Episode 972 Scott Adams: Coffee and Cursing Over School Reopening Delays, Red Pill You on Obamagate
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
Dr. Rand Paul versus Dr. Fauci
Crossover point: lockdown deaths vs. coronavirus deaths
Coronavirus Whiteboard1: Managing With Data
Coronavirus Whiteboard2: Leadership By Data
Red pilling you on Obamagate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody, come on in.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, today with extra cursing.
Some people like sugar in their coffee, some people like cream.
I like extra cursing.
Not every day, but sometimes there are just no other words that can get the job done.
We'll get to that in a moment, but first, let's do the important things.
It starts with a little thing called the simultaneous sip.
Where is everybody this morning?
Crowd's kind of light. Is everybody sleepy?
Well, here's what you need to get going.
You need a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Coffee and cursing.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine today, the thing that makes everything better, including the damn pandemic.
Go. I can feel our data improving every moment.
So I did a little lesson last night on Periscope on affirmations.
Right now, that's still live in all the places that it's live.
At some point, that might move only to locals.
But for now, it's available in all the usual places if you want to catch that.
Interestingly, Twitter has announced that it's going to allow its employees to work remotely.
I don't know what that means in terms of transition.
I assume that they'll get a choice of going to the office or working remotely.
But as smart people have pointed out, the commercial real estate market might be in for a big hit in the Bay Area because a lot of big companies are going to say, we don't need this much office space.
But that will take a while to wind through the system, I guess.
So Pelosi has a $3 trillion relief proposal.
And I saw Tucker talking about it as the only people who could Fund this borrowing would be China.
And I ask myself, are we understanding this right?
If we just print money, we owe China money.
Do we print it and issue instruments which China buys?
And if we do, why would they buy it?
Why would they do that?
Is it still better than whatever they're doing?
Is it better than the alternatives?
There's something about, you know, I've got a degree in economics and I'm looking at all this Printing trillions of dollars, and I don't have a clue.
I don't even have a good guess of where that ends up.
Do you? Do you have any idea where that ends up?
What happens when you print, what, five?
How many trillions are we going to print all together?
Six? Right.
And somebody says, why only three trillion?
Why not six? I have exactly the same question.
Because your instinct is, well, you don't want to have too much.
But I say to you, who knows what's too much?
If you had asked me, I'd say, well, $3 trillion is too much.
$1 trillion is too much.
$100 billion? Yeah, we can handle that.
But $1 trillion?
No. $3 trillion?
$6 trillion? Nobody knows what the limit is.
Think about that. The smartest people in economics, we can't get this right within $10 trillion.
Would that be fair?
Would it be fair to say that the best experts in our world on economics don't really know within $10 trillion, just for the United States, I'm not even talking about the globe, but for the United States, we don't know the right answer Within $10 trillion.
We don't know. Is there a place where you've gone too far and you can never recover?
Is there a place that isn't far enough?
$10 trillion.
And we don't really know.
We're just guessing. So, that's scary.
Speaking of scary, AOC is apparently going to join Biden's campaign campaign.
To be on some kind of a climate change panel, which will go well until she accuses him of sexual crimes.
Because the fun thing about AOC is, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she, I think she came down a little bit harder on Biden than other people, didn't she?
Am I remembering that wrong?
So she's sort of dangerous to have inside the tent, but at the same time, you kind of have to.
Because she's made herself somewhat indispensable.
Done quite a good job at that, I would say.
So I love the fact that that's even being talked about.
But what's funnier is the fact that Biden is literally hiding in his basement.
And, well, here's another wonderful thing that the simulation has served up.
Didn't you imagine that all we would be talking about this summer is the women that Biden was sniffing and touching and hugging and kissing?
Didn't you think that he was going to be, you know, all handsy in public and it would just be one story after another?
He's handsy, he touched her.
You know, he's just Joe.
That's just the way he is.
He's affectionate. But the simulation delivers us the one kind of crisis that makes Joe Biden unable to touch women.
