see what sticks. And I think that's exactly what happens with these hoaxes is that they'll try all sorts of things and just if something really gets traction and everybody gets upset about it and everybody's up in arms about it and it really looks like it's going to Move the needle politically. That's when they'll really jump on it and say, no, this is what happened. And they'll just totally ignore the context, totally ignore that it's completely false.

A (25:36)

Yeah.

B (25:36)

And the reason is just because it's working. And Congress and all these other people, they don't care about what's true. They just want to get people to their side, and it's totally driven by that.

A (25:48)

Yeah. So, you know what, you guys, it's just a reminder of everything Scott was teaching us and everything we learned. Learned along the way. And a lot of you guys, you know, teach us lessons and, you know, have. We've all helped teach Scott lessons also by giving him the. The facts when maybe he didn't have them. And we watched him, you know, absorb what we were saying. And then if he needed to pivot, he would pivot. And then he'd be like, wow. Like, I. I just found out today that the Covington thing was. And you're like, yeah. You know, so then he was like, okay, well, now I'm even more pissed off. And, like, let's regroup and just point out all the things that we need to be aware of so that. Always a good reminder. Love him and miss him so much. All right, so we're gonna get more into the news side of things now. So I told That. I told Marcel, and. Oh, and I was like, I think Fun day Friday. I'm just gonna play a random clip, and then we'll talk about it after without them seeing it. So that's what we're gonna do first all. I found Kyle Becker reposted this. I'm sorry. I don't know who originally posted it, but. So we were talking about Mom Donnie the other day and what's happening in New York, and I thought this was interesting. So, you know, we're celebrating our 250th birthday in the country, and this is what Mom Donnie thinks is important to do in New York.

D (27:20)

Here in Times Square, a ball drop is planned to celebrate America's 250th anniversary birthday.

A (27:26)

But thanks to Mayor Mundani's emergency order denying permits during the World cup, the public isn't invited to attend.

C (27:34)

Say what?

B (27:35)

So our famous communists won't allow people to come up and see and celebrate 250th years for the US he needs to go. Is this America?

D (27:44)

Is this really New York where we at?

A (27:48)

I think that's really sad.

D (27:49)

Yeah, I think that's very silly.

B (27:50)

Oh, j. You'd imagine it should be Allowed.

A (27:53)

It's something we're celebrating, right? So it's supposed to be open for

D (27:58)

people to come in New Year's Eve.

B (28:00)

Everybody's out here, allowed to be here. So why, why can't it be that

A (28:03)

then we have to, like, live our lives, can't be afraid. I should probably articulate that. I'm a Canadian. That would never happen in Canada. The public should be allowed to go.

D (28:14)

I think that should be something that everybody should be, be included. I mean, that's a big milestone in our nation's history. Kind of frustrating because I, I was kind of excited to come down here for that, but, you know, I'm not buying a ticket. It's ridiculous, absurd.

B (28:28)

Get out of here.

A (28:32)

Get out of here. That's like the most New York thing you could ever hear. Oh, my gosh. Is this guy serious? Okay, Marcella, you first. What do you think about this?

C (28:43)

Well, going back to the Rupar part, I, I don't know the entire story, so I, but, you know, knowing Kami Mandami, he probably, you know, wants to give it to the poor or, or to the bus drivers or something. He just wants to do something else just to spite America because that's, that's the celebration that we're having. So I don't know the entire story.

A (29:09)

But you know what I love? What?

C (29:11)

I love all those people that answer.

A (29:14)

I love the one lady who's like, we would never do this in Canada. I'm like, lady, have you read the news in Canada?

C (29:20)

Have you been to Canada, lady?

B (29:22)

That's what I was thinking, too. I'm like, absolutely. You do that in Canada.

A (29:25)

I know. I was like, what, what, replace it

B (29:28)

with some indigenous thing?

A (29:29)

Yeah. What do you think, Owen?

