00:00:00
Speaker 1: Amazing thing when you're fighting for justice, how so many people don't want to face the truth. It's a remarkable moment right now as we approach election day, less than two weeks away, and we see Some folks who are normally very intelligent just say preposterous things to try to deny the obvious because the obvious is politically inconvenient. And I'm talking in this example, you probably guessed it already, about Prop 134, which just says, hey, no boys and girls sports, right? That this should be as universally supported as it comes. But as you know, it's not. And so we've been talking about why certain special interest groups are so opposed to 134 and 135, whereas the general public, you know, likely overwhelming support for keeping girls sports for girls and keeping boys out of girls' locker rooms and showers, and probably overwhelming support for the right of children to not have adults cut off, you know, their intimate parts before they can make that decision themselves as an adult. So why do these special interest groups take positions that would be laughable if they didn't cause you to cry because they're so intellectually dishonest and so illogical? It's really a remarkable moment. And you go back in our history and you can see that happening before at certain points in our history, right? You can see when because it was politically inconvenient or maybe uncomfortable for people as individuals, they said that these little children standing in front of them, these senior citizens standing in front of them, these healthy young women standing in front of them, were not human. That because of the color of their skin, that they didn't have human rights and they weren't entitled to be treated as human. Instead, they were property. Well, obviously, that was false and untrue and cruel and evil. And anybody looking could see that. It's an emperor has no clothes thing. Everybody could see that. But because a lot of people wanted to have slaves and then a political movement built up around that, People were willing to look you right in the eye and just say that what's false is true. And we have the same thing going on right now with 134 and 135. And the latest example is this piece in the Denver Post today. It's an opinion piece from a group that's a serious group and has done plenty of good work, a group, the Women's Foundation of Colorado. And I don't claim to know their politics. I don't study it, whatever. But this op-ed written by their president is just preposterous. And I don't say that to insult. But the logic, and I put that in quotes, that's offered in the piece is insulting to the reader. And I'm not doing this on the show today because I think some readers have been insulted because I would imagine anybody who read it just laughed. I mean, they just laughed out loud because it's so bad. preposterous. I don't think this had the capacity to upset anybody because it's so ludicrous. And I'll just read you the headline and you'll get the feel for it. And I love your take on this. And we have 20 other things on the show today, unless some breaking news changes that. But as always, you can give us a call 303-713-8255. The number you can text us D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9. Some texts coming in already. I'll get to those quickly. But I'll just give you a taste on this, and then we'll continue to dive into it as we go through the show. By the way, once I received it and read it, the first thing I did was to email over and ask if the author, Rene Ferraffino, F-E-R-R-E-F-I-N-O, Ferraffino, the president of the Women's Foundation of Colorado, would join us. Got a lovely note back saying that she's tied up between now and Election Day. You know, it's tough to be busy, right? So she will not be available to discuss this. And I get that because it's indefensible, which then leads to the question of, okay, why was it written to begin with? So here's the headline on the piece. I'm not making this up. This isn't Saturday Night Live. The headline on the piece is, when the state decides who counts as a woman, no woman is safe. Process that for a second. When the state decides who counts as a woman... No woman is safe. Well, isn't it exactly the opposite? Isn't it the polar opposite? Isn't it the polar opposite that when any man can declare himself to be a woman and walk into private spaces for women and take over sports intended for women, then no woman's safe. It's the opposite of the premise of this piece. So then, and believe me, it gets even better once I get into the piece, but then you get to the question, why would the group put this out? What's really going on here? And I'd love your thought on this more global point. Why is it so important to the left that boys be allowed in women's sports, that boys be allowed to walk in there and watch women shower. Why? Why is it so important to the left that adults be able to cut the penises off of boys and that adults be able to cut the breasts off of girls before they get a chance to even become an adult and make the decision for themselves? Why is that so important to the left that otherwise intelligent people would write a piece like this and take the position that no woman is safe unless any man can simply declare himself to be a woman and walk into a woman's space, a woman's sport, anything ordinarily reserved for women. Why are so many on the left determined to undermine women that way? What do you think's really going on? This is deep thought time. I'd love to hear from you on this. I've got my own ideas, but it takes a village. 303-713-8255. D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9. So we got that going for us, as they'd say. And I'll get back into this piece because it is just so remarkable. I can't resist giving you one more taste here. It says, a government that can define one child as off the team based on their identity... can do it to any child. No, wait, it's based on their sex. So why do they want to translate this into identity? Again, because their very premise is that Shannon Scott could declare himself to be a woman right now for the purposes of accessing the shower in the women's gym downstairs. And according to this piece, it would be dangerous to women If Shannon did not have that ability, seems to me no offense to Shannon, it would be dangerous to women if Shannon had that ability, not that he would ever do that. Then it goes on to say, whenever the government has claimed authority to define and police womanhood, that's when all women become unsafe. So the government claiming the authority to speak the undeniable scientific truth that there are two sexes, that's a woman, it's physical, it's biological, that somehow makes all women unsafe? Then it goes on to say, once the government has the power to judge whether your hair, body, or looks fit womanhood, any woman can and will be judged. Black women paid the price for years until the Crown Act passed in Colorado in 2020. So, again, such a dishonest premise before it reaches a really bizarre conclusion. Once the government has the power to judge whether your hair, body, or looks fit womanhood, wait a second. The law of 20 states out there, hopefully soon to be the law of Colorado that boys can't play girls' sports, has nothing to do with hair. Only has to do with body. Body. to the extent of whether somebody's physically a boy or a girl. It has nothing to do with looks. So it's the left all over again, every single time, where they have to have this dishonest premise to be able to even begin to mount an argument, and then the argument becomes even more ludicrous. And that's not meant to be playground or pejorative. It's just such a remarkable thing. that they're willing to go out and publicly expose themselves this way in a piece, because truly, there can't be any honest reader of Room IQ who would look at this and think it's anything other than preposterous. even people who agree politically with the author. So the bigger question, why? Why do you think this has become the hill the left is willing to die on, that all men get to declare whether or not they're a woman for the purposes of entering showers, bathrooms, Locker rooms, sports, go right on down the list. Why is this the hill the left is willing to die on? Love your thoughts. