Episode 1116 Scott Adams: #BidenRiots, Vitamin D Saves the World, Celebrities Attack Me, UnAmerican Airlines, Polls
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Exciting vitamin D gold-standard study
Fear-evoking headlines NOT supported by the article
Political dirty trick technique: "The Wrap-Up"
American Airlines allows wearing racist pins
My unique tax plan proposal
Debate: Cardi B versus Candace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
What you should be seeing, instead of this whiteout conditions, you should be seeing the town and a ridge line and some hills, but instead you see nothing but smoke.
That's right. Nothing but smoke.
Let me close the blinds in here and That's what happens if I go outside.
Now, it's 110 degrees out there today, or it will be.
Same as yesterday.
The air quality is unbreathable.
And if I stay inside, I'm going to get the COVID. Everything's great.
Everything's great. If you don't mind, 110 degrees.
Rolling blackouts, a little bit of COVID, and of course you can't breathe the air.
And your house might burn down.
But other than that, it's looking good.
So if I could, I hate to start out all negative, so let me put a positive spin on this as I just tweeted.
There are really only two places in California that are dangerous.
I don't think you can say that about a lot of places, but in the entire state of California, only two Two dangerous places.
Those two places are indoors and outdoors.
If you can stay away from either being indoors or outdoors, you'll be safe in California.
And the other thing that'll make you safe is a simultaneous sip and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any Kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee and join you now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Except maybe California.
It's called the simultaneous sip and a half a snack.
Go. Mmm.
Yeah, I can feel the temperatures starting to ease.
There's a low pressure system coming in from the east.
Yeah, I think things are getting better.
Somebody says, it sounds awful.
Why do you stay?
Well, have you ever been anywhere else?
I don't like to brag, but it is just the truth.
I think this is just objectively speaking.
If you like good weather and you like other stuff, California used to be, like, way up here compared to the second best place, if you like weather and, you know, a fairly open society kind of situation, lots of resources.
But that was then.
Now I would say that that gap between California as a place to live and the second best place, it's a lot, a lot of, that gap got closed.
But it's still just marginally better than a lot of other places.
Because if you move out of California, you might have to experience a thing called winter.
Or a thing called bugs.
We've got bugs, but not many of them.
Have you ever been in Florida during the summer?
It's a little muggy.
A little bit muggy. They've got some bugs.
We don't have that.
So you can take 40% off of the goodness of living in California, and I think that's kind of where we're at.
I would say that California is approximately 40% worse, all things considered, from taxes to Forest fires and everything else.
Probably 40% worse than it used to be.
And still competitive.
That's just the truth.
But it won't be that way much longer.
Here's an interesting factoid, a dog that's not barking.
Do you remember how often I was on the news or news-related channels in 2016?
It was quite a bit.
In 2016, I had a contrarian view that Trump would win.
Many of you had the same view, but among the people who actually said things out loud in public, I was in the group that were kind of rare because I was saying he's definitely going to win.
Now, I'm still the same person.
I might be even arguably more interesting now because I've spent enough time talking about politics and That I'm less of a freak show and maybe have something to say.
I have no interest from any of the news outlets except for, you know, I'll get a Breitbart radio or...
Breitbart actually still has interest and Fox will occasionally have me on.
But absolutely nobody on the left is interested.
Just complete lack of interest.
And it might be because of what I would say.
I don't think they want their audience who's sort of locked into their little news silo to hear anybody from the other silo who has anything to say.
So it's interesting to me that there's no interest in me.
Now that I've been proven right more than wrong, you think there would be more interest, don't you?
Alright, let's check in on the Biden riots.
Hashtag Biden riots.
That hashtag is doing pretty well, by the way.
Still zooming.
And I guess we had some big games in Rochester and Portland.
If you have not yet seen any of the humorous videos from not last night, but the night before, of the Antifa guy, or Black Lives Matter, I can't tell, who got his feet caught on fire In a Molotov cocktail situation of his own doing, I guess, or somebody else's.
