All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:01
Episode 748 Scott Adams: Abuse of Power Everywhere, TDS Pandemic, Angry Biden, Employment
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Joe, come on in here.
Tyler, good to see you.
Come on in, take a seat.
It's time for a coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of your day, the part that makes, well, everything that much better.
Jordy, good to see you.
First Superheart from Herbert.
Appreciate it. Well, you're probably prepared because I know you're that kind of people.
You're the kind of people who are prepared before you even click the button to watch this Periscope.
And you probably have with you, in your possession already, a cupper mugger, a glass of snifter, stein chalice, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grill, goblet vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I'm partial to coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
The simultaneous sip.
Go. Oh, yeah.
If you can pick up the subtle hints of coffee and simultaneity, they're sort of mingled in a magical way, really.
Speaking of magical, the news is full of wonders and curiosities.
My favorite one is that Britain's Channel 4 apologized Friday for mistakenly reporting that Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he wants to control the number of,
quote, people of color coming to the UK. So according to Britain's Channel 4, they actually reported as actual news that Boris Johnson had said in public and out loud that he wanted to, quote, control the number of people of color coming to the UK. Except that he didn't say that.
What he said was, people of talent...
And it's one of these Yanni Laurel things where apparently people are listening to the same audio that I am because I watched the video of him making the statement.
And I'll tell you, it couldn't be any more clear to my ears.
But I'm realizing there's a subjective nature to this.
But here's what I hear.
I hear him say as clearly as I'm going to say it now, I'm in favor of people of talent.
And people hearing talent are hearing it as color.
Now, the reason, of course, is that he says people of before the word in question.
And when you say people of, people fill it in with their imagination.
People don't wait for the end of sentences, right?
That is a thing which you should know.
It's an element of our psychology.
People pay attention to the first part of a sentence more than the second part.
The reason they don't always listen to the second part of a sentence is that the first part of the sentence Often tells you how the second part is going to go.
So you listen to the first part, you assume you know the second part, and you start thinking about other things.
So you basically are filling in the sentence in a different way than it's actually delivered.
Now, Channel 4 did apologize because when they played it back and somebody told them what it should have said, That was probably enough for them to hear it the correct way.
But this is one of those moments where you can see the two movies on one screen completely clearly.
There's no ambiguity whatsoever about what is coming out of his mouth, but you can see exactly the mechanism that triggered people into being fooled that he said a completely different thing.
It was the first part of the sentence.
So when you can see the mechanism that triggered the hallucination, it's a little bit more fun.
When you're listening to Laurel and Yanny, you can't see the trigger.
It's just some people hear it differently than others.
But in this case, you can see the trigger.
It's right there. It's the first part of the sentence.
People love. All right.
So that was interesting.
So I, of course, tweeted yesterday that...
Pete Buttigieg can never be our president because he crossed a line that you just can't cross if you're running for president.
And he said, quote, anyone who supported this president is at best looking the other way on racism at best.
So he's basically...
Classifying over 60 million people as racist or racist adjacent or racist, let's say, soft on racism.
That's disqualifying.
You can't insult an entire class of voters.
Now, people have been pointing out to me since I said that, wait, wait, wait, Scott, the irony is rich.
The irony is May I bring in Dale to complete the sentence?
The irony is, Red Scott, the irony.
There's a lot of irony all over.
All over the place, there's irony in the sky.
There's irony everywhere.
Because President Trump does exactly the same thing.
Does he? Has President Trump ever said that the entire class...
Of people who vote Democrat are defective in character.
Has he ever said anything like that?
No. No.
He's gone after all of his critics, probably every single one.
He's gone hard at them.
He's gone hard at ideas like socialism.
He's gone hard at illegal immigrants.
He's gone hard at other countries, China and Russia, etc.
So he's gone at all of his critics.
The closest he's gotten is that he said that the...
And I think I have the exact...
Quote somewhere, but in his quote where he said that the anti-Trumpers were human scum, he was talking about Republicans, he specified.
So Trump was talking about his own party.
When Trump said, used the human scum label, he was actually talking about his own party.
The people who were the critics of the president in his own party.