How weird is that?
The only thing That Joe Biden really, really needed to have a legitimate chance of winning the election?
Well, he needed two things.
Think about this.
Two things that Biden needed to win the election.
Number one, an excuse not to debate.
Am I right? Because if he debates, he's going to lose.
Everybody knows that. So he needed some extraordinary situation to cause him not to have to debate.
Delivered. The other thing he needed was something that would keep him away from touching women in public.
And he got the only kind of crisis that would have that specific quality, don't touch anybody in public.
What else? Can you think of anything, any other crisis?
I mean, even AIDS, you can touch people all you want.
You're not going to get it from a hug, right?
So this is the rarest crisis.
Weirdest once ever problem that Joe Biden, who would be touching women in public and losing his race by doing it, can't do it.
The only two things he needed were delivered to him by a pandemic.
Now, that of course is the reason he's leading the polls in some of the swing states.
One imagines that as we get closer that that lead will disappear.
Now, my interpretation of Biden's poll numbers Or that Biden is still representing a generic Democrat.
In my opinion, people don't yet know who the Democrat will be.
So they're just sort of keeping that Democrat vote on idle.
Well, let me park my vote with Joe Biden.
Because that's where I want it to be parked when the new car comes.
So I don't think you can take anything from the Biden polls.
Except that it's a funny situation.
So, in the news, we saw that Rand Paul was sort of facing off, if you want to put it in sort of TV terms, against Dr.
Fauci on the question of reopening the economy in schools in particular.
Fauci, of course, being a medical professional, has a bias toward making very, very sure, and I appreciate this about him, To make it crystal clear that people understand the risks.
And I think he does that.
So I would say that Fauci does as good a job as you can with the information that's available to let people know that it's a real risk.
And I think he's done that well.
So I won't take that away from him one bit.
But it must be said That he has a view of one part of the world, but he's not making any claims about the economy or how that will kill people either.
In other words, he's sort of silent on the part that he's not an expert on, which is how many people will die from bad economy.
And I appreciate that because he's not an expert on it, but also nobody else is.
The problem, of course, that Rand Paul, I think, was calling out is that if you're only talking about half the equation, you may not get the right answer.
Now, I would like to break this down to you with a chart.
Here's the chart that we don't have that we need.
If you were truly doing a thing called managing with data, which would be different than, say, managing with, I don't know, guessing, or managing with Random chance?
If you were going to manage with data, one of the things that you would need, and fact check me on this, if you're going to manage with data, you need data, right?
Actual useful data?
That would be sort of the minimum requirement for managing with data to have data.
Do we have it? Well, The question of when we open up comes down to the two curves, the COVID death curve, which we hope has already peaked and maybe is plateauing or lowering.
And then what happens if you close the economy?
Well, I would say that for the first several months, there isn't that much impact, because it takes a while for any kind of a big shock to work its way through the system.
But the longer you wait, this curve is going to start getting steep, and it might get steep kind of quickly.
I don't know what quickly it looks like, but it's going to happen.
So there's nobody who disagrees that if you waited long enough, you'd have at least a risk of the economic downturn being way worse than the COVID deaths.
Now, here's the question.
Am I wrong that that's the only thing we need to know?
Doesn't all of the data come to this point, which is, can we tell when is the crossover?
Are we already there?
Are we already past it and it's too late?
Are we well before it and we can afford to wait a few more months?
Who exactly knows the answer to that question?
Because that's the only data that matters.
Is that the right date?
Are we there? Near it?
Past it? Or what?
Let me summarize this in more earthy tones.
Because sometimes All these complicated charts and graphs, well, they might not clear things up as much as you want, so sometimes you have to put it in clear language.
So here's leadership by data, breaking it down.
So the only data we need to know is that crossover, when's the best date to go back, all things considered.
So that's the only thing we need to know.
Also the crossover date, It's the only thing we don't fucking know.