And he started doing what looked like a funny dance to put it out.
It wasn't funny if it was you who had their feet on fire, but if you're just watching it, it was kind of funny.
I hate to admit that.
It doesn't speak well of me, does it?
But you're in the same boat.
You laughed when you saw it.
I can see you.
I can see you.
You're smiling right now.
You know that was funny.
Tragic, but funny.
And it's been put to music by a number of clever people.
If you haven't heard all of the different musical tracks, some of them are really good.
And I think they were all funny.
But I want to point this out as a humor tip so that you'll be smarter after you're done with this Periscope.
On how to write humor.
Now, some people put to music songs that had fire in the lyrics.
Like, was it Johnny Cash who has a song called Ring of Fire?
So it's very funny to hear Johnny Cash singing, you know, ring of fire and seeing the guy dancing with his feet on fire.
But That was not...
And then there was also a Michael Jackson Thriller.
They play the guy with the feet on fire.
They play it in reverse. So it looks like he's moonwalking.
Moonwalking with flaming feet.
And they play that to Michael Jackson's, I think it's Thriller?
It was Thriller.
Or Smooth Criminal or something.
I don't know. It was one of those.
So that was pretty funny.
But the funniest one by far was Footloose.
If you haven't seen the one, you should Google it.
Just Google Antifa and Footloose and Feet on Fire, it'll probably come up.
And what's funny about Footloose is that the mood and tone of the song Footloose is happy and free and It's sort of like a celebration of life and freedom and all that.
And it's being put to a guy whose feet are on fire.
So here's your humor lesson of the day.
Humor, or the laugh reflex, happens when your brain can't process two things that don't fit together.
So if you can create a joke where you've put two things together that sort of fit in a pseudo-logic way, but your brain knows they don't go together, then your brain will just laugh because it's two things that don't belong together.
Now, once you see that rule, it becomes a lot easier to write humor or to know that you've written it correctly because anytime you can make two things that don't fit together fit together with a pseudo-logic, People get that reflex and go, ah, and they laugh at it.
So listening to the Happy Footloose song while the guy's dancing with his legs on fire, it shouldn't be funny, but it is.
All right, speaking of funny, a man in France, I think this was on the Fox News site or CNN, I can't remember which one, but a man in France was injured Friday and After he blew up part of his home while trying to kill a fly with an electric swatter.
Again, tragic.
There's nothing funny about somebody blowing up their home.
Unless they did it by using an electric fly swatter.
So the man was in his 80s.
He was about to eat dinner and he saw this fly.
So he took out his electric fly swatter.
I don't know what makes it electric.
I guess it shocks the fly.
You would think that hitting the fly with a fly swatter would do enough.
But no, he's got to add like an electric shocker to his fly swatter to really get the job done.
But he was unaware that a gas canister was leaking from the home.
So as soon as he swatted the fly, his house blew up.
Which is not funny.
I'm laughing at a different joke that I thought of at the same time.
I don't know what's wrong with you.
If you're laughing at this joke, this is a tragedy.
I think he was uninjured.
I don't know how he blew up half of his home and was uninjured, but that's the good news.
All right. So while you were sleeping, the COVID-19 epidemic was solved.
What? You don't believe it?
No, it was. It's all solved now.
So I might have a little bit of hyperbole in that statement, just a little bit, but listen to my evidence.
So yesterday, or this morning, I guess, we saw the result of a randomized clinical trial, also known as the good stuff.
We're not talking about observational study, where you just look at things that already happened.
We're talking about randomized, where they...
Did a controlled experiment where they randomly created two groups of people who were hospitalized but not yet in the ICU. And they gave them vitamin D. Now they also had hydroxychloroquine and zinc which was part of their standard treatment for all of them.
So everybody who got treated was already on hydroxychloroquine And zinc.
Where is this, you might ask?
Not the United States, surely.
That is correct. It was in Spain.
So it's a Spanish study, university study linked with the hospital, I think.