So again, he was talking about specifically critics.
I think he was taking it out harder on his own team than he has ever taken it out on the other team.
I don't believe he's ever said there's something wrong with Democrats.
Am I right? Now fact check me on that.
Has the president ever said that Democrats In general, have some kind of a character defect.
He does not. He did go after never-Trumpers who are Republican, and he specified Republican, because there's something different about that group.
That is a group that's acting in a certain aggressive way toward him, and he acted aggressively back.
And interestingly, well, that's enough on that.
All right. So, probably the tweets that I might end up getting more retweets and likes than anything I've ever done, it's too early to tell, but it's heading in that direction, is the one that I said, if abuse of power is a standard for impeachment, I think we can agree that once it fails in the Senate for being purely political...
Which it would be if only one party votes for it.
You could conclude it's purely political.
That is sufficient cause for impeaching Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler for abuse of power.
Now, somebody tried to, or successfully, fact-checked me on my use of the word impeach for senators.
And I'm still a little confused about that.
I think it has more to do with the word you're using.
There is a process by which you can remove a senator, just as there is a process called impeachment for removing a president.
What I don't know is what that's called or how different it is, but basically there's an impeachment-like thing for senators.
Now, don't you think that that's a completely fair statement?
If you see these three characters, Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler, pushing through impeachment when they know they're not going to get support on the other side, and when they're on record, I think both Nadler and Pelosi are on record in the past, and in the case of Pelosi, not the distant past, saying that unless it's bipartisan, it shouldn't be done.
So if she does something that she says shouldn't be done and can't succeed, what is it other than political?
And what is it other than abusing her power?
I don't know how else you could possibly see that.
Like, I can't see any other spin you could put on that than abusing their power.
Now, if they had gone this far, done the entire hearings and everything, and then said, gosh, we don't want to put the country through this, There's not enough there.
We don't have enough votes from the Republicans.
We sure wish there were.
We think the president's terrible, but we don't have enough to go forward with impeachment.
Then I would say, well, that's just politics.
Just politics. But once you go through with the impeachment vote, I think that's, you know, especially when you're a year away from the election, and the thing that the president is accused of is Pretty minor on the scale of things that you could do if you were being really bad.
So, I'm completely serious about this.
Is there no process that could be started to remove those three politicians?
It seems entirely fair.
If abuse of power is a standard.
If it's not a standard, Then I think that in that case, so here are the two cases.
If abuse of power is a standard, then I think you can use it against Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler easily.
If it's not a standard, then you should also impeach, or whatever the word is, Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler, because they're using something that isn't even a standard in a political way, using the power of their office to damage the president.
So there are only two possibilities.
The standard is a real one, in which case they would have to be removed from office as well.
Same reason. Or it's not a real one, in which case the president gets to stay, and the people who brought not a real reason for purely political purposes and abused their power, then probably they need to be at least voted out.
Let's talk about the Biden...
situation where you've all seen the video by now he confronted a Warren voter in Iowa and it got heated and he said some things and I wondered how CNN would cover it now imagine if you will I hate doing this, but in this case, it's just irresistible.
Imagine, if you will, that Trump had been the one who said exactly what Biden said in exactly the same situation.
How would CNN cover it?
I'm going to read to you some of the sentences from a CNN opinion piece on their website today.
And I want you to see if you think that's how they would have described Trump if he went off on this voter the same way that Biden did.
They said that, of Biden, they say he answered the man's...
Yeah, he's talking about Biden on CNN, their website.
He says, he answered the man's attack on his age and his mental agility by showing the streak of unvarnished masculinity that has long been part of Biden's public persona.
Do you think if Trump had done this, they would make a call out to his unvarnished masculinity?
And then the article goes on to call it a Mono a mono, mono a mono moment.
And then they went on to say it was reminiscent of the time he accused somebody of having a lower IQ than his.
Then later in the same article, he said it also had the red-blooded ring of Biden's challenge to Trump when he said that blah, blah, blah, that he'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.
Do you think... That if Trump had said any of those things, and it's worth calling out that I believe the writer is a woman.