So it's the only thing we need to know, and it is, correct me if I'm wrong, do some fact checking on here, it's the only thing we need to know, and, coincidentally, it's the only fucking thing we don't know.
We don't know it even a little bit.
We don't have a good idea.
We don't have a guess.
We don't have a fucking model.
We don't have anything that shows us both the coronavirus deaths and the economic deaths.
We have fucking bullshit idiots arguing in public like they've got some fucking secret knowledge about where that crossover point is.
You don't fucking know.
You don't know where the crossover point is.
Nobody fucking knows.
So what do you do when you don't fucking know?
Well, you don't sit at the kid's table if you want to be in charge.
You got to move to the adult table.
At the adult table, we can say things like, we'd love to measure with data.
We don't have any fucking data that's useful.
Well, we got lots of data.
It's all fucking useless. The only thing we need to know is when is that date that's the best time to go back to work.
Now, it might differ by region, of course, but that's the basic idea.
And we don't fucking know that.
Do you know why? Nobody's studying it.
Have you seen a model that shows you the economic deaths on the same chart as the COVID deaths?
No, you haven't seen that fucking model.
If you haven't seen that, it doesn't exist.
All right? Just guessing.
Do you want your government...
To just guess on your fucking life.
No, you don't.
You don't. If somebody's gonna guess about whether I fucking live or die, that's gonna be me.
It's not gonna be Dr.
Fauci. It's not gonna be Rand Paul, as much as I respect them both for their respective service.
It's gonna be fucking me, right?
Every time. I don't delegate that decision.
They can do their decisions about what they want to do, but if I'm going to guess if I'm going to live or die, that's up to me, fuckers.
That's not up to anybody else.
So here's the thing.
Why do we let these assholes pretend they're managing, leading, using data, when nothing like that's happening?
There's nothing like leadership with data that's happening.
Of course, you know, it makes sense to collect as much as you can and know as much as you can, but if the only thing you need to know is that crossover date, when to go back to work, and we don't know it and we're not going to know it and there's no way to know it, stop acting like this is some rational internet data.
That's just not what's happening.
So, what do you do when you don't know?
You do what Rand Paul suggests, who apparently is the only rational person in the whole fucking government.
Because, you know, it's not like I agree with him on everything he says.
But when he says, here's something he said that I think was completely overlooked in the coverage.
I saw it in the coverage, but it wasn't emphasized.
Which he said that one of the reasons to let the individual locales make their own decisions is because nobody knows what the right decision is.
So you diversify, just like a portfolio.
If you don't know what stock to buy, you buy a bunch of stocks and you hope that the ones that go up compensate for the ones that go down because you don't know.
Do you know why you don't buy, if you're a good investor and you're smart and you understand investing, do you know why you don't just go out and buy one stock?
Because you don't fucking know what's going to happen to one stock.
Nobody does. I mean, you can think you do, but it's just guessing.
If anybody could buy one stock and know it was going to go up, the entire financial model would be, you know, the world would be upside down because nobody can do that.
So, let's, I'm sorry, I just get a little worked up here.
So, what Rand Paul says is that you should do the same risk management that you would do if it were a portfolio.
Portfolio, you just buy a group of stocks and hope most of them go up.
Rand Paul says, we don't know what to do with these school openings.
Let each of the regions take a shot at it.
Maybe we'll learn something.
Maybe some will go too far.
Some won't work.
People will die. Kids will die.
Children will die.
And still, it's the adult decision.
Because we don't know what to do, you might as well let people make decisions that are at least closer to their individual situations.
You know, you could maybe talk to your mayor, but you probably can't talk to your president or your governor.
That'd be harder. So you've got to push these life and death decisions, especially when it's children.
I mean, come on.
Do you want your government to decide what your children live or die?
Now, I think some parents might have to say, I'm not going to send my kid.
I mean, there might be some tough family decisions, but you've got to push that decision down to the local level, I think, especially for the schools.
So I am on Team Rand Paul 100%.
But I would note that neither he nor Dr.
Fauci know the right answer.