And they studied 76 people, and they divided them, you know, randomly, roughly in half.
And they found that the ones who were treated with this Calcifediol, they call it a downstream product of vitamin D3. So it's vitamin D3-ish, but it's not the same vitamin D that you're getting over the counter.
So this is sort of a hyped up, beefed up, if you will, medical grade vitamin D. So I want to be as clear as possible.
You don't get that vitamin D. Just by getting a pill over the counter.
The pill over the counter might be useful also, but we're talking about a strengthened version here.
And they gave it to people and so it helped keep people out of the ICU by a factor of 25.
It was 25 times more helpful than the people who didn't get it.
I might be saying that wrong, but you know what I mean.
The difference was gigantic.
Out of the control group, exactly one person ended up in the ICU. In the, I'm sorry, the group that got the vitamin D, the special kind of vitamin D, only one of them ended up in the ICU, there were 25 or 26 of them, versus the half of the people In the other group, half of them ended up in the ICU. So it went from half of them going to the ICU to just one.
Now, it's only 76 people.
That's not enough.
It is enough to get a statistically meaningful result, especially when the result is so different.
If the result had been closer, and you could just say, well, mathematically, there's a difference, but it's only 76 people, That's when you'd say it's only 76 people.
That's not nearly enough, but if you get a difference of 25 times Then you still need a bigger you still need a bigger trial It is not a hundred percent confirmed because one Trial that's even it's it's a well-designed trial,
but still 76 people that's not enough so it is not a hundred percent confirmed and But, and also there were some questions about whether the two randomized groups were truly as random as they could have been,
because there were a few more obese people in the group that didn't get the D3. So, but even if you were to correct for all of those differences, it's still an overwhelming advantage that was shown in the study, if it holds to be true.
Now, at the same time, and by coincidence, there was another study, an observational study.
Now, the observational study is not the good kind, so it's not like the first kind I talked about, which is the gold standard kind, just needed more people.
That's its main problem.
But the observational study, an Israeli group did this, and they also found a strong, strong correlation between how well people handle the COVID and how much vitamin D they have in them.
So it found that if you had vitamin D levels that were near normal, you did well.
If you didn't, you did poorly.
Now, You're going to learn something about the difference between observational and randomized.
And it goes like this.
The observational study can't tell you which way the cause and effect worked.
Because if you're just looking at what happened, what you don't know is, is it because they didn't have vitamin D and that's the reason they had poor outcomes, or did they have poor outcomes because they were generally unhealthy And people who are generally unhealthy also have low vitamin D. So is the vitamin D just a coincidence of the fact that people who are unhealthy have bad outcomes?
Or is there a causal thing?
The observational study won't tell you which direction it goes and you can't be entirely sure that you even have the correlation right if it's an observational study.
But Because there is also a randomized clinical trial, that one will tell you the direction a little bit more reliably because the groups were chosen randomly.
So if you choose people randomly, you are not already selecting the sickest people just accidentally because you're a human being, so maybe you treat the sickest people differently than the less sickest people.
So, I'm not sure if I explained that well, but the point is that there are two pretty strong indicators that vitamin D might be the silver bullet.
Because if you could keep 98% of the people who would have gone into ICU out of the ICU, if that holds, 98% or some number like that, we're done.
Because I don't think that this...
What would you call it? Medicine?
Chemical? Vitamin? I'm not sure what it's called.
But I don't think it's in short supply.
As far as I know, there's no shortage of it.
And it doesn't look like the kind of thing that people would necessarily hoard for preventative reasons.
We could probably get there with just sun and supplements.
But if this is true, we could be done.
We could actually be done.
Now, It's going to take a little while for these studies to work through the system.
People will critique them.
They could fall apart as other studies have fallen apart.
So don't get too excited.
But if the stock market doesn't go up by the end of today, I'm going to be surprised.
Because it's looking to me as though we're very close to maybe we haven't.
And that would be amazing.