I forgot to write down her name, I wish I had.
But do you think that a woman would use these words to describe Trump in the same situation?
That it was a case of unvarnished masculinity?
It was a mono, a mono, how do you say that?
Mono, a mono moment.
And then it had a red-blooded ring of Biden's challenge to Trump, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, so that's funny.
Also funny is that at the same time that we're having these votes on impeachment, Rasmussen is coming out with some poll results that show, among other things, that 26% of National Democratic likely voters approve of the job that Trump is doing.
Now, if 26% of the Democrats approve of what Trump is doing, And, you know, something like 95% of Republicans do.
Is that really the time you want to impeach that president?
Probably not the best time.
Let me ask you a question.
I don't know why this came up.
I think it was because I was thinking of polling.
But how many times have you heard in the last three years from people like Dale?
Scott. Scott, can you explain to me, try to explain this to me, Scott.
Alright, good luck with this, but try to explain to me why there are so many racists who support President Trump.
Go! Go! Let's watch you flail on this a little bit.
Explain that! Explain that!
To which I say, how do you explain all the African American voters who support President Trump?
And which group is more?
Just asking. I don't know the answer to that, but I'm making an assumption of the answer.
I haven't seen numbers.
But don't you think that there are more black supporters of President Trump than there are racist supporters of President Trump?
To which I say to Dale, how do you explain that, Dale?
How do you explain that? So it's just one of those interesting statistics to keep in your pocket when you visit your relatives for the holidays.
When you visit your relatives and they start giving you a hard time, and they like to ask that question, say, well, explain all the black people who support the president.
Explain that, didn't we just have some poll numbers that show there's a pretty higher than we expected favorability ratio among black Americans?
Explain that.
What are they seeing?
So, that's just a fun statistic.
So, Professor Turley, who gave his opinion at the testimonies, apparently he was inundated with threatening messages and demands that he'd be fired before he even got done testifying.
So his employer was being attacked.
Oh my God, he's a Democrat.
And by the way, I think it was yesterday or the day before, I said that Turley was a Republican who didn't vote for Trump, but I was wrong.
He's actually a Democrat, which he clarified.
Speaking of Turley getting in trouble for simply having an opinion, there was a survey or a poll, and I didn't see who ran it, but I heard it on...
Fox News.
And apparently the survey said that one in five left-leaning bosses won't hire Trump supporters, which would be easy to determine who's a Trump supporter because you just check their social media.
One in five left-leaning bosses won't hire Trump supporters.
What would be the percentage Of bosses, just bosses in general, who would not hire an African American?
It's a lot less.
I don't know what the number is, but I don't think it's one in five.
Do you? I mean, racism is real.
It exists. I get that.
But do you think that you would have as much as one in five bosses wouldn't hire a qualified black applicant?
Do you think that number is that high?
Because I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I mean, I don't know what the number is, but I feel like it's way lower than that.
But one in five left-leaning bosses won't hire a Trump supporter.
And you know what I think?
I think the number is much higher than that.
I think one in five were willing to say it.
Don't you think that the real number is a lot higher?
So, we have this weird situation where Trump supporters are, at least in terms of employment, more discriminated against than black Americans.
I'll just let that settle in a little bit.
Now, I can't prove that.
It's based on an assumption that if you did a poll of bosses that you could never find as much as one in five bosses who would say they would not hire a qualified, qualified being the, you know, in all cases we're talking about qualified people.
Do you think you could find one in five bosses who wouldn't hire a qualified black applicant?
I don't think so.
Not even close.
I literally...
I don't think I've even met or heard of or talked to any boss who would have that opinion.
I don't think I've ever even encountered it in my entire life.
Because everybody starts from the same point, which is, well, are you qualified?
Yeah, of course.
That's sort of what bosses ask, are you qualified?
What boss would not want to...
Here I'll get in a little bit more trouble.
Let's say, what white boss would not want to hire more black employees who are also qualified, same qualifications?
Who wouldn't want that?
Most white employers want to get their diversity numbers up because it looks good.
So I don't think you get anywhere near the amount of employment discrimination that this poll suggests there is for Trump supporters, as you could even being black in America.