But Rand Paul suggests a way that you move forward without the data.
If you don't understand how brilliant that is, then you've missed the biggest story.
The biggest story is that there's one person in the whole fucking world who suggested how to move forward Without sufficient data, when all the other fucking assholes at the kids' table are saying, let's wait for some data.
Let's not do something that's too soon and too dangerous.
How many people have you seen saying, we don't want to do it too soon, but we don't want to do it wrong?
Fuckers, just stop saying that.
It's just what everybody's thinking.
You might as well say, I've got an idea today.
Let's all breathe air.
Has anybody thought about breathing air?
It's all over and it looks like it's free.
Let's breathe some air.
And while we're out at it and breathing air, let's not go back to work in a dangerous way that's too reckless.
Thanks for all the leadership.
So Rand Paul gives us the answer, which is if you don't fucking know what the right answer is, let people make decisions, diversify it.
Some are going to be wrong, really wrong, and people are going to die.
But that's the decision we have.
You don't have to be a ghoul to know that's true because people die either way.
We just got to try it.
Rand Paul's right.
All right. I also wonder if we've considered this.
Let me just toss out an idea.
We're assuming that schools start in the fall, because they always do.
But remember, this is coronavirus era, and all assumptions are now capable of being challenged.
Is there any reason the school has to start in the fall?
For example, why can't it start in July?
Could school start in July, wait for it, wait for it, if it were outdoors?
Suppose you put up tents around the school so that you could have some people in classrooms with lots of distance, but other people would just be in the tents, and also with distance, but also outdoors.
Could you move classes outdoors while it's still warm?
Because I don't think people are going to be doing a lot of family trips and stuff in the summer, you know, like as normally would be the case.
So, is there anything that would prevent us from using the safety of the outdoors while it's still warm?
Get going. See what it looks like when the weather turns.
When you hit December, or not December, when you hit, let's say, late September, re-evaluate.
Have we learned anything?
Do we have a new therapeutic?
Are we a month away from the vaccine?
We'll know something by then.
So, I'll just put that out there.
Is there a compelling reason that you couldn't Just spread out to campus, have some tents, teach outdoors, and start in July instead of September.
Just putting it out there.
All right. Let's see.
Looks like California State University System is already saying that they're not planning to have classes for, is it the full year or the fall semester?
And, man, that's a big one.
You know, there's one weird...
I hate to look at the bright side during a crisis, because it just sounds like you're ignoring the bad stuff.
So without ignoring the bad stuff, we all acknowledge that the tragedy is everywhere.
I've noticed something, and I wonder if you've noticed it.
So I do leave my home occasionally to go outdoors.
That's about it. So when I'm outdoors, I see other people outdoors in my neighborhood.
And here's a trend I've noticed.
Adults walking and or jogging or biking with what seem to be probably college-age kids that are back because of the crisis.
So what I'm noticing is older children and their adults spending quality time together in a way that I just really never see normally.
I mean, just the other day watching a What was obviously a dad and maybe a 19-year-old daughter or something, jogging.
And I thought, how often does that dad and that 19-year-old daughter go jogging together?
How often do they go for a run?
I don't know. There might be something that's happening now.
Because if you say to the typical teenager, Let's say, take a typical 14-year-old.
You say, who do you want to hang around with, your parents or your friends?
Well, no contest, right?
They want their friends. They don't want to spend a minute with their parents, except for the basics, right?
But now, a lot of people sort of had to spend time with their family.
It was just the only option.
And if it's your only option, you start feeling differently about it.
And I'm wondering if this whole coronavirus situation has given people...
A new appreciation for their core family.
Because in normal times, we're sort of a distributed species.
Meaning, you know, you can go to school and you go off to your job and you've got all these different support systems.
You've got your government does this for you, you know, there are coaches and organizers and stuff.
So you go through life sort of just depending on this big distributed system that takes care of you in whatever place you are in, doing whatever you're doing.
But then the crisis happens.
What happens when the crisis hits?
Go home to your family.