B (29:32)

Well, I think it's totally consistent with Mandami. I, I, I see his off, you know, time in office so far as just a complete failure and complete, like, it's just a combination of I promise you this thing and I'm not giving it to you, or I'm doing this woke thing that I, you know, never talked about during the campaign and tried to minimize or not think it was going to happen, or, you know, the I'm, you know, I, again, I retract what I said about, you know, making things more affordable because I'm going to raise taxes or I'm going to do this. It just seems like every single story about Mondami is, oh, he promised free buses, but now it's too expensive, so he's not doing it. Or, you know, he said he was going to make things more affordable. But prices have gone up because of what he just did. And it just seems like he's almost opposite day man, where he's just, you know, doing the exact opposite of what he promised or just running into a legal wall where he can't do what he's trying to do. But it's should have been obvious to anybody that was paying attention to say none of those things are going to happen. He's not going to be able to deliver on any of that. And it's just a bunch of promises to get elected. And I think that's kind of the Democrat playbook now. But in this case, it's just another thing where he's just like, let me see if I can, you know, do something anti American, basically.

A (30:53)

It definitely is the Democrat playbook now. Like, you know, for example, Abigail Spamberger is she Virginia? So they're saying that this is like the new thing that the Democrats are going to do. They're going to run as more moderate Democrats, which you have to understand, there are no moderate Democrats anymore. There may have been like, you know, five, six, seven, eight, nine years ago, but if you're still a Democrat, you're not moderate, just FYI. But they said that's what they're going to do. Now it's just like, like my governor Mickey Cheryl, you know, they say like they're more moderate, you know, blah, blah, blah. And then once they get in, they're like, haha, you know, and they're like, ice is not allowed. And you know, all this stuff's gonna. And then the people are like, what? We're redistricting and gerrymandering and you're just like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Like that is not at all what you said. So. And you know, and now like those new Democrats, like Abigail Spamberger, you know, now their, their thing is like, forget AOC and Ilhan Omar. Like, we're the people you should be focused on. Like they're more palata. So it's definitely a ploy, it's definitely a tactic. I think it will work unless Republicans or non Democrats get out there and just say like, listen, this is the playbook. Like they're going to just say whatever it is you need to hear to pull the lever for them and then they pull the rug out from under you. So you got to be careful, you know, who are these people really? So same with Mondami. Like, oh, people were like, oh, he's just seems so nice and his dimples. And you're like, oh, no. So New York. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. Okay, so big news coming tonight. Marcella. We've got. The Artemis 2 is supposed to have splashdown tonight and Marcella's gonna talk to us about this, but I want to show you a clip first of the crew talking about it. This. I'm so nervous. Okay. Anyway, here we go. Well, the Artemis 2 crew has given an update as they prepare for their upcoming splashdown. The Orion spacecraft is making its way back to Earth for the planned splashdown off the coast of California, scheduled for 10:00am Australian Eastern Time on Saturday. The crew has broken the record to become the farthest flying humans in history. Pilot Victor Glover says there are so many more pictures and stories the crew is looking forward to sharing upon their return.

D (33:27)

I've actually been thinking about entry since April 3, 2023 when we got assigned to this mission and one of the first press conferences we were asked what are we looking forward to? And I said splashdown. And it's kind of humorous but it's literal as well that we have to get back. There's so much data that you've seen already but all the good stuff is coming back with us. There's so many more pictures, so many more stories and gosh, I haven't even begun to process what we've been through. We've still got two more days and riding a fireball through the atmosphere is profound as well.

A (34:05)

I mean I couldn't, I couldn't even begin to imagine. So Marcela, I know you have something for us on this and do you have the details of like what's going to happen as they come back? It's pretty scary, right?