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. A lot of really important stuff on AI in today's show, including some brilliant work by Peggy Noonan. But really want to talk about recursive self-improvement because it's something that you're going to be hearing more and more about. And then it's something that's going to probably lead to a big moment of crisis in America sometime soon. Doesn't mean it's a crisis that we're unable to overcome, but it's likely leading to some kind of crisis sometime very soon. Then I want to talk about the latest with President Trump and who his successor is going to be. I think we're beginning to get some much clearer signals. You're on The Dan Kaplan Show. Trump's like my wife. There's some days I like him better than others, but there's not any day that I don't love him. An awful lot of people out there believe that and then feel deeply about that. And let's see how that plays out in the midterms. I think it's been absolutely brilliant of the president to be out there in full presidential style campaign mode. And I understand he's been in red states, which is another clear indicator of what I've been saying for over a year, which is these midterms are likely to be very, very hard on the GOP. Because we cannot, those of us who have voted for President Trump, we cannot even begin to imagine, let alone feel, the intensity of the hatred, the heat of a thousand suns hatred that a lot of otherwise normal people have for Trump, that the people who voted against him, and they have been chomping at the bit since election night of 2024 to get back out there and lash out at Trump in any way they can. And that's going to be in these midterms. So Let's hope, like the gentleman we just played at that rally in Kansas, and so many good people agree with him. Let's hope that the Trump supporters show out in force in these midterms because they have not before in non-Trump election cycles. So we will find out soon. 303-713-8255, the number D-A-N-57739. Hey, I sent a letter today, or it's being sent as we speak, to all of the big campaigns. and offering every candidate, Democrat and Republican, up to a half an hour on this show every single day between now and Election Day. And they get the first five minutes to say whatever they want, and then we just do a Q & A. So both sides, all the big races, and we'll see who takes us up on it. 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9. We know that nobody on the left will, which is Really sad, but it's also just such a powerful prover of what has happened to the left, right? You used to have a bunch of people on the left. They were wrong in the big issues, but they were giants. They were people of great intellect, great accomplishment in their own lives, great strength. They were people of courage. They were people who were willing to come on air and defend their positions. But they've gone the way of the dodo. That's not the modern Democratic Party at all. You know, and obviously Gary Hart had his weaknesses and this and that, but Gary Hart, he wouldn't duck an interview. He would come on, he would do the interview. Tim Wirth would do it as well. Roy Romer. You know, you used to have, you used to have big time people like that. And unfortunately, again, they were wrong on the issues, but they weren't scared of their own shadow and they were willing to go out there and stand up. But yeah, this Dem Party has changed so very much. And in Colorado, They feel they can get away with anything, right? And so, yeah, they are not going to expose themselves to the truth or to being exposed. So we're not expecting any acceptances on that side. I think if anyone did accept, and it would be after Election Day, I think it's pretty clear, it appears to me, that the Democrats have convinced Milat Kiros to just sort of go onto the side of a milk carton until after Election Day so that people do not get a chance to learn what she really stands for. But maybe after Election Day, I wouldn't be surprised if Malak Kiros was willing to come on because they're so, you know, just double middle finger, we're going to burn it all down anyway, types. And so it is interesting that she's laying so low before Election Day. I think what that tells you is that even the left, which is same as the socialists, now they're one and the same, they understand that even in Denver, if all the Denver voters really understood what the modern Democrats stand for, including Mila Kiros, they wouldn't elect him, even in Denver. But after Election Day, yeah, she may come on. Let's hope so. And that will be the beginning of her run for Senate, because I think there's a really good chance she ends up running for what is currently Michael Bennett-held Senate seat. I doubt very much he'll pursue it again, and if he does, he'll lose in a primary. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if she made a run at that, because she knows, right? You know I know she knows that Had she run against Hickenlooper this time around, she would be about to join the U.S. Senate. She would have beat Hickenlooper by 10 points in a primary. Now, would the Republican have beat her? Would Mark Baisley have beat her? Let's hope so. Now, Mark, I'm hoping, will be on the show with us soon and often. I want to get to some text. Dan, in church this Sunday, the pastor said a real man always carries a pocket knife and a flashlight. I've never heard that particular advice, but it does go back to something that we've talked about before on the show, and it's just kind of a personal thing. Do you feel like if you're going to conceal carry in church, do you feel like you need to get the pastor's permission? You know, I happen to be a Catholic. I feel like I do. I feel like if I'm going to conceal carry in church, I need to go to the pastor ahead of time and ask him if it's okay. But Just kind of curious where people come down in that. We're also going to talk during today's show about Bomar. Beautiful neighborhood here in the metro area, which announced it's going forward. It's going to put up at least one gate, keeping general traffic off its roads. Denver now threatening, I read the headline in the Denver Post, threatening a nuclear option. And I thought, wow. I thought it was a big deal when Mike Johnston said he was going to send the Denver police out to the county line to violently prevent federal law enforcement officers from enforcing immigration law in Denver. Now he's actually threatening to nuke Omar. Uh, good news is it wouldn't take a very big nuke, but I certainly hope he doesn't follow through on that because Omar is a beautiful place, but we are going to get to that issue of whether you think a neighborhood should be able to, um, gate off its streets for its own survival and the survival of its children, et cetera, because anybody who's familiar with that area, I shortcut through Bomar sometimes. Now, I drive the speed limit and everything else, but everybody familiar with the area knows you've got this kind of unique situation where it just turns into kind of Mad Max in Bomar. And if I was living in there, I wouldn't like it either. But what is the solution there? Also on this show, I want to talk about this court ruling in New Mexico today. And it just reiterates the point I made before, which is, generally speaking, and I'm not analyzing Colorado's part of the settlement because I haven't had a chance. It would take hours to sit down and look through all the details on that. But generally speaking, nationwide, it was a steal for Meta that their big settlement of these cases against Meta was a steal. And they got out for pennies on the dollar. at the very, very least. And I said at the moment that deal was announced, and then you can see it in what's happened to their stock since, which has surged dramatically. That was a steal for Meta. And my pronouncement at the time is reinforced today. When you hear about the judgment that the court in New Mexico handed down, one state, one state's case against Meta. So All of that ahead, 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. You're on The Dan Kaplan Show.