That's it. Go home to your family.
Get in that house with your family.
Now, do you understand your priorities?
Yeah. Your priorities are suddenly crystal clear.
I mean, they were before, but we live this life where you don't focus on your priorities.
They're just sort of taken care of.
You're not thinking too much about the family structure you just live in your life.
And suddenly the crisis hits and boom.
Who do you depend on?
Who's going to be buying you groceries?
Well, it's not your teacher.
It's going to be somebody in that house.
Who's going to make sure that the lights stay on?
Somebody in that house, right?
So the value of the family unit in our psychic land map, I guess, just went way up.
So in my opinion, the value of family Probably increased, I don't know, 50% in how we think about it.
Now, one of the things that Naval said on Twitter a while ago, and I don't know if he came up with it or was influenced by somebody else, but the idea is that you are the sum of your traumas.
Now, I'll be talking about that at some future date because I don't think that's all you are.
You're the sum of lots of things, but your traumas are a big part of it.
And the trauma of the coronavirus is going to be a forming variable for an entire generation.
So people my age, I don't know if I'll be forever changed by it.
At a certain age, you don't change your worldview that much.
But if you're a teenager and you just went through the coronavirus situation, I do actually think it will change you.
And I think that you will be changed forever.
And here's the weird part.
Probably in a good way.
Because this is exactly the kind of risk, exactly the kind of thing that will toughen people up and give them a more realistic sense of the world they're living in.
I feel as though this was a tremendous lesson, if you will.
A bad one, but a valuable one for a lot of people.
All right. So, that's the good news.
So, here's a question for you.
You saw the poll that said something like 70-some percent of Republicans think the worst is behind us, whereas about 70-some percent of Democrats think the worst is ahead of us.
The Republicans tend to be optimists on at least the coronavirus situation, and the Democrats tend to be pessimists.
But I ask you this question, is that always the case?
I'm wondering how broadly universal it is that Republicans are more optimistic.
Because that has an impact on turnout, doesn't it?
Let's say you're a Republican, And you say, screw the coronavirus, I'm going to go vote.
I'm not worried. But you're a Democrat and you're like, I don't know.
I might get that coronavirus if I go vote.
Don't you think that there will be some kind of a party difference in just fear?
Literally just how worried are you that if you voted, you would die?
So that's my question.
I'll bet you could measure that.
I have a bad feeling that the election will be decided entirely by the virus.
Are you feeling that too?
It feels to me like this next election will not be decided by the people.
It looks like it's going to be decided by the virus.
Because the virus, first of all, could take out one of the candidates.
If we're being honest, either Biden or Trump might not be here.
I mean, we have to actually look at that as a serious possibility.
I think it, you know, we'd be talking in the 1% range risk, but it's real.
And then, so the coronavirus is going to affect how we think about the candidates, whether or not we show up to vote, which one of them is alive.
Basically, it's just not even up to us anymore.
I believe the coronavirus is our new form of government.
We used to have this republic democracy thing, and now we have a virus, which will totally depend.
Our virus has determined our budget.
Our virus has determined our educational system.
It doesn't exist. The virus has broken our medical system at the moment, hoping that's not permanent, wiped out the economy.
The virus is sort of in control.
It would be a coup for us to win back control of our own country.
All right. I have a little thing I want to do to make you really mad, but that's why you come here.
You come here to be challenged.
You don't come here for the easy stuff.
You can get that everywhere else.
Here's the challenge for you.
As you know, most of my viewers, as I know from experience, Tend to be pro-Trump types and anti-Obama types.
And you're thinking to yourself that the news has revealed that President Obama broke some laws regarding the maybe authorization of the investigation of Flynn and then the ongoing Work after there was no evidence of any kind of collusion going on that continued.
So what I'd like to do is I'm going to invite some callers on, but I only want a special kind of caller.
So if you signed up to talk to me for a general reason, if you could remove yourself from the list, because I only want to pick somebody who wants to do the following.