Now, If this is true, and if it turns out that the vitamin D is the big trick, I would like to remind you that you should always look back and look at the people who predicted things correctly and keep that in mind for their next prediction.
Is this somebody who got the last thing right and the thing before that right?
Or have they never been right about anything?
It's a good thing to know.
Oh, market is closed today.
Darn it, yes. Market's closed.
So tomorrow. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
But I would like to remind you that the very first thing I ever said about coronavirus was to take vitamin D. Would you confirm that it must have been January-ish?
Maybe it was the beginning of February.
That I was saying right out of the gate, take your vitamin D, take your vitamin D. Now that was before I'd noticed any coincidences or correlations.
Later, a few months later, I said to myself, I wonder why some people are getting the coronavirus and the COVID-19 really badly and some people aren't.
And I started noticing a pattern.
Hey, black people are getting it worse.
What is it that they have in common?
Low vitamin D. Hey, fat people, people with diabetes, people in certain places.
And when you start looking at all the groups that performed badly, they had one thing in common.
Kind of all were low vitamin D. But again, the correlation could be backwards.
You don't know. So I had suggested months ago that vitamin D might be the magic bullet.
Can't say that it is yet, but we're getting close to it.
And if we get to that, just remember who was right and who wasn't.
Pete Buttigieg tweeted that if you're used to voting Republican, so he's giving advice to Republicans here, Years from now, your grandkids will ask what you did in this moment, and you'll have to tell them if you are a, quote, John McCain Republican or a, quote, Donald Trump Republican.
And I tweeted back, I'll tell them I stopped believing in fake news after the fine people hoax.
Because here's the thing.
A lot of people didn't understand that when Trump was talking about McCain and he said, I like people who didn't get captured, a lot of people didn't know that was a joke.
One of the people who didn't know that was a joke was Daisy Fuentes Marks.
Now you might recognize the name Daisy Fuentes as an actress.
So she's a Actually, she'd recognize her from various things.
She's a blue checker.
And she tweeted out this, talking about the McCain thing.
Two-plus years ago, this was a story.
It's on tape, meaning what Trump said about McCain.
Like many other insane things he said, that his blind zombie followers...
I think that's me. I think I'm one of them.
Blind zombie followers ignore...
But it can't be denied.
He called Senator John McCain a loser for being a POW. This is typical Trump.
He's a dumb, hate-filled liar and misogynist.
So when I saw that, I commented back to Daisy Fuentes Marx, and I said, Trump told a Chris Rock joke about McCain, because Chris Rock actually told that joke before Trump did.
But he didn't credit Rock.
And then I put in parentheses the joke about preferring heroes who didn't get caught.
It was the same joke, they just worded it differently.
And then I said, you literally want to overthrow the government because you don't recognize the joke.
That's actually what happened.
This is somebody who wants to overthrow the government of the United States.
In other words, get rid of Trump at any cost.
In part because she doesn't recognize the joke.
And And so I said, maybe the problem is on your end.
She responded, as you might imagine, this way.
B.S. circus with Trump's trained monkeys.
Again, I think that's me.
I think I'm a trained monkey in this telling of it.
Defending his stupidities.
What's wrong with you people?
Again, that would be me.
Who cares if Chris Rock made a joke?
You see where this is going?
She has now acknowledged that the president told a joke.
She did not know, until I explained it, that it was a joke.
So now she has to change her objection from being a horrible thing he said to, yeah, it was a joke, but it's still horrible, and here's why.
And she says, a president must know better than to say something like that.
There are many better things to quote as president.
How do you fall for this crap?
Now, she also said that Trump doesn't have any sense of humor, so therefore it couldn't have been a joke earlier.
To which I pointed out that Trump is the most successful stand-up comedian in the history of humanity.
Because his rallies, which always have gigantic audiences, are literally stand-up comedy.
He does it to entertain.
He intentionally says funny things, and his audience laughs.
And they go there because they know he's going to say funny things that will make them laugh.
He is literally the most successful stand-up comedian in the history of civilization.