C (34:18)

I think you should not listen to my news right now because it'll make you even, even more. It will shock you. Okay, so ready this evening. She's gonna mute me this evening. The crew did the ten day mission, Artemis 2. It comes back tonight. Please watch, watch it on NASA's live stream. The Orion capsule is scheduled to begin small plunging through the atmosphere around 7:53 Eastern Time. And it's supposed to splash down at the Pacific Ocean at 8:07pm in California. San Diego, San Diego county. People that are watching right now, you might be able to see it. There is a possibility however, reentry which Victor, astronaut Victor Glober was talking about is very risky, especially with this particular capsule. The Ryan space of heat shield has shown to have flaws in its design. The flaws were first revealed in the Artemis 1 mission in 2022 which was uncrewed test flight. This current mission, obviously, is crewed test flight. However, NASA has done certain mitigations regarding to the capsule. So as any engineer out there would tell you, this probably won't be an issue. Mitigation has been done by delaying further any kind of swapping of the shield. So they left the shield on, which is the part that I didn't want Erica to hear. NASA changed, however, the re entry trajectory. Okay, so the parts that are flawed are still on there. However, the trajectory is different. So the Artemis 2 uses a modified, more direct profile, which in theory, and hopefully, knock on wood, in reality, will skip the re entry that Artemis 1 had and the conditions where it heated to a higher level because of the trajectory that it has.

A (36:43)

Okay, so prayers. So they're going to be in a flaming fireball literally hurtling toward Earth. They're going to be out of communication for about six minutes where, like, you can't, I just can't imagine, okay, I, I go through all the scenarios, like, can you imagine you're like wedged in there? Fireball. Like you're a glowing fireball, hoping this heat shield's working, that your parachutes are good. Six minutes, you can't communicate. Oh, my God. I. I don't even know there's sharks in the water. Well, you're in it.

B (37:21)

And they're, and they're passing through the Van Allen radiation belt on their way back in.

C (37:25)

Right?

A (37:26)

Oh, win. Right. You and your belt, him and the radio.

B (37:32)

I still don't understand how they, how they survived that. And I don't know how they're going to survive it coming back.

A (37:37)

I know. Maybe that's the six minutes, you know, where. Never mind. But, Owen, what do you think?

B (37:46)

I mean, I'm confident that they will be okay. I think, you know, they've. I think they're very careful about these things. And I understand they may have found some flaws and things, but like, I remember Elon talked about some of that with some of the SpaceX crafts where, you know, they tested things and they tested, you know, failures essentially. Like they took off some of the heat plates and some of the rockets still survived. And I'm not saying there's no risk. It. I'm sure there is. And it's possible that something bad could happen. But I think if they really thought it was a significant chance, I don't think they would have done the mission. I think they would have found a better solution first. So I have faith in NASA and all the engineers and people around this that they have a lot of confidence that this is going to work. So I'm looking forward to seeing them land, and it's a great, great accomplishment.

A (38:39)

Oh, they. And they said they have special. Joe on YouTube says they have special vests to protect their organs. Wow. I mean, that you are signing up for just anything to happen. I mean, I thought the toilet was bad enough, personally, and the claustrophobia I would have and let alone. All right, so we have to keep an eye on that tonight, you guys. And I really. I really feel like, you know, the. The positive thinking and, like, sending, like, good energy and light and prayers and whatever. Whatever it is that you personally can send to them as positive. Let's do it. Because holy cow. I mean, they are putting it all on the line for this space exploration. And assuming this goes well, and it will, then they'll go up again with Artemis 3. And is it 3 that's supposed to land or is it 4? I think I heard maybe 3. Okay. All right. Well, we. We will be watching for sure. I cannot wait to see that success.

B (39:43)

I think Trump is really pushing to have people landing on the moon during his term.

A (39:48)

Sure, let's go. I mean, and then we can plant the MAGA flag on the moon, which, you know will happen, by the way. Trump had an amazing press conference yesterday, and he had all the executives there from all these different oil companies that could help transport the Venezuelan oil to where it has to go. And he had private, more private companies to, like your Exxons and your big companies. But it was just so funny because. Is it Peter Doocy? That's the sun, right? Peter Doocy, he said to President Trump, he's like, I see you have two pins on your lapel. What are they? I see one's the American flag, and the other one's like, oh, oh, someone gave me this one. I don't know what it is. It's called Happy Trump. And he's like, so I just put it on. And I was like, oh, yeah. So expect some Happy Trump merchandise to be coming out soon. That was a great press conference. I don't know if you guys saw it. Okay, so, Owen, I'm ready for. For you to kick us off with a story here.