00:18:52
Speaker 2: Russians occupy all but about 11% of that area. In that province, Donetsk, or in that region of Donetsk, the Ukrainians have a defensive line that they've embedded themselves in. They argue, and military strategists say it's true, that it is the last defensible line, that if they give that up, There is nothing to defend Kyiv. From there, it's just a straight shot into Kyiv. The core of this conflict is Russia demands all of Donetsk, including that defensive line, as part of their territory. That's what they've defined as victory. And Ukraine has said, we can't give up that 11% that's remaining of Donetsk because that defensive line is our last defensible line. Hence, that is at the core of this conflict. Now, there are a lot of other issues going on, but ultimately.
00:19:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the reason I wanted to fire that up was to a broader point, and potentially an important development with Ukraine I wanted to touch on. But the more important point, and I think more impactful to us here in Colorado, is the issue of who the next president is. going to be. And you can be sure that's very much on President Trump's mind right now, because, you know, the Democrats have made it very clear when we played the Slotkin sound. I won't call her a senator after the horrific thing she said, but the Slotkin sound about how they're planning the prosecutions of Trump in order to, in part, Trump and his aides, in order to, in part, scare kids out of going into at least the Trump administration. So at this point, and Trump knew it long before then, right, that unless there's a Republican president succeeding him, a Republican elected in 28, that Trump, again, is once going to face this banana republic type of lawfare. And that the left is going to use, if a Democrat wins, they're going to use DOJ to try to jail and destroy freedom and financially Trump and his family. So he knows those are the stakes. And so he's sitting there right now, as any of us would be, just trying to figure out who has the very best chance to win in 28. And I think there are a lot of indications that at this point, it's a very fluid situation, right? But at this point, that that would be Marco Rubio. So I think you're going to start seeing, and I think we already are, a lot of opportunities for Rubio, a lot of comments, a lot of positive but not positive enough comments about J.D. that it's going to start to steer things toward Rubio. And I think that one very important development in the construction of that road was J.D. coming out, I think it was yesterday, and saying that he may not run because they just had their fourth child. And it may be as simple as that, right? Because every parent listening knows there's no greater love, there's no greater fulfillment, there's no greater obligation, there's no greater importance in life than our children and doing everything we can to raise our family rights. So it may be that simple for J.D., but one way or the other, if you're Donald Trump and you tell me, hey, that's why we have phones and text here, 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9, you tell me, You're Donald Trump, and you know that the remaining years of your life, to a certain extent, depend on whether a Republican wins in 28. Who do you want the nominee to be? So we'll talk about that. Wow, I never thought I'd get blowback on our new daily feature, which is just these profound words of wisdom, wisdom for winners. And yesterday, one of mine was never trust a man who has no enemies. Now, none of these are original, by the way. And I'll get you the site on that. But never trust a man who has no enemies. And then I had somebody fire back at me. Dan, what an insult to people that try to do good and be happy and get along with others and you call them a waste. Because I went on to say that, you know, what a waste for somebody who lives their life in such a way that they never have an enemy. And I'm just so surprised that Texter would get upset at that. Because, and I don't know if the texture is a person of faith or not of faith, I think this rule applies no matter what you believe, whether you're a person of faith, a Christian, I happen to be a Catholic Christian, whether you're an atheist, whatever, I think the same rule applies, that if you're living life the way we were meant to live life, we are going to have enemies inevitably. Because I think it's just inherent, it's basic, whether you believe in God or not, that we're intended on this planet to do good things and stop bad things. And if you do that, you are going to create enemies. And people who just devote their whole life to making sure nobody ever gets mad at them, nobody's ever their enemy. What is that ever going to accomplish? What are they ever going to accomplish with their life? First, they're going to fail, right? But what are they ever going to accomplish with their life? So yeah, surprised the texter blew back on that, but wanted to pass that one along. 303-713-8255, D-A-N-57739. And certainly for any Christians listening, I mean, I think that is absolutely consistent with the teachings of Christ, you know, but blessed are the persecuted. So I think anybody who's living a Christian life or trying to, I put myself in the trying to category, then at that point you are guaranteed to make some enemies and you're grateful that you do. All righty. Let's get back to the sound and to the phone and to the text. I do want to get this sound to you right now because I want to set it up for ongoing conversation in the show. You know, I've been talking about recursive self-improvement. Recursive, as you know, meaning recurring over and over again. And in this context, talking about it, of course, with AI because it is... the most kind of imminent threat to life as we know it. Now, it could also produce these amazing upsides. But in particular, because we so often discuss, oh, AI is going to have all these great upsides, but it might kill us all. And we don't often enough get into the real nitty gritty specifics. Okay, if AI is going to whack us all, you know, if it is going to get out of control, How does it get there? And what the experts would tell you, and I'm no expert, I'm just a reader, as the great Peter Boyles would say, what the experts would tell you is that it's through this recursive self-improvement. So, you know, you get this AI to the point where it doesn't need Shannon Scott anymore to give it prompts or tell it what to do or say, hey, AI, we want you to improve in this way next. It doesn't need Shannon anymore. It just does it itself. So this is AI now improving itself without any human telling it to or how to do it.
00:25:48
Speaker 3: The long-term threat goes something like this. When I talk about AI, I talk about it as human-generated. So you or I give it, at least in theory, a command. And it may be a very long command, and it may be recursive in the sense, but it starts with a human judgment.
00:26:10
Speaker 1: Got it.
00:26:11
Speaker 3: There is something technically called recursive self-improvement, where the model actually runs on its own and it just learns and gets smarter and smarter. When that occurs, or when agent-to-agent interaction that's heterogeneous occurs, we have a very different set of threats, which we're not ready to talk to anybody about because we don't understand them. But they're coming.