If you just look at the number of people who go in person...
To watch him say funny things and then laugh about it.
I mean, he does other things, but you have to admit the reason that the crowd is so big is that he brings the entertainment and largely humor.
So how can you be an informed voter, as Daisy Fuentes Marx would like to believe she is, I think, without knowing that the president is not only somebody who does know what a joke is, he recognizes them, But he's the most successful humorist of all time in terms of stand-up comedy in front of a live audience.
So when you catch somebody off guard, do they change their mind when they get new information?
Well, I've never seen it happen.
But here's a finance guy, somebody who's not an artist, who must be a Biden supporter.
And he repeated the very fine people hoax as if it were true.
So, as I often do, if somebody thinks the fine people thing is true, I go in and correct it.
And I said, that's the low information voter version.
I like to say that because it puts people on their heels.
If you tell somebody they're a low information voter, and then you tell them what they missed, it makes them pretty mad, which is probably why I do it.
Now, who did he say he specifically included from the Fine People group?
So I challenged him to go back and look at the transcript.
Now, I don't know if he did, but here's the setup.
So it's somebody who's anti-Trump.
They're not an artist.
It's somebody from some kind of a finance background.
So it's somebody who knows critical thinking and risk management.
And I've just told them that a central part of their belief system, this Fine People thing, didn't happen.
And I told him where to look to confirm it.
Now, I don't know if he looked, or he just knew that if he looked, he would find out he was wrong.
But here was his reaction.
He tweets me, and he says, I see Scott Adams says, has gone from drawing comics to randomly commenting on Twitter, defending Trump's racist behavior, and thinks I'm a low-information voter.
Okay. So what did I tell you?
It's always sarcasm.
So the artist will just say stuff that's just bad shit crazy, and that's how you can tell their artist.
Like, well, you said that's not even logical.
But when the people who actually do understand reason and logic and risk management and stuff like that, like this gentleman, once you show them that they've been duped by their own News sources, which is what's happened.
These are smart people, by and large, smart person, who has been fooled by his news sources because he thinks they're still news.
There are a lot of people who don't know that any attempt to display the news in an objective way, that's not really current day.
That's a little bit 10 years ago.
And five years ago, there was a big change.
So look for the sarcasm tell.
So one of the things that happened this week is that most of the citizens of California became pro-nuclear power.
Now, they don't all know that they're pro-nuclear power.
But they will be.
Because... We don't have electricity in California all day long like you other people do.
And it's because of bad energy management, because we closed down a nuclear plant, we're going to close down or have some gas facility.
So we've mismanaged everything.
And I think that a lot of Californians Are going to learn for the first time, okay, okay, I'm a little bit desperate now because I do need electricity to live.
So can I get there with solar panels?
No. What would work?
And then I think nuclear is a guarantee at this point.
So we can stop selling nuclear.
I think it's sold. We still have to convince people.
Not convince because that imagines that...
You're not using facts.
Some people need to be educated that what nuclear energy is in the year 2020 is by far the safest type of energy source.
It's not even close. Michael Cohen...
So there's a new CNN trick that you're seeing a lot of.
So CNN will, and other disreputable news places, they'll do a headline that'll say something like, Trump bites the head off a puppy.
And you'll think to yourself, my God, Trump bit the head off a puppy?
And then you'll read the article, and there'll be nothing like that.
It'll be, Trump...
Gently tapped a puppy on the head and said, good doggy.
And you'll look at the title again and it'll say, Trump bit the head off a dog, and then you'll say, what's happening?
And then you'll read the article, Trump gently pet a dog.
And you think to yourself, how is this even possible?
That the headline, Or even sometimes the theme that they introduce in the first paragraph or two, like what the article is about, has no resemblance to the information in the article.
Here's the best example. You probably saw the story that Trump allegedly hired an Obama lookalike to be filmed in his office getting insulted by Trump and then fired.
You saw that, right?
You've probably all seen this story.
That Trump...