Now, I'm not going to say, I know this will all be taken out of context.
There'll be an article, somebody writes about this, in which they paraphrase part of what I said, but not all of it, so it'll make me look like I'm a bigot of some sort, which I suppose is the problem here.
It's a problem that people think mega people are all bigots.
But, I don't know, that's enough on that.
That's enough on that.
All right. But let me just put that out there.
If this survey is true, then it is harder to get a job as a Trump supporter than it is to get a job as a black person in America.
I mean, I think that needs to be fact-checked, but I don't think it's even close.
I think that in the weirdest way possible...
You know, I've been saying this for a while.
Well, I'm going to double down, all right?
I don't plan these periscopes too much, so even I don't know where things are going to go, but here...
Here's where I'm going to go on this.
I've been saying for a long time that Republicans and Black Americans are natural allies.
Republicans and Black Americans are natural allies.
Why? Well, number one, here's the main thing.
The main thing that I think identifies conservatives and Republicans, if I can use them interchangeably just for this purpose, The main thing that I think identifies them is that they like a well-defined, agreed-on set of rules.
And the rules are, for Republicans and conservatives, the rules are the Constitution, which says everybody should be treated equally, the law, which says everybody should be treated equally, And in many cases, the Bible, which as it's popularly interpreted, says everybody should be treated equally.
So, conservatives and Republicans have, by philosophy, are rule followers.
As long as we're all following the same rules, That's as good as we can get.
You can't get equal outcomes.
You can want it, but you can't get it.
But you can get a similar set of rules that everybody thinks is fair.
So here's my belief.
I believe that the black population in this country are natural allies of Republicans because Republicans say, here's the question that Republicans ask.
Are you a legal American?
Yes or no? If your answer is yes, you're on the team.
That's what the team looks like.
If you're Republican, the team...
There's people who respect the Constitution.
If you love the Bible, that's a little bonus, but it's not necessary.
And follow the rules.
If you're a black American and you respect the Constitution, obey the laws, and optionally, just nice but not required, you buy into the Bible or any religion that's kind of compatible, Republicans are going to like you.
They're going to hire you.
They're going to...
And here's the part... That I wish black Americans understood.
If you want a leg up, if you want to be mentored, if you want a favor, you want a job, you want somebody to give you a little extra help, a little advantage in the world, ask a Republican.
Because Republicans do that just automatically.
What does it take to get a Republican to like you enough to hire you, mentor you, help you, give you a little boost, give you some business, recommend you?
What's it take? Respect the Constitution, follow the laws, and optionally, some kind of religious belief is nice but not necessary.
You do those things, Republicans love you like you cannot imagine being loved.
You don't do those things and then you've got a problem.
So it's very simple.
Now, and then weirdly, because Trump supporters have become the new maligned group, weirdly, we're having an experience, I say we because I'm in the group of, I'm not a Republican, but I'm in the group of people who are maligned for saying good things about Trump.
We feel A continuous social discrimination.
Now, it's not comparable to, you know, the black situation.
It's not comparable in any way to coming out of slavery and, you know, having the legacy and institutional bias and all that, but at least in the sense that you can understand other people, there's this weird coming together Of much maligned groups.
Yeah, and I think if the black vote for Trump hits some kind of a record territory, and I think it might, I think Trump's going to get more black voters in this next election than any Republican ever has.
That's my guess. And if that happens, I think Candace Owens deserves some kind of a Nobel Peace Prize or something.
Sure, Kanye is certainly a force that has something to do with this as well.
All right. Let's talk about the jobs reports.
So the job gains were, you know, great.
Unemployment, 3.5%, great.
And a 3.1% annual growth in average hourly wages.
That's the really good one.
The other ones are what get you The higher wages.
So you can't get the higher wages until unemployment has gotten so small that people are competing for employees.
So it makes sense that eventually you would get the unemployment down to the level where wages go up, and then they did.
Somehow wages went up 3.1%, but I haven't seen an updated inflation number, but I don't think inflation is anywhere near that, right?
When was the last time you even heard a news report on inflation?