00:26:36
Speaker 1: See, that interviewer has the same bad habit I do. It's like he's at church. And the pastor says something, says, hey, man, you know, the guy's trying to talk. And then the interview kept saying, yep, yep, right, right. That's been one of my bad habits for years. But that's the key point right there is that AI is getting to the point. And Peggy Noonan makes a great point in her piece. We're the ones getting it there. Meaning humans are intentionally developing AI to the point it will soon be out of the control of humans. So why are we doing that? Because that's where it's headed. Well, the answer to why we're doing it is pretty clear, because that's how you're going to get the maximum benefit from artificial intelligence. But along with that maximum benefit is going to be an AI that there's a pretty good chance we won't be able to control. And it will start interacting with other agents in ways we can't control. And what happens then? 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. So this isn't meant to end a conversation, but to start it. How would you like to see this go? Democrats are saying we need a bunch more regulation. Do you think that's right? Or does that just let China and other evil actors win and then we're defenseless? Let's go out to beautiful Highlands Ranch, talk to Carly. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome.
00:28:03
Speaker 4: Hi, Dan. I was calling about right now who I would want to run.
00:28:10
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:28:11
Speaker 4: Between Marco and J.D.? Yes. I really like J.D. However, I have to say right now I'm with Marco.
00:28:19
Speaker 1: Why?
00:28:19
Speaker 4: I have watched him since 2016 and most especially since he became Secretary of State. He's just– he's accessed that part of him that is like Trump. I love how he speaks. He's very– He's very loose. I mean, he just is right on point. And when he took over the press conference that time, I just really like how he has come along. And I just think he'd be really good. And I agree with J.D. He's got four kids. Anyway, I choose Marco right now.
00:28:55
Speaker 1: That is so well said.
00:28:56
Speaker 4: Who do you choose, Dan?
00:28:57
Speaker 1: So well said, Carly. So well said. I would choose Marco in a heartbeat for those and other reasons. None of it are negative to J.D. I mean, I supported Marco in 16. You know, Marco 1.0, who, to your point, you know, we're talking about Marco 5.0 now. He has grown so much, as we all hope we do in whatever job we have. Thank you, Carly. I think you're right on it. I think Marco also has the opportunity to be a very unifying president. In a way, again, no knock on JD, in a way that very, very few other people could be. And as we get deeper into this conversation, I'll tell you why I think that. 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7. should a metro area neighborhood, beautiful neighborhood, Beaumar, be able to put up a gate and keep out outside traffic? You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
00:29:54
Speaker 4: Down here standing with me, you can confidently say there are two sexes, a man and a woman.
00:29:58
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:29:59
Speaker 1: Speaking of gender. That's that freak. And I don't say that pejoratively. The guy's a freak. This James Tallarico, Senate candidate in Texas, he may very well win. This freaky, lying Democrat may very well win down there because the problem we have is the GOP candidate has his own challenges, Paxton. Hopefully he'll win. But this Tallarico guy, you know, he is a liar, and he is, I believe, deliberately misleading people of faith regarding the teachings of Christ, etc. And the guy, but here's the challenge. The guy is really talented. The guy is really smart. He's really articulate. He's really smooth. And so with Obviously, billions of dollars in free help from the media. He's in a position where he just might pull that off. If I'm betting you my house, I bet you know that Paxton wins in the end, particularly since it looks like Elon and some other folks may be willing to spend $ 100 million or more to help him keep that Senate seat or get that Senate seat. It's Ben Cornyn's. But I'm just telling you, this Tallarico guy is dangerous because he has the skills necessary to pull off some really horrific and damaging lies. But my point in that sound was simply that for those voting in Colorado, say like Prop 134, that, you know, boys and girls sports, you know, even Tallarico feels right now he has to give up the ghost and publicly acknowledge that, no, there are only two sexes. And he has said before, you know, much different things. But, but yeah. And it still comes back to this question nobody's been able to answer, and I don't fault you for it because it's really, really hard to answer. Why are the Democrats, why is the left as a whole willing to fight and die on this hill that boys and men should be able to go into girls' showers and bathrooms and locker rooms and sports? Why are they willing to die on that hill that adults should be able to chop the penises off children? and chop the breasts off female children. Why are they willing to die on those preposterous hills? I'd really love your take on that. We're tying it back to an opinion piece in the Post today, this written by the president of the Women's Foundation of Colorado, who I invited to come on and emailed, and they politely, nicely emailed me back and said she's tied up through Election Day. But this piece that's headlined, when the state decides who counts as a woman, no woman is safe. Isn't it exactly the opposite? When men get to decide who counts as a woman, no woman is safe. When a man gets to decide, to be more precise, that he now is a woman for the purposes of walking into that woman's shower, no woman is safe. I mean, it's so ludicrous. Why are otherwise smart people and credible organizations willing... to die on that hill. That's one thing I would love your help with. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. Hey, the best I've been able to do on that front, and I'm not saying it's good enough, it's just better than anything else I've heard, is they're willing to die on that hill because the left understands that to succeed, to have any longevity in America, because they can see the trend lines, right, other than hard blue places like Colorado, You know, the trend line is down for the Democrat Party and the left. The only question is how long it's going to take to really tank. But the best explanation I've been able to come up with is that they know that to survive long term, they have to beat America into submission. They have to condition Americans to be willing to say that what's false is true and to be willing to bend the knee, to submit. to falsehoods, to deny the truth in order to avoid being punished, to avoid being canceled, to avoid being prosecuted. That's why I think they're willing to die on this hill, just like you see the effort to persecute Christians. I mean, look at Colorado. Look at the number of U.S. Supreme Court cases that have slapped down Colorado's effort and the Democrat Party in Colorado's effort to persecute Christians for their faith. I mean, and I guess the public service Colorado has done is it's brought rare moments of unity to the U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado doesn't just lose in its persecution of Christians. Colorado loses big before the U.S. Supreme Court over and over again. So I think that's it from the left. They understand their only chance of long-term survival is to condition Americans to be willing to deny the truth and affirm a lie in order to avoid being prosecuted or otherwise canceled. So I think that's why they're willing to die on this hill of you've got to be willing to say that a man's really a woman and let that man into girls' showers and bathrooms and sports or else you're breaking Colorado law. Or else you're some kind of bigot and you're going to be run out of polite society. I think that's why that issue is so important to them. What do you think? And should that beautiful metro area neighborhood be able to fence off outsiders from the roads?