I will play the part of President Obama I want you to accuse me of whatever crime you think I've committed, and then I want you to see how easily I talk you out of it.
So I'm Obama.
You're going to accuse me of some specific crime about Flynn or Russia collusion investigation or unmasking or anything.
So you can accuse me of any law you think I broke, and then I'll show you how easily I can defuse it and make it go away.
Because that's the part you don't want to see, right?
You don't want to see that maybe there's nothing there.
There might be there. By the way, if more gets unredacted, we might find out there's some smoking gun, but we don't have that yet.
Let's see if anybody thinks we do.
So I'm going to take somebody who came on more recently just because they're more likely to be on topic.
All right, caller, can you hear me?
Yes. Hello.
Are you here to accuse me of a crime as President Obama?
Mr. President, did you surveil the candidate from the opposite party, from the adversary party?
Did I? No, I didn't do any surveillance.
Mr. President, did you authorize any surveillance of the opposition candidate?
No, I don't work on that kind of a detail level.
I did ask Comey and Yates what they thought in terms of should we treat Flynn the same now that we know he might have some Russian, suspected Russian affiliation or maybe some affection for them that we don't quite understand.
So until we get a hold on that, I have some questions.
That's all I have. I just had some questions.
Mr. President, do you take responsibility for surveillance of the opposition candidate?
Well, you know, the President always has to take responsibility, but that's different than being aware of what they were doing.
So, Mr. President, you do take responsibility for surveillance of the opposition candidate?
I always take responsibility for anything that happens in my administration, but it is true I was not aware of that And nor would it be normal that I would be aware of the details.
Mr. President, do you believe that it is just and fitting and ethical to surveil the opposition candidate?
And do you anticipate this will happen in 2020?
It's definitely a national security concern if we think that there is some foreign interference in our government.
So in the very specific case where there is some credible evidence of exterior influence, then that would be one case that on a special case, individually, you might want to look at that.
But in general, no. You would not want to have a situation where you're surveilling The opposition, that would be terrible.
But if there's some accusation of treason or something that's a really big deal, well, you'd have to look at that one on one.
Mr. President, had you been aware that the opposition candidate was under surveillance, would you have stopped it?
Well, I don't answer hypotheticals.
Mr. President, should we allow surveillance of opposition candidates?
In general, I think it's a terrible idea.
As I said, the only time you would even consider it would be a special case where you thought there was some credible reason that foreign governments were interfering with the country, because that risk would be so great that that would be the one time you'd least consider it.
Mr. President, are you aware that top members of your administration, privately on transcripts, In hearings before the Senate inquiry, claimed that there was no evidence of Russian collusion by Trump, and yet they publicly declared that there was.
Are you aware of these two contradictory facts?
No, I don't believe those are facts.
Do you have any recollection that this happened?
No, I didn't see that ever happen.
I saw their public comments, and I know what they said in private when they were with me, and I didn't see any conflict.
Do these statements conflict?
Go ahead.
No, the statements don't conflict.
The news is confusing two different concepts.
When the people on TV talked about clear evidence of collusion, they were talking about things the public actually already knew.
They knew that the President asked publicly for Russia to give him emails.
Some people say he was kidding.
Some people weren't sure.
And they know that the intelligence agencies, and I don't have any other information that they don't have, say that Russia did some hacking and did some troll activity.
So we can say for sure that the public has the information that the President asked Russia for help.
Russia did, in fact, provide help.
That certainly gives you cause for concern, and certainly it was worth looking into.
It is true, however, that when we looked for direct evidence beyond those things, which I do consider direct evidence, but beyond them, they had not found any.
But of course, that's the purpose of an investigation.
You don't do an investigation only to find things.
You do an investigation to find out if there's anything to find.
And they did not find direct evidence beyond those things I just mentioned.
Go ahead. Mr.
President, was there a predicate or probable cause to keep the investigation into Flynn open and to further question him?
I wasn't involved in that level of detail.