B (40:51)

All right, so they did a study, social media analysis linking polarized political language to distorted thought patterns. They analyzed millions of Twitter posts between, let's say, 2016 and 2020. They said cognitive distortions like catastrophizing, rose 43% and individual distortions, or I'm sorry, distortions, increased 76% per individual user. Not sure how those numbers add up. Maybe it's just based on the number of posts or something. But they were looking at 100,000 users. And so they're saying all categories of this distorted thinking surged, especially emotional reasoning and mind reading. And they claim that left leaners had a steady rise with extremism, and right leaners started higher, possibly being saturated already. I don't know if there's some bias built into that study, but they're claiming that the left is the one that ramped up this distorted thinking. And. Yeah, so I think my conclusion, what I think Scott would say is you could have just asked Scott.

A (42:01)

You could have. A lot of you in the chat. Got that right out of the park. I'm proud of you guys. All right. Yeah, you could have just asked Scott. That seems a little bit skewed. Weird and typical.

C (42:14)

Marcella, we have good news for you. California is actually doing its job, finding fraud. There were charges announced yesterday by the California Attorney General. Rob Bonta announced a takedown of several companies. People, it says 21 suspects, and it's about 267 million fraud claims of medical hospice fraud cases in Los Angeles. A lot of people, when it was announced, were thanking Nick Shirley, who had, you know, been to Los Angeles and done that, that investigative report on it, as well as cbs, for doing it as well as Nick Shirley was doing it. But, you know, the story is, you know, there's probably more fraud. $267 million doesn't sound to me like there's a lot more fraud to be found. But I'm glad that California is reacting to it. I didn't see the same reaction in Minnesota, so, you know, that's a good sign. It could be also that Gavin Newsom wants to run for president, but it's, It's.

A (43:37)

I think he just got exposed, so something better happen.

C (43:40)

Yeah, he's always been running for president, so it. I mean, at least it's a good thing.

A (43:48)

Yeah, that is a good thing. There's fraud and waste everywhere, and I'm demanding reparations on my taxes. So thank you. Is anyone not paying their taxes this year in protest? I just don't. I don't advise doing that, but I know that that was put out.

C (44:04)

Don't admit it on the chat.

A (44:06)

Yeah.

B (44:06)

And don't, don't believe those people that say you can get away with it. Because you can't.

A (44:10)

No, you will get away with nothing.

B (44:12)

It might not happen right away. I think the IRS is pretty slow and inefficient. But event eventually they'll find you and you might end up in prison. So sure don't recommend it. You've probably only seen the stories on celebrities where they'd end up catching up with those people and they get them on tax evasion and other things. But it would, you know, you're not going to get any special treatment.

A (44:30)

That's right.

C (44:31)

But I, I had an additional point and that I did not make is that Nick Shirley being 23, I think he's now 24. Having done this, it shows that one person can make a difference. That's why we should never give up.

A (44:48)