Speaker 1: Amazing thing when you're fighting for justice, how so many people don't want to face the truth. It's a remarkable moment right now as we approach election day, less than two weeks away, and we see Some folks who are normally very intelligent just say preposterous things to try to deny the obvious because the obvious is politically inconvenient. And I'm talking in this example, you probably guessed it already, about Prop 134, which just says, hey, no boys and girls sports, right? That this should be as universally supported as it comes. But as you know, it's not. And so we've been talking about why certain special interest groups are so opposed to 134 and 135, whereas the general public, you know, likely overwhelming support for keeping girls sports for girls and keeping boys out of girls' locker rooms and showers, and probably overwhelming support for the right of children to not have adults cut off, you know, their intimate parts before they can make that decision themselves as an adult. So why do these special interest groups take positions that would be laughable if they didn't cause you to cry because they're so intellectually dishonest and so illogical? It's really a remarkable moment. And you go back in our history and you can see that happening before at certain points in our history, right? You can see when because it was politically inconvenient or maybe uncomfortable for people as individuals, they said that these little children standing in front of them, these senior citizens standing in front of them, these healthy young women standing in front of them, were not human. That because of the color of their skin, that they didn't have human rights and they weren't entitled to be treated as human. Instead, they were property. Well, obviously, that was false and untrue and cruel and evil. And anybody looking could see that. It's an emperor has no clothes thing. Everybody could see that. But because a lot of people wanted to have slaves and then a political movement built up around that, People were willing to look you right in the eye and just say that what's false is true. And we have the same thing going on right now with 134 and 135. And the latest example is this piece in the Denver Post today. It's an opinion piece from a group that's a serious group and has done plenty of good work, a group, the Women's Foundation of Colorado. And I don't claim to know their politics. I don't study it, whatever. But this op-ed written by their president is just preposterous. And I don't say that to insult. But the logic, and I put that in quotes, that's offered in the piece is insulting to the reader. And I'm not doing this on the show today because I think some readers have been insulted because I would imagine anybody who read it just laughed. I mean, they just laughed out loud because it's so bad. preposterous. I don't think this had the capacity to upset anybody because it's so ludicrous. And I'll just read you the headline and you'll get the feel for it. And I love your take on this. And we have 20 other things on the show today, unless some breaking news changes that. But as always, you can give us a call 303-713-8255. The number you can text us D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9. Some texts coming in already. I'll get to those quickly. But I'll just give you a taste on this, and then we'll continue to dive into it as we go through the show. By the way, once I received it and read it, the first thing I did was to email over and ask if the author, Rene Ferraffino, F-E-R-R-E-F-I-N-O, Ferraffino, the president of the Women's Foundation of Colorado, would join us. Got a lovely note back saying that she's tied up between now and Election Day. You know, it's tough to be busy, right? So she will not be available to discuss this. And I get that because it's indefensible, which then leads to the question of, okay, why was it written to begin with? So here's the headline on the piece. I'm not making this up. This isn't Saturday Night Live. The headline on the piece is, when the state decides who counts as a woman, no woman is safe. Process that for a second. When the state decides who counts as a woman... No woman is safe. Well, isn't it exactly the opposite? Isn't it the polar opposite? Isn't it the polar opposite that when any man can declare himself to be a woman and walk into private spaces for women and take over sports intended for women, then no woman's safe. It's the opposite of the premise of this piece. So then, and believe me, it gets even better once I get into the piece, but then you get to the question, why would the group put this out? What's really going on here? And I'd love your thought on this more global point. Why is it so important to the left that boys be allowed in women's sports, that boys be allowed to walk in there and watch women shower. Why? Why is it so important to the left that adults be able to cut the penises off of boys and that adults be able to cut the breasts off of girls before they get a chance to even become an adult and make the decision for themselves? Why is that so important to the left that otherwise intelligent people would write a piece like this and take the position that no woman is safe unless any man can simply declare himself to be a woman and walk into a woman's space, a woman's sport, anything ordinarily reserved for women. Why are so many on the left determined to undermine women that way? What do you think's really going on? This is deep thought time. I'd love to hear from you on this. I've got my own ideas, but it takes a village. 303-713-8255. D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9. So we got that going for us, as they'd say. And I'll get back into this piece because it is just so remarkable. I can't resist giving you one more taste here. It says, a government that can define one child as off the team based on their identity... can do it to any child. No, wait, it's based on their sex. So why do they want to translate this into identity? Again, because their very premise is that Shannon Scott could declare himself to be a woman right now for the purposes of accessing the shower in the women's gym downstairs. And according to this piece, it would be dangerous to women If Shannon did not have that ability, seems to me no offense to Shannon, it would be dangerous to women if Shannon had that ability, not that he would ever do that. Then it goes on to say, whenever the government has claimed authority to define and police womanhood, that's when all women become unsafe. So the government claiming the authority to speak the undeniable scientific truth that there are two sexes, that's a woman, it's physical, it's biological, that somehow makes all women unsafe? Then it goes on to say, once the government has the power to judge whether your hair, body, or looks fit womanhood, any woman can and will be judged. Black women paid the price for years until the Crown Act passed in Colorado in 2020. So, again, such a dishonest premise before it reaches a really bizarre conclusion. Once the government has the power to judge whether your hair, body, or looks fit womanhood, wait a second. The law of 20 states out there, hopefully soon to be the law of Colorado that boys can't play girls' sports, has nothing to do with hair. Only has to do with body. Body. to the extent of whether somebody's physically a boy or a girl. It has nothing to do with looks. So it's the left all over again, every single time, where they have to have this dishonest premise to be able to even begin to mount an argument, and then the argument becomes even more ludicrous. And that's not meant to be playground or pejorative. It's just such a remarkable thing. that they're willing to go out and publicly expose themselves this way in a piece, because truly, there can't be any honest reader of Room IQ who would look at this and think it's anything other than preposterous. even people who agree politically with the author. So the bigger question, why? Why do you think this has become the hill the left is willing to die on, that all men get to declare whether or not they're a woman for the purposes of entering showers, bathrooms, Locker rooms, sports, go right on down the list. Why is this the hill the left is willing to die on? Love your thoughts. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. A lot of really important stuff on AI in today's show, including some brilliant work by Peggy Noonan. But really want to talk about recursive self-improvement because it's something that you're going to be hearing more and more about. And then it's something that's going to probably lead to a big moment of crisis in America sometime soon. Doesn't mean it's a crisis that we're unable to overcome, but it's likely leading to some kind of crisis sometime very soon. Then I want to talk about the latest with President Trump and who his successor is going to be. I think we're beginning to get some much clearer signals. You're on The Dan Kaplan Show. Trump's like my wife. There's some days I like him better than others, but there's not any day that I don't love him. An awful lot of people out there believe that and then feel deeply about that. And let's see how that plays out in the midterms. I think it's been absolutely brilliant of the president to be out there in full presidential style campaign mode. And I understand he's been in red states, which is another clear indicator of what I've been saying for over a year, which is these midterms are likely to be very, very hard on the GOP. Because we cannot, those of us who have voted for President Trump, we cannot even begin to imagine, let alone feel, the intensity of the hatred, the heat of a thousand suns hatred that a lot of otherwise normal people have for Trump, that the people who voted against him, and they have been chomping at the bit since election night of 2024 to get back out there and lash out at Trump in any way they can. And that's going to be in these midterms. So Let's hope, like the gentleman we just played at that rally in Kansas, and so many good people agree with him. Let's hope that the Trump supporters show out in force in these midterms because they have not before in non-Trump election cycles. So we will find out soon. 303-713-8255, the number D-A-N-57739. Hey, I sent a letter today, or it's being sent as we speak, to all of the big campaigns. and offering every candidate, Democrat and Republican, up to a half an hour on this show every single day between now and Election Day. And they get the first five minutes to say whatever they want, and then we just do a Q & A. So both sides, all the big races, and we'll see who takes us up on it. 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9. We know that nobody on the left will, which is Really sad, but it's also just such a powerful prover of what has happened to the left, right? You used to have a bunch of people on the left. They were wrong in the big issues, but they were giants. They were people of great intellect, great accomplishment in their own lives, great strength. They were people of courage. They were people who were willing to come on air and defend their positions. But they've gone the way of the dodo. That's not the modern Democratic Party at all. You know, and obviously Gary Hart had his weaknesses and this and that, but Gary Hart, he wouldn't duck an interview. He would come on, he would do the interview. Tim Wirth would do it as well. Roy Romer. You know, you used to have, you used to have big time people like that. And unfortunately, again, they were wrong on the issues, but they weren't scared of their own shadow and they were willing to go out there and stand up. But yeah, this Dem Party has changed so very much. And in Colorado, They feel they can get away with anything, right? And so, yeah, they are not going to expose themselves to the truth or to being exposed. So we're not expecting any acceptances on that side. I think if anyone did accept, and it would be after Election Day, I think it's pretty clear, it appears to me, that the Democrats have convinced Milat Kiros to just sort of go onto the side of a milk carton until after Election Day so that people do not get a chance to learn what she really stands for. But maybe after Election Day, I wouldn't be surprised if Malak Kiros was willing to come on because they're so, you know, just double middle finger, we're going to burn it all down anyway, types. And so it is interesting that she's laying so low before Election Day. I think what that tells you is that even the left, which is same as the socialists, now they're one and the same, they understand that even in Denver, if all the Denver voters really understood what the modern Democrats stand for, including Mila Kiros, they wouldn't elect him, even in Denver. But after Election Day, yeah, she may come on. Let's hope so. And that will be the beginning of her run for Senate, because I think there's a really good chance she ends up running for what is currently Michael Bennett-held Senate seat. I doubt very much he'll pursue it again, and if he does, he'll lose in a primary. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if she made a run at that, because she knows, right? You know I know she knows that Had she run against Hickenlooper this time around, she would be about to join the U.S. Senate. She would have beat Hickenlooper by 10 points in a primary. Now, would the Republican have beat her? Would Mark Baisley have beat her? Let's hope so. Now, Mark, I'm hoping, will be on the show with us soon and often. I want to get to some text. Dan, in church this Sunday, the pastor said a real man always carries a pocket knife and a flashlight. I've never heard that particular advice, but it does go back to something that we've talked about before on the show, and it's just kind of a personal thing. Do you feel like if you're going to conceal carry in church, do you feel like you need to get the pastor's permission? You know, I happen to be a Catholic. I feel like I do. I feel like if I'm going to conceal carry in church, I need to go to the pastor ahead of time and ask him if it's okay. But Just kind of curious where people come down in that. We're also going to talk during today's show about Bomar. Beautiful neighborhood here in the metro area, which announced it's going forward. It's going to put up at least one gate, keeping general traffic off its roads. Denver now threatening, I read the headline in the Denver Post, threatening a nuclear option. And I thought, wow. I thought it was a big deal when Mike Johnston said he was going to send the Denver police out to the county line to violently prevent federal law enforcement officers from enforcing immigration law in Denver. Now he's actually threatening to nuke Omar. Uh, good news is it wouldn't take a very big nuke, but I certainly hope he doesn't follow through on that because Omar is a beautiful place, but we are going to get to that issue of whether you think a neighborhood should be able to, um, gate off its streets for its own survival and the survival of its children, et cetera, because anybody who's familiar with that area, I shortcut through Bomar sometimes. Now, I drive the speed limit and everything else, but everybody familiar with the area knows you've got this kind of unique situation where it just turns into kind of Mad Max in Bomar. And if I was living in there, I wouldn't like it either. But what is the solution there? Also on this show, I want to talk about this court ruling in New Mexico today. And it just reiterates the point I made before, which is, generally speaking, and I'm not analyzing Colorado's part of the settlement because I haven't had a chance. It would take hours to sit down and look through all the details on that. But generally speaking, nationwide, it was a steal for Meta that their big settlement of these cases against Meta was a steal. And they got out for pennies on the dollar. at the very, very least. And I said at the moment that deal was announced, and then you can see it in what's happened to their stock since, which has surged dramatically. That was a steal for Meta. And my pronouncement at the time is reinforced today. When you hear about the judgment that the court in New Mexico handed down, one state, one state's case against Meta. So All of that ahead, 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. You're on The Dan Kaplan Show.