I don't even think it's, are we even tracking it anymore?
It's like it didn't matter.
So what happened to inflation?
That used to be a thing.
Joel Pollack pointed out in Breitbart today, That Pelosi is using a quote taken out of context to totally misconstrue it as a reason for impeaching the president.
That's right.
Pelosi is saying repeatedly in public, that the president should be impeached for a quote that she took out of context and which is easy to demonstrate because you can just look at the original quote from in in Joel's article in Breitbart and you can see the original you can see what she says about it and they're different different enough to be completely illegitimate So,
specifically what we're talking about is there was a quote where the president in the past said something about Article 2, which is the part of the Constitution that gives the executive branch its power, allowed him to do, quote, anything he wanted.
Now, he actually did say those words.
He used the words that the Article II part of the Constitution allowed him to do, quote, anything he wanted.
And that's the part that Pelosi is quoting to say, he says he's a king now.
He's a dictator because he thinks that the Constitution allows him to do anything he wanted.
Except, if you look at the actual quote, And you look at the context, he specifies very clearly that he's talking about specifically only the question of whether he had the right to fire Comey or not.
So the only things he was talking about is firing Comey or not firing Comey.
And within that context, he said Article 2 allowed him to do anything he wanted, to fire him or to not fire him.
That's it. That was the entire context, just to do that one thing, hire and fire.
And Pelosi is speaking to the world and telling them that their president believes that Article 2 allows him to be a dictator.
Never happened.
Never happened.
And it's easy to prove.
You just look at the full context.
Context is obvious.
I think she needs to be removed from office for gross incompetence, maybe hallucinating, but at very least abuse of power.
So have you noticed that the, at least online, I've made this observation before, but as the jobs and economy numbers have but as the jobs and economy numbers have come out and they're so positive, it's even more obvious that I tweeted again, that when will Democrats notice this pattern that,
That everything that is easy to measure, such as economic health, is trending in a positive way.
But everything that you can't measure, such as what people think the president is thinking, Is all a disaster?
Look at the comments that you're seeing on Twitter today.
Do you know what the most frequent criticism of the president that I've seen in the past week is?
I want to see if you can guess this.
In the comments, see if you can guess what is the one criticism or family of criticisms, let's say, because they're a little bit different, but it's all in the same family.
What family of criticisms of the president are you seeing This week, more than you've seen in a long, long time.
Somebody's saying he's a liar, a dotard, that he's inappropriate to bully, abuse of power, but that's in the news.
Racist liar, yeah.
So, I'm seeing more accusations about his alleged sexual improprieties.
Now, if the Democrats and the trolls, if they feel like their best attack of the president is allegations from people who, unfortunately, because we live in a world where these types of allegations are not credible, again, whenever I say credible...
This is just me talking.
But whenever I use the word credible, it means that I don't know what's true and what's not true.
That's a different topic.
But there's something about some people in situations that are more credible, more believable by their nature.
So if the best you have to criticize the president, because all of the things that you can measure are trending positive, most of them except for the debt, What do you do?
Yeah, so they've turned into just insult words.
So the entire Democratic Party has turned into Triumph the Insult Dog.
It's like, he's a dotard, fat, liar, conman, coward, corrupt.
He is a sexual abuser, coward, corrupt, liar, conman.
Doesn't care about anything but himself.
And all of those...
All of those accusations have the same quality.
You can't measure them, and they exist primarily in the mind of the person who's saying it.
They don't exist in the real world.
They're almost entirely based on being brainwashed.
Now, once you get to that point where all you have left is Are the flies that are buzzing around inside your empty skull?
That's like all they have left right now?
That's a good place to be.
That's a healthy country.
If the worst you can come up with are things you're imagining.
All right. Let's see what else we got here.
Oh, I want to talk a little bit more about Joe Biden and his confrontation with the man.
It was reported initially that he called the man fat.
But he actually used the word fact as in a true fact.
And I think he actually said it was F-A-C-T. I think that actually is true.
So that was some fake news about Biden, which should be noted was not true.