And I see more Nick Shirley's popping up and I'm so excited and I think that that generation's gonna just go hard because I feel like these are like purpose driven people. Like the gen Gen Z. Is that what they are? Gen Z, the younger generation. Like go for it. Make a name for yourself while doing something amazing for the world. Uphill gardener. I see you on YouTube. So this is like monkey wrench Friday. So let's talk about this. He said no way. Scott would completely ignore the Melania press conference. Okay, well listen, let's talk about it. So lots of speculation. Melania came out in a rare press conference and made a statement about whether or not she ever personally knew Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. And you know, she made the statement that she, any correspondence she had with Maxwell was just like in response to something or you know, like just a, like a, a quick reply type of thing. She doesn't know her. Epstein never introduced her to Trump. They, that Trump and, and Melania met each other just by chance at a, at a party they were both at and that the two of them went to a party that Epstein also at together. But Epstein like she, it's obvious to me, like I, I don't know why, but like my gut says I believe her. You know, I don't think she has any interest in Trump. Milani was a like a supermodel, beautiful woman in New York. There's a whole social scene, a socialite scene, a celebrity scene. What she's saying is very common. The same people converge at all these parties because the parties want the like now people, the it people at parties so you don't have to know people to be at the same party. But I would love to hear, you know, Owen and Marcella and especially everybody in the chat, you know, what did you think about her coming out to say that? I feel like personally Cernovich asked. My opinion was that she just probably feels silenced. And she's like, always so poised and keeping things together, and she's probably like, you know, what effort? Like, I want to say something like, you know, stop. Stop defaming me and whatever. So I, I think that's why she came out to say it. But I'm gonna go to Marcella first, because you're a woman, you know. Yes, you are. What do you think was her motivation to come out and say something?

C (47:26)

So, you know, I didn't, I didn't put a reply to Mike because I needed to look into it. I think the main reason she came out yesterday, which is probably not known to a lot of you, is that Mike, Michael Wolf sued Melania Trump in New York court in October of last year, and they're still in the lawsuit phase. And basically he sued her under the anti slap statute, saying that she came after him, asking him to stop putting the information on the Internet and on his books and everything else in regards to her knowing Epstein and doing all these things and Maxwell and being involved with getting women and all that. So all of the things that she described in there are the things that are part of this lawsuit right now. Her counsel is trying to dismiss the case or move it to Florida. And I could see that her statements, my first thoughts when I, when I heard her say these things is that they, that it was sort of in, in connection with an attorney that rode. That helped her write it. I'm not saying that Melania doesn't believe the things that she said yesterday. I, I do believe she does. But I think that before she could not make statements about it because of this lawsuit. And now that she is in a different phase of the lawsuit, she's able to make them, and we'll see what, where it goes to. But it is really difficult for the first lady to be going through this kind of lawsuit when we know that she had no connections to it and yet she's being dragged.

A (49:21)

Yeah.

C (49:22)

Into the mud.

A (49:23)

Yeah. Owen?

B (49:25)

Well, I think there's a deeper persuasion play here, too. You know, a lot of people questioned, like, why would Melania bring up Epstein when Trump is saying this is all a hoax, we should just move on. So why would she call attention to it? And she made statements like, we should have the victims have hearings in Congress and that Epstein wasn't alone in the crimes that were committed. And so she was kind of, you know, accusing Epstein and trying to bring attention to it. So a lot of people were asking, like, why would she do that? It seems like the opposite of what Trump was saying. But I think it's kind of a brilliant move because she's basically calling them to say, okay, let's talk about this. Let's get this all out. And number one, it puts them in a strong position because they're basically saying, I want this all. I want these people to come to justice. I want these people to be exposed. I do think there's more people that should be gone after. And so far, I think the response, I believe, from the victims was basically, we're not going to do that. And so that puts them in a weaker position. It's like, well, wait a second now, why aren't they coming forward? Like, you know, now it's sort of like flipped. And I don't know how much of that was the intention. It's probably more likely that Marcella is right in terms of the primary motivation being to, you know, be related to the lawsuit and just get the truth out to just make it clear, you know, that she's making, you know, she's being clear about what. What didn't happen or what did happen and getting it all out there essentially, to avoid the perception of that she's hiding something. But I think the, you know, that persuasion play, I think, is something Scott would have talked about that it's like, you know, she's doing the strong thing and she's putting herself in a strong position by saying, I'm, you know, one of the accusers, essentially not as a victim, but, you know, she wants the people brought to justice that did these things. And she thinks there should be more investigations and hearings and that they should have hearings for the victims so they can talk about what happened and who it was and all that stuff. And now it's kind of like the next move is back on the victims or back on, you know, whoever might be doing the investigating. And I think it takes a lot of pressure off of the Trump administration having the perception of trying to hide or bury this.