00:18:52
Speaker 2: Russians occupy all but about 11% of that area. In that province, Donetsk, or in that region of Donetsk, the Ukrainians have a defensive line that they've embedded themselves in. They argue, and military strategists say it's true, that it is the last defensible line, that if they give that up, There is nothing to defend Kyiv. From there, it's just a straight shot into Kyiv. The core of this conflict is Russia demands all of Donetsk, including that defensive line, as part of their territory. That's what they've defined as victory. And Ukraine has said, we can't give up that 11% that's remaining of Donetsk because that defensive line is our last defensible line. Hence, that is at the core of this conflict. Now, there are a lot of other issues going on, but ultimately.
00:19:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the reason I wanted to fire that up was to a broader point, and potentially an important development with Ukraine I wanted to touch on. But the more important point, and I think more impactful to us here in Colorado, is the issue of who the next president is. going to be. And you can be sure that's very much on President Trump's mind right now, because, you know, the Democrats have made it very clear when we played the Slotkin sound. I won't call her a senator after the horrific thing she said, but the Slotkin sound about how they're planning the prosecutions of Trump in order to, in part, Trump and his aides, in order to, in part, scare kids out of going into at least the Trump administration. So at this point, and Trump knew it long before then, right, that unless there's a Republican president succeeding him, a Republican elected in 28, that Trump, again, is once going to face this banana republic type of lawfare. And that the left is going to use, if a Democrat wins, they're going to use DOJ to try to jail and destroy freedom and financially Trump and his family. So he knows those are the stakes. And so he's sitting there right now, as any of us would be, just trying to figure out who has the very best chance to win in 28. And I think there are a lot of indications that at this point, it's a very fluid situation, right? But at this point, that that would be Marco Rubio. So I think you're going to start seeing, and I think we already are, a lot of opportunities for Rubio, a lot of comments, a lot of positive but not positive enough comments about J.D. that it's going to start to steer things toward Rubio. And I think that one very important development in the construction of that road was J.D. coming out, I think it was yesterday, and saying that he may not run because they just had their fourth child. And it may be as simple as that, right? Because every parent listening knows there's no greater love, there's no greater fulfillment, there's no greater obligation, there's no greater importance in life than our children and doing everything we can to raise our family rights. So it may be that simple for J.D., but one way or the other, if you're Donald Trump and you tell me, hey, that's why we have phones and text here, 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9, you tell me, You're Donald Trump, and you know that the remaining years of your life, to a certain extent, depend on whether a Republican wins in 28. Who do you want the nominee to be? So we'll talk about that. Wow, I never thought I'd get blowback on our new daily feature, which is just these profound words of wisdom, wisdom for winners. And yesterday, one of mine was never trust a man who has no enemies. Now, none of these are original, by the way. And I'll get you the site on that. But never trust a man who has no enemies. And then I had somebody fire back at me. Dan, what an insult to people that try to do good and be happy and get along with others and you call them a waste. Because I went on to say that, you know, what a waste for somebody who lives their life in such a way that they never have an enemy. And I'm just so surprised that Texter would get upset at that. Because, and I don't know if the texture is a person of faith or not of faith, I think this rule applies no matter what you believe, whether you're a person of faith, a Christian, I happen to be a Catholic Christian, whether you're an atheist, whatever, I think the same rule applies, that if you're living life the way we were meant to live life, we are going to have enemies inevitably. Because I think it's just inherent, it's basic, whether you believe in God or not, that we're intended on this planet to do good things and stop bad things. And if you do that, you are going to create enemies. And people who just devote their whole life to making sure nobody ever gets mad at them, nobody's ever their enemy. What is that ever going to accomplish? What are they ever going to accomplish with their life? First, they're going to fail, right? But what are they ever going to accomplish with their life? So yeah, surprised the texter blew back on that, but wanted to pass that one along. 303-713-8255, D-A-N-57739. And certainly for any Christians listening, I mean, I think that is absolutely consistent with the teachings of Christ, you know, but blessed are the persecuted. So I think anybody who's living a Christian life or trying to, I put myself in the trying to category, then at that point you are guaranteed to make some enemies and you're grateful that you do. All righty. Let's get back to the sound and to the phone and to the text. I do want to get this sound to you right now because I want to set it up for ongoing conversation in the show. You know, I've been talking about recursive self-improvement. Recursive, as you know, meaning recurring over and over again. And in this context, talking about it, of course, with AI because it is... the most kind of imminent threat to life as we know it. Now, it could also produce these amazing upsides. But in particular, because we so often discuss, oh, AI is going to have all these great upsides, but it might kill us all. And we don't often enough get into the real nitty gritty specifics. Okay, if AI is going to whack us all, you know, if it is going to get out of control, How does it get there? And what the experts would tell you, and I'm no expert, I'm just a reader, as the great Peter Boyles would say, what the experts would tell you is that it's through this recursive self-improvement. So, you know, you get this AI to the point where it doesn't need Shannon Scott anymore to give it prompts or tell it what to do or say, hey, AI, we want you to improve in this way next. It doesn't need Shannon anymore. It just does it itself. So this is AI now improving itself without any human telling it to or how to do it.
00:25:48
Speaker 3: The long-term threat goes something like this. When I talk about AI, I talk about it as human-generated. So you or I give it, at least in theory, a command. And it may be a very long command, and it may be recursive in the sense, but it starts with a human judgment.
00:26:10
Speaker 1: Got it.
00:26:11
Speaker 3: There is something technically called recursive self-improvement, where the model actually runs on its own and it just learns and gets smarter and smarter. When that occurs, or when agent-to-agent interaction that's heterogeneous occurs, we have a very different set of threats, which we're not ready to talk to anybody about because we don't understand them. But they're coming.