Had such a bad feeling about Obama that for his own entertainment and no other reason, he hired a lookalike just so he could insult somebody to his face who looked like Obama.
That was the story, right?
But then you read the story and it goes on to say that the thing was filmed as a humorous little skit that was going to play for the RNC, but I guess they didn't use it.
So that is completely different from not only the headline, but how they introduced it when they started talking about it in the body of the story.
And you have to read halfway down before you get to the part where they say, oh, it was actually made for the RNC. It had nothing to do with Trump needing to fire Obama for personal reasons.
So you're seeing a lot of that.
The other CNN trick...
Nancy Pelosi described as the wrap-up.
So there's a video of Pelosi actually describing this technique as a political dirty trick while she's using the technique.
So there's two different times, but you can see her describing the dirty trick, and then you can watch as the Democrats use that dirty trick.
And the way that works is that some politician will make a claim that And by itself, it may not be persuasive.
Then you get somebody to write a story about the politician who made a claim, and now you have two sources.
It's really just the one person who made a claim, but now it looks like there's also a reporter who dug into it and is backing the claim, but really they just talked to the first person.
Now, the other media We'll do the story about somebody's reaction to the story.
So now you've got just one stupid claim with no evidence turned into a story about the stupid claim.
That's two sources. And now a bunch of the media starts writing about it and saying different things all based on the one source that's not credible.
And suddenly it's national headlines and you're dealing with the, well, we're not reporting it's true exactly, which is the dodge they use.
We're not saying it's true.
We're saying the allegation is out there, and then we asked this politician.
So it looks like they have a new feature on Periscope where it will put you back into the thing you got kicked out of, which would be a great feature.
Yes, so I lost the connection there for a moment, but Periscope now has a feature that allows me to get back into the same Periscope, which is amazing.
I hope that's what's happening.
All right, let me go on.
As we're watching the Black Lives Matter protest, etc., and as we're thinking more deeply about everything around there, I would like to suggest that the only standard we should compare people is by similar strategies.
Now, maybe similar starting places.
In other words, let's compare a poor white kid to a poor black kid.
So let's say they're both starting from a deep hole.
What if they use the same strategy to succeed?
Let's say they both pay attention in school, they stay in trouble, they stay off drugs, they find a mentor, things that would be obvious good life strategy.
If you were to compare then the outcomes of let's say the poor black kid who did everything right, strategy-wise, to the poor white kid who also did everything right, How would that look?
Which one would get the job?
Which one would be doing better in 10 years?
If you're not looking at that, you're just involved in something that isn't helpful, which is what Black Lives Matter is.
It's completely unhelpful.
And so unhelpful that, at this point, American Airlines said that they would allow their people to wear a Black Lives Matter pin when they're working.
But they would not be allowed to wear, let's say, a pro-Trump pin or something like that.
I think the difference is Trump is political, whereas Black Lives Matter is more of a social good would be their thinking.
But here's what's different.
Just because of the protests and everything we've learned about Black Lives Matter being a Marxist organization and what we've seen in terms of their actual actions, the members' actions, you can say now, In September of 2020, you can say out loud without getting cancelled that BLM, the organization, is a racist organization.
Now, I think I would have been cancelled for that Not too many months ago.
But now it's sort of seeped into the understanding of what's going on to the point where you really can just say it out loud.
Hey, American Airlines, if you let your employees wear a BLM pin, I would personally consider that racist.
Now, I get that you could disagree with me.
And I get that you could say, no, no, no, we're just...
Trying to make things less racist.
That's the whole point of Black Lives Matter.
But would you accept that everybody gets to have an opinion?
My personal opinion is that the Black Lives Matter movement was well-intentioned by most people, not necessarily the organizers, but most people involved had good intentions for all the right reasons.
But nonetheless, it has evolved fairly recently Into, I would say, a straight-up racist organization.
So if you're not looking at comparing people by life strategies, you are just being a racist.
Because if you compared people who had exactly the same strategy, and you found out they still had different outcomes, well, there's your racism.