A (51:52)

Okay. So, you know, we don't know for sure, but it could be multi layered. Who really knows? We'll never really know. I'm not going to say it doesn't matter. Like, they know what they're doing and why they're doing it, and we're just here to. To look at it and analyze it. Okay. Now, Owen, do you. Is there another. We have eight minutes left. Is there something we should really get to?

D (52:21)

I don't know.

B (52:21)

I. I mean, I. I did think there was a. I guess I would call it a good news story and another one where A person made a difference. So this voter, Mark Share, I think, or Shar, he protested based on a candidate in Ohio that was running in the primary, in the GOP primary in Ohio, saying that he wasn't really a Republican and he was putting forth all of the social media evidence that essentially there was lots of evidence that this person was a Democrat or a liberal and was just posing as Republican and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and they blocked the candidate. They said, yep, you're right, this is a progressive person and fraud isn't protected as free speech or anything like that. And so they blocked him from running as a Republican. So I think this person, Mark Schar, made a big difference just by bringing that to the, you know, people's attention. And this, I don't know if he filed a lawsuit or what, but you know, basically bringing transparency to this. And it looks like it was an attempt to infiltrate the GOP party and to try and get a Democrat onto the GOP ticket, which is, in my opinion, fraud and cheating. You know, none of us are probably surprised that the Democrats might try that, but I'm glad that the Supreme Court backed it and put a stop to it.

A (53:34)

Yep, another one person making a difference story. Love it, love it, love it. Marcella, give us, give us something juicy.

C (53:41)

Well, this is going to your. Your, I guess to, to the difference in between Twitter and X we talked about today about the Rupart and all the videos and all that. Well, X has suddenly done a demonetization of X creators based on anything that they post that has AI generated videos in regards to connection to armed conflict or you know, with like the Iran war. And they basically will suspend the creator revenue sharing for about 90 days. And the statement made through X by Nikita Bear is that this crater revenue sharing policy is in order to attempt to flag any of these posts because they do a lot of damage and a lot of people believe in these videos being real and it causes a lot of misinformation. And yeah, a few big accounts were flagged for this.

A (54:52)

Yeah, I saw Dom Looser was flagged and you know what, I didn't know why until you're just telling me the news. Now I don't mind that for 90 days because I feel like it's like unchartered territory with all the AI right now. And so maybe people that do make money on X have to be extra careful because it's like another Rupar. Right? You could Rupar somebody with an AI video. It could cause a lot of grief and Stress and unrest. So I don't think I mind that. It's. I mean Twitter or X can do whatever it wants as far as monetization. So if that's the rule, 90 days might be a lot to kick it off. I mean maybe they could have just done like 30 days to start if you're a first time offender. Because I'm sure a lot of people might not know that they posted something AI but I don't mind that. What do you think, Owen?

B (55:49)

Well, at first a question like is the rule that you can't use AI at all for those topics or is it just that you have to label it when it's AI you can't use

A (55:58)

it for the armed conflicts? She's saying for like so, so what

C (56:02)

happens is that it indicates that it starts immediately. Users who post AI generated videos of an armed armed conflict without clearly disclosing that the video was made with AI will be suspended. Now in regards to Dawn, Nikita showed a post of his saying that hey, this is one of the reasons why you got axed for 90 days. And, and Don came back at him saying, well actually in the comments I write, it's AI generated. The only reason I reposted it is because their ran TV station or whatever it was is posting the Gayetola moving around, you know, so he, he did explain. However, I guess the disclosure has to be very prominent, I guess at the, at the actual post itself, not in

A (56:53)

a reply, like in the actual post, not the comments. Like not everybody reads comments. Yeah. All right.

B (56:59)

So I mean I certainly think, you know, X is free to have whatever policies they want around monetization, especially because it's not really like you're censoring the person, it's just you're not paying them to do it. But I do think what I'd like to see is just more transparency around all the suspensions and all the demonetizations and just make sure that it's clear, why did this happen? What was the post? Why does it break the rules? What did you do wrong? And I certainly would like there to be at least appeals have a second or third chance before you get suspended or something like that. Because I just think for this to be a platform where creators want to go, they need to have some certainty or some confidence that they're not just going to have it all yanked away from them.