But... He did suggest that the guy maybe was a little too sedentary and that he could beat him in push-ups and he might have a higher IQ. Now, what do we make of Biden going hard at his critic?
Somebody says, bull.
He said, fat.
I don't think there's a slightest chance he said fat.
I know a lot of you believe it.
But I believe that that is your bias, making your Yanni and Laurel situation not make sense.
Because if you look at it in context, it's a phrasing he's used before where he says, look, facts.
And then he tells you the facts.
So it's his normal way of talking, so that's how you know.
And he wouldn't say, look, fat.
That's not even an insult.
If you believe that he actually used the word fat, you have to check your own cognitive dissonance here.
Because I think the odds that he actually said fat are so low that you should question your perception on that.
But here's my overall take on it.
He was super aggressive against the voter, and I liked it.
I liked it. Because I'm not going to be...
I don't want to fall into the hypocrite bucket.
If you had seen Trump go after a critic like this, wouldn't you kind of like it?
Be honest.
You know, if Trump had gone after a critic in the crowd just as hard, he would have used different words, right?
But if he had gone after him just as personally and just as hard, you'd kind of like it.
You know you would.
And it wouldn't make you dislike Trump or not vote for him.
And I have to say, watching Joe Biden go hard at this guy, I kind of liked it.
Kind of liked it. And I don't mind at all that he pushed that hard.
I don't think it'll hurt him at all.
So there's that.
I think we've covered everything that's interesting.
Oh, let's talk about Hillary.
So Hillary said once again that she had not ruled out running for president.
But that time's running out, and if she had to do something, she knows that the timing is shortening.
Now, I'm going to triple down on my prediction that she is not running for president.
Do I think that she's fantasizing about it?
Yes, I do. Do I think that she has seriously considered it?
Yes, I do. Do I think that she would be dumb enough to do it?
No. Because you can say a lot of stuff about Hillary Clinton, but I don't think you can call her dumb, can you?
I mean, you could dislike her politics or ethics.
You can dislike anything you want.
But is there anybody who ever said, you know that Hillary Clinton, her brain does not work very well.
She's dumb. Nobody says that because she's really smart.
Do you think that a really smart person...
Doesn't understand what would happen to her if she got in the race now.
Remember, the Democrats have fallen in love with their own candidates.
What happened to the Bernie supporters when Clinton won and they thought, oh, that didn't seem fair?
Because they didn't think it was fair, they were not loyal to her.
If she were to jump in, let's say, now or sometime after somebody else was at the top of the polls, how would the people supporting whoever was already at the top of the polls, how would they take it when she came in with her fat foot and took over?
Democrats would have a revolution.
There would be an internal revolution.
So the fun part...
It has nothing to do with how Republicans would react because we know 100% of Republicans would vote against her.
There's not even the slightest chance that Hillary Clinton would get a vote from a Republican.
It just wouldn't happen. I'm exaggerating.
Somebody will always cross over.
But the real question is what it would do to the Democratic Party and it would just be an internal revolution.
It would tear it apart.
So I think she's certainly smart enough to know That even if she imagined that she was the more qualified candidate, that going in under the current situation would just cause an internal revolution.
And I don't think it would allow her any chance of winning.
And I don't think she would go in if she thought she had a low chance of winning, which I think is the current situation.
All right. That's just about all I got to talk about today.
I see many of you are disagreeing that Scott is wrong on fat.
So you believe that he said...
What was the word he said before?
Allegedly, fact or fact?
Look. He said, look.
I think look. Look, facts.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Here's some facts. Sounds perfectly natural.
Now try this. Look, fat.
Did anybody ever say to somebody, look, fat?
It's not even a sentence.
Look, facts is a sentence.
So if you believe he said the thing that isn't even a sentence, look, fact, look, fat, I think you really have to examine your own cognitive illusion there, because I'm pretty sure that is one.
Yeah, so Hillary had another coughing fit.
It was interesting that a physician was on Tucker Carlson's show talking about it.
And, of course, no physician can diagnose somebody who's a stranger that they just see on TV. But the doctor did give some possible completely innocent reasons for the coughing.
And one of them was actually interesting.