Because once you've eliminated what you do with your life as being different, and you've You really got apples and apples at that point.
If there's still a big difference, then I'd have to say the presumption is racism.
I'd like to know how big that is, but you can't know until you compare people by strategies.
Here's an idea for you.
Oh, well, let me just mention this.
I think it was in a Molly Hemingway article.
Mentioned that there's a writer for the Washington Post named Dan Balls.
Dan Balls, spelled B-A-L-Z. Now, I've never heard of Dan Balls.
I've heard of his brother, Harry.
Harry Balls.
I didn't really have anything else to say about that.
He just should have a brother named Harry.
All right. How about this for a tax plan?
Are you ready? So you've heard every kind of tax plan in the world, from tax the rich, to flat tax, to VAT, to every other idea, but you haven't heard this one.
So this is my very own invention.
It goes like this. Suppose you based the tax rate on the top 1% on the outcomes of the bottom 10%.
Eh?
So in rough terms, without working out the details, it would look like this.
Your top 1% has a tax rate of X. But if the bottom 10% could, let's say, increase their average income by 20%, that the top 1% get to cut their taxes.
A little bit. Just a little bit.
And if they can get, let's say, more of the bottom 20% to graduate from school, if they can get unemployment down to some really low level.
So the point would be that the top 1% are not like everybody else.
What Bill Gates can do, or a Any of the billionaires, just name a billionaire, Jeff Bezos.
What a Bezos or a Gates can do in the world is so much bigger than what you and I can do.
They can actually change.
They can change society by focusing on the right things and pushing the right levers.
So, wouldn't you like to see that the top 1%, and again, we're just talking in approximates here, wouldn't you like to see the top 1% have a self-interest In helping the bottom 10% directly.
Because it would lower their own taxes.
If you get incentives right, you get everything right, if you know how humans work.
If you say to a billionaire, I can lower your taxes by 2%, but you're going to have to figure out some way, without the government's help, to fix all this other stuff.
Figure out how to get health care for...
Maybe that's it.
Figure out how to get health care for everybody.
Do whatever you want, but figure out how to get healthcare for everybody.
If you get that, your tax rate goes down 2%, just the top 1%.
So this is not a well-thought-out idea, but I like the idea of the most successful having it as their personal burden to make the least successful at least get up to the middle range if they can.
There's some polling numbers out of Rasmussen showing a trend which I think is going to be more pronounced.
So Wisconsin, after all the recent troubles, it looks like Trump has a slight lead, not statistically important, but close to a tie and a slight lead in men.
So if the only people voting in Wisconsin were men, Trump would win.
But he's getting killed on women.
So where he's got 48% of men, he's only got 39% of women.
So that's, you know, a big difference.
But here's the interesting part, according to Rasmussen.
He's got support of 26% of blacks and...
47% of other.
Other meaning neither white nor black.
So those would be more minorities.
So he's got 47% of non-white people and 26% of blacks are supporting Trump.
It looks like the black men, I think, are going to Trump.
I feel like that's what's happening.
Now, we'll see.
But it's starting to look as though the Democratic Party is becoming a party dominated by and run by women, just as Black Lives Matter is dominated by and effectively run by women.
Now, if you don't think that women are running Black Lives Matter, just look at the street action.
It's usually a woman on a bullhorn.
Um... And there was a very funny video.
I don't know which city it was in.
It was probably Portland or maybe Rochester.
And there was a video from last night, I think.
There was a black woman in her car, and she gets stopped by a bunch of protesters.
Now, from the camera angle that I had, I couldn't see everybody, but the people standing directly in front of her car and blocking her from going wherever she needed to go, might have been home, looked like they were all white.
So they look like white supporters of Black Lives Matter.
And they're blocking a car of an actual black person.
So all these fake LARPers are standing in front of the car blocking an actual black woman who just wants to get home or gets to wherever she wants to go.
Somebody says it's North Portland.