A (57:40)

Yeah, that's. I think that was a little much. 90 days. But yes, make it very clear. Show the post that was the problem and how to make it right. And I would say a warning first, and then maybe 30 days would be better. But what do I know? I don't run the company.

B (58:00)

Yeah, I just think it would be better to just have more communication with creators on that and to also. Just to your point, I think it does make sense that you'd have a warning first and just say, hey, you broke the rules. If you do it again, this is what's going to happen. And then if they break it again, then, yeah, they deserve the consequence, I guess. But we've seen so many examples where someone gets suspended. SJV is in the audience right now, got suspended, and it didn't really even explain why. Yeah, and they aren't even letting him appeal. And I'm pretty sure that is not a legitimate banning. And, you know, he's still suspended and he's not alone. That's happened to a lot of people. You know, there's a lot of accounts that get caught up in this. And I think my suspicion is that there's some kind of groups like on Discord and other places that get together and say, okay, everybody report this person for this reason, because I didn't like what he said in the spaces, or I didn't like what he posted, and they all gang up on him. And they're basically manipulating the algorithm by doing all these simultaneous reports. And I'm pretty sure there probably is some automated thing that just says, okay, if there's over a certain number of reports in a given period of time, we're just going to automatically suspend that account. And the more surprising thing to me is just that on the appeal, that they're not looking at it or they're not not reversing it, because I'm pretty sure in this case, at least with sjv, that it's not true.

A (59:23)

Yeah. Okay, so I gotta grab. I've gotta grab the mic. Thank you for your warning, you guys, for the time. Quick, quick things. One thing I want to let you know. And I get it, you guys, sometimes I get DMS from you guys or I see you in the chat. Like, let the show go longer if we have a great guest on. I know, I know. Like, I could have talked to Brian for three hours yesterday, Walter Kern, three. You name the person. Three hours would be amazing. But I want you to understand. So when Scott was doing the show, he was a solo creator, right? He was. Is his show. He could stay on for 25 hours if he wanted to. It was up to him. But with the Scott Adams School, there's the three of Us and then when we have a guest now there's four people to, to consider our time constraints. So when we have a guest, come on, I have to give them, you know, a window of when we need them for because they have to do their schedule. Like for example, yesterday I knew that Brian was going to have to go take his kid to school. Okay, so you might not know that, but I have to make sure that I can keep the parameters so it works for us to be here every day and it works for the guest, but believe me. So after the show yesterday, Brian and I spoke and we're going to schedule a show, you guys, with him for like a two hour longer show. And we're going to, you know, schedule it in and whoever can stay and whichever ones of us can be here or be here for part of it, but we're going to get him for two hours. So I know it's frustrating because Scott could go on and on and on, but we just can't. We just can't. I'm so sorry. Especially booking guests. Like if Scott ever booked a guest, like you would see him let them go after a certain amount of time. He never kept them too long out of respect for their constraints. So thank you for understanding that and I agree and I wish. Owen, are you doing your show tomorrow?

B (61:18)

I am. We're doing the after party at the same time. This show starts on Saturday. It's Spaces on X. So go ahead and tune into that.

A (61:25)

Amazing you guys. So you'll see Owen tomorrow on Spaces same time as the Scott Adams school, which is off on the weekends. So Marcel and Owen, thank you so, so much. Have amazing weekends everybody. And you guys rock. You're the best. Please, on your way out, if you haven't already, could you give us a thumbs up a like a subscribe. We would really appreciate it. And you're all incredible. Have a great weekend. Let's have a closing sip to our Scott and to Shelly and let's be useful and have the best weekend we could. Oh, and don't forget, watch for the re entry tonight. Okay? Yes. So gonna be so good. We'll talk about all of it on Monday. All right. To Scott.

B (62:07)

To Scott. Be useful.

A (62:08)

Bye, guys.