Mr. President, you were recorded and kept on tape in a hot mic moment muttering to the ambassador from Russia, I believe, that he should inform Vladimir Putin to just wait until after the election when you would have more flexibility.
What did you mean by that statement?
Isn't that an obvious statement?
Why would you be surprised by that?
All presidents have more flexibility in their second term.
And this is a good example of why conversations between leaders should be kept private.
Because there are things you say to set up a relationship, a conversation.
There might be a first offer that you're hoping to negotiate to.
So it's always a little dangerous to hear a snippet of a private conversation.
You'd have to see the whole context to even know what that meant.
Scott, you're unbelievable.
You should run for president.
But my only point is, by the way, you are excellent.
What is your job in real life?
I lived as a journalist for many, many years, and now I have a healthcare startup based on journalism.
Okay, good. So I knew you had to have some kind of experience.
I thought you were going to say lawyer, but journalist, same kind of thing, being able to dig down to the right questions.
Those are exactly, this was perfect.
I didn't expect that the first person I picked would be that good, so thank you.
You beat me then.
You were perfect. Well, so my point is this.
If you think that we already have enough to, you know, Do a perp walk with Obama?
We're not even close.
You're not even in the universe of where Obama is threatened by any of this.
Could it happen? Do we smell it?
Do we feel it like it's, ah, we might be just one more unredacted thing and we're going to get him, but it could happen.
I just haven't seen it yet. I want to ask you for a favor.
Okay, go ahead. Teach me and teach us to do what you were teaching last night, to transform our lives with those affirmations, about which I'm skeptical, but you're an intelligent guy, so I'm willing to try anything.
Well, if you saw my presentation last night, that's all you need to get going.
The second part of that is just try it and see what happens.
Remember, it doesn't cost you anything.
If you don't try it, you'll never know.
If you do try, well, maybe you'll still never know.
You'll always think that maybe you got lucky just because you're lucky.
But there's not much else to teach.
Once you see that this is the technique and there's no real way to do it wrong, I get questions like, should I throw away the paper I wrote them on?
Does it matter if I chant them or sing them?
None of that matters.
It's simply, if you can focus on this goal with whatever technique for 15 minutes a day or whatever it takes, that's telling you something.
It's telling you something about your commitment to it.
It's telling you something about how much you want it.
And maybe, maybe setting your filters in your mind or somehow improving your filter on life.
We don't know. But that's it.
I'd say give it a shot. See what happens.
And by the way, if you wanted more on it, read my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
That would be the sort of perfect place to see the affirmations in context of how to change your life.
I'll buy the book and I appreciate your time.
Thank you so much. That was a treat.
Thanks. All right.
Well, that one... How often does something go that well?
What were the odds that the very first person I picked would be a professional with experience asking questions of people like me?
That was sort of perfect.
Did I make my point that if you think you're going to see handcuffs on Obama, not based on information we have, not based on anything I've seen, But it's still being reported as an obvious smoking gun by the people who want that to be true.
So I just put that out there.
Don't assume that I want something different than you want.
I'm just predicting.
All right. Smell of burnt almonds.
Your comments are so random.
Although I know what that means, of course.
Yeah, if you don't have tapes on things, I've often thought that one of the superpowers that Trump has is that he doesn't use email, and I don't think he texts, and I think that there are no written records of anything that Trump has done bad.
Isn't that funny? I think Trump, for years, has only done verbal communication.
Now, you probably thought to yourself, there probably was 10 years in Trump's life Where people were thinking, can you just send an email?
Send me a text.
And then he becomes president and you realize the best thing he has going is he doesn't have a written record of anything.
His opinions are not written anywhere except on Twitter where he wants you to see them.
Somebody said, I thought Scott set that up with him in advance.
I wish I had. Because I would have picked him if I knew I could have picked somebody that good.
Well, I didn't pull him out of order.
He was literally the most recent person who signed up to be a guest.
So I knew that he was there for that reason.
So there was a selection element there.
All right. I don't have anything else to talk about this morning.