The physician said, and the physician is known as sort of a Fox News pundit, so it's not a Hillary supporter.
But the physician said, yeah, one of the things is stress.
If you're in a stressful situation and you have a propensity to coughing, the stress can trigger a cough.
And I thought, that's good to know.
Because if she's giving a speech or she's on Howard Stern, as she was for the last coughing attack, it does seem to me...
I see some of you are trying to protect your cognitive impression by saying that Biden said, look, fat so.
Except nobody's claiming he said fat so.
Somebody saying that he stopped himself before the so.
Look, fatso.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe for a minute that he was going to call this guy fatso.
Do you know why I don't believe that Biden was going to call him fatso?
He was in Iowa.
Are there any fat Democrats in Iowa?
It's the Midwest. One of the things I learned as the Dilbert cartoonist, many years ago I made a joke about one of the characters' weight.
So it was a joke about, I think, the boss, about the boss being overweight or something.
And somebody emailed me and said, Scott, do you understand that two-thirds of your fans are overweight?
And I said to myself, huh, That's probably true.
And I also don't believe in free will, so I don't have a bad feeling about people who have weight problems, because I think we have different brains.
And if I had the same brain as a person with a weight issue, I'd be eating more than I eat.
So I don't personally have any negative thoughts about people who have weight problems.
Because I think it's like every other addiction.
You know, sometimes your brain is not working in your favor.
The reason I can maintain my weight is that I just am not that hungry compared to other people apparently.
It's not because I have good willpower.
All right. Okay.
Yes, Christine and I are looking to record something this weekend, and we'll see how that goes.
But I'll let you know more about that when it actually happens.
Oh, somebody asked me, what's the deal with the push-ups?
I challenged Joe Biden to a push-up competition because I think it would be fun.
Now, let me say in advance, Joe Biden has said a few times they can beat people in push-ups.
I don't think you say that in public more than once unless you can do some serious pushups.
Now, when I say serious pushups, I mean for his age.
And here's the thing about pushups.
If you do pushups every day, you can do a lot of pushups even if you don't look like you can do a lot of pushups.
Because you just get good at doing the specific thing that you do every day.
For a while I was practicing my push-ups because I was actually going to have a push-up competition with somebody at one point a few years ago.
So I was practicing my push-ups and I was just doing more push-ups than other weight training.
And sure enough, I could get up to like 65 push-ups without a break.
But if I tried to do it today, because I don't practice push-ups very often, much less, even though I'm just as fit as I was when I could do 65 of them, you have to be doing the specific thing to be good at it in the moment.
Now, if Biden does push-ups, you know, let's say every day, which would not be unusual, he could probably rip off 25 push-ups.
Now, could I do 25?
Probably. Yeah, I mean, I could probably do 25 without practice.
It would hurt, but I could probably do 25 without practice.
So I think it would be close.
The reason it's interesting is because one of the things that I really appreciate about Biden, which I also appreciate about several of the other Democrats, especially Elizabeth Warren.
Elizabeth Warren and Biden are in really good shape.
Just physically, they seem fit.
I think it would be good for the country to see Joe Biden do a push-up competition with me, especially if he wins.
How cool would that be?
I mean, come on.
You would think it was entertaining no matter who won.
If he could do more push-ups than me, that would be a great story.
I would love that. Because if at his age he could do, I don't know, 25 push-ups, That's great.
That's great. That's nothing but positive.
So politics aside, fitness is important.
Joe Biden, if you would like to do a push-up competition with me, it's a real offer.
We can do it by Skype.
And we can even do it asynchronously.
You can do yours, and then I'll do mine separately, and we won't see the other one.
So we both have to create a video that's continuous showing it, and then we'll just compare them.
So I'll do as many as I can.
I can do it at the same time.
On Skype, which would be even better.
But it's a real offer.
And the real offer is not because I want to embarrass Biden.
It's actually the opposite.
I'm much younger than Biden, and I should be able to beat him at push-ups.
But I think he might beat me.
Which would be terrific. Good for the country, good for people of a certain age, good for fitness.
So it's a genuine offer.
A push-up competition.
▲
Export Selection