00:26:36
Speaker 1: See, that interviewer has the same bad habit I do. It's like he's at church. And the pastor says something, says, hey, man, you know, the guy's trying to talk. And then the interview kept saying, yep, yep, right, right. That's been one of my bad habits for years. But that's the key point right there is that AI is getting to the point. And Peggy Noonan makes a great point in her piece. We're the ones getting it there. Meaning humans are intentionally developing AI to the point it will soon be out of the control of humans. So why are we doing that? Because that's where it's headed. Well, the answer to why we're doing it is pretty clear, because that's how you're going to get the maximum benefit from artificial intelligence. But along with that maximum benefit is going to be an AI that there's a pretty good chance we won't be able to control. And it will start interacting with other agents in ways we can't control. And what happens then? 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. So this isn't meant to end a conversation, but to start it. How would you like to see this go? Democrats are saying we need a bunch more regulation. Do you think that's right? Or does that just let China and other evil actors win and then we're defenseless? Let's go out to beautiful Highlands Ranch, talk to Carly. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome.
00:28:03
Speaker 4: Hi, Dan. I was calling about right now who I would want to run.
00:28:10
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:28:11
Speaker 4: Between Marco and J.D.? Yes. I really like J.D. However, I have to say right now I'm with Marco.
00:28:19
Speaker 1: Why?
00:28:19
Speaker 4: I have watched him since 2016 and most especially since he became Secretary of State. He's just– he's accessed that part of him that is like Trump. I love how he speaks. He's very– He's very loose. I mean, he just is right on point. And when he took over the press conference that time, I just really like how he has come along. And I just think he'd be really good. And I agree with J.D. He's got four kids. Anyway, I choose Marco right now.
00:28:55
Speaker 1: That is so well said.
00:28:56
Speaker 4: Who do you choose, Dan?
00:28:57
Speaker 1: So well said, Carly. So well said. I would choose Marco in a heartbeat for those and other reasons. None of it are negative to J.D. I mean, I supported Marco in 16. You know, Marco 1.0, who, to your point, you know, we're talking about Marco 5.0 now. He has grown so much, as we all hope we do in whatever job we have. Thank you, Carly. I think you're right on it. I think Marco also has the opportunity to be a very unifying president. In a way, again, no knock on JD, in a way that very, very few other people could be. And as we get deeper into this conversation, I'll tell you why I think that. 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7. should a metro area neighborhood, beautiful neighborhood, Beaumar, be able to put up a gate and keep out outside traffic? You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
00:29:54
Speaker 4: Down here standing with me, you can confidently say there are two sexes, a man and a woman.
00:29:58
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
00:29:59
Speaker 1: Speaking of gender. That's that freak. And I don't say that pejoratively. The guy's a freak. This James Tallarico, Senate candidate in Texas, he may very well win. This freaky, lying Democrat may very well win down there because the problem we have is the GOP candidate has his own challenges, Paxton. Hopefully he'll win. But this Tallarico guy, you know, he is a liar, and he is, I believe, deliberately misleading people of faith regarding the teachings of Christ, etc. And the guy, but here's the challenge. The guy is really talented. The guy is really smart. He's really articulate. He's really smooth. And so with Obviously, billions of dollars in free help from the media. He's in a position where he just might pull that off. If I'm betting you my house, I bet you know that Paxton wins in the end, particularly since it looks like Elon and some other folks may be willing to spend $ 100 million or more to help him keep that Senate seat or get that Senate seat. It's Ben Cornyn's. But I'm just telling you, this Tallarico guy is dangerous because he has the skills necessary to pull off some really horrific and damaging lies. But my point in that sound was simply that for those voting in Colorado, say like Prop 134, that, you know, boys and girls sports, you know, even Tallarico feels right now he has to give up the ghost and publicly acknowledge that, no, there are only two sexes. And he has said before, you know, much different things. But, but yeah. And it still comes back to this question nobody's been able to answer, and I don't fault you for it because it's really, really hard to answer. Why are the Democrats, why is the left as a whole willing to fight and die on this hill that boys and men should be able to go into girls' showers and bathrooms and locker rooms and sports? Why are they willing to die on that hill that adults should be able to chop the penises off children? and chop the breasts off female children. Why are they willing to die on those preposterous hills? I'd really love your take on that. We're tying it back to an opinion piece in the Post today, this written by the president of the Women's Foundation of Colorado, who I invited to come on and emailed, and they politely, nicely emailed me back and said she's tied up through Election Day. But this piece that's headlined, when the state decides who counts as a woman, no woman is safe. Isn't it exactly the opposite? When men get to decide who counts as a woman, no woman is safe. When a man gets to decide, to be more precise, that he now is a woman for the purposes of walking into that woman's shower, no woman is safe. I mean, it's so ludicrous. Why are otherwise smart people and credible organizations willing... to die on that hill. That's one thing I would love your help with. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. Hey, the best I've been able to do on that front, and I'm not saying it's good enough, it's just better than anything else I've heard, is they're willing to die on that hill because the left understands that to succeed, to have any longevity in America, because they can see the trend lines, right, other than hard blue places like Colorado, You know, the trend line is down for the Democrat Party and the left. The only question is how long it's going to take to really tank. But the best explanation I've been able to come up with is that they know that to survive long term, they have to beat America into submission. They have to condition Americans to be willing to say that what's false is true and to be willing to bend the knee, to submit. to falsehoods, to deny the truth in order to avoid being punished, to avoid being canceled, to avoid being prosecuted. That's why I think they're willing to die on this hill, just like you see the effort to persecute Christians. I mean, look at Colorado. Look at the number of U.S. Supreme Court cases that have slapped down Colorado's effort and the Democrat Party in Colorado's effort to persecute Christians for their faith. I mean, and I guess the public service Colorado has done is it's brought rare moments of unity to the U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado doesn't just lose in its persecution of Christians. Colorado loses big before the U.S. Supreme Court over and over again. So I think that's it from the left. They understand their only chance of long-term survival is to condition Americans to be willing to deny the truth and affirm a lie in order to avoid being prosecuted or otherwise canceled. So I think that's why they're willing to die on this hill of you've got to be willing to say that a man's really a woman and let that man into girls' showers and bathrooms and sports or else you're breaking Colorado law. Or else you're some kind of bigot and you're going to be run out of polite society. I think that's why that issue is so important to them. What do you think? And should that beautiful metro area neighborhood be able to fence off outsiders from the roads?