And what do you think happened?
So here was the competition.
There's no... Didn't look like there was any law enforcement anywhere.
So it's one lone black woman who's telling these people to get out of the way, quite forcefully, and a bunch of white Black Lives Matter people refusing because they just didn't want anybody to get through.
Well, if you were born yesterday, you might say to yourself, huh, sounds like a fair competition.
Maybe it'll be a standoff.
No, it wasn't a standoff.
Because in the hierarchy of the Black Lives Matter world, a black woman is the top of the pile.
A black woman outranks a black man, and black people in general outrank the white supporters of Black Lives Matter.
And I think everybody would agree with that, right?
That's the rank which has sort of evolved.
And I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with that.
If it sounded like I said, And that's a big mistake or something.
I'm not saying anything like that.
I'm just observing.
I'm simply observing that the Black Lives Matter movement is primarily female-dominated, as is the Democratic Party in general.
Not that there aren't plenty of men, but those men are subservient to the women who are sort of running the show.
And you're actually seeing a trend that I predicted a while ago, which is It has a lot to do with how the genders relate to each other and who wants to be in charge, really.
I would say the Republicans are more practical about that.
That is to say, I don't think the Republicans have a sense of who needs to be in charge.
I think if you've got the talent, you're in charge.
If you work hard, you're in charge.
If you don't, you're not.
I think the Republican view is, who cares?
It just doesn't seem to be important.
And the Democrat view is, oh, it matters.
It matters. All right.
That is what I wanted to say today.
If you haven't watched this, somebody tweeted, and I retweeted it, that their favorite entertainment is watching the police take back a street.
Because there's a technique that the police use that I don't think I'd seen before, which is interesting.
When the big group of police form a line and they go at once and sort of attack the crowd and push them back, there's a thing the police do, and I don't know, again, I don't know if this is part of training or it's just a thing that they do, but they'll sometimes just push over a protester, like just push them off their feet and have them fall backwards, and then the protester will get up again and will just push them down.
If you haven't seen the one that I tweeted, it's just hilarious every time you watch it, because you see this one police officer push the protester down, and the protester jumps right up and sort of starts coming at the guy who pushed him.
And then the guy pulls down.
I think it's a taser.
It looked like a taser.
And he starts to, like, tase the guy.
But before he can, his buddy, another law enforcement guy, runs right in front of him and just pushes that guy down again.
So, it's hilarious to watch.
It's funnier watching it than in the telling.
Alright, that's all I got for now.
Somebody says, Trump approval levels back to pre-COVID. That's a big problem for the Democrats, isn't it?
If this vitamin D thing is true, and it's looking good, We're done.
If it's true, we're done.
Somebody's prompting me to talk about Jake Tapper.
So there's a story. The story goes that Jake Tapper talked to somebody who was thinking of running against a Democrat that he liked or something, and he talked him out of it.
And so the subject person Here's the thing.
So Jake has denied it.
When asked directly, did you do this, he said no.
There's other reporting that said yes.
This almost certainly falls into that category of It sort of depends subjectively.
I think if you heard all the conversations yourself, which you can't, it would probably be closer to a conversation about the pros and cons, which is different from, you should drop out of the race and save my friend.
So, I don't feel like I can take sides on this one.
Because you would have to hear all the conversation to have a good opinion on that, and I haven't.
So, I won't do what the fake news does, which is have an opinion on something you couldn't possibly know the details of what really happened.
Alright. Somebody calls this my encore.
I think you're right.
Um... No, it didn't.
Blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I'm not too interested in that story, frankly.
Oh, let's talk about Cardi B. Cardi B and Candace.
So Cardi B has become interested in politics.
You know she interviewed Joe Biden.
You might also know that Candace Owens had some public back and forth with her, and Candace...
Suggested that maybe Cardi B should educate herself on the political stuff because Candace notes that she seems under-informed.
Now, I will echo what Candace said, which is, I tend to respect any artist who succeeds.
So I'm not a big fan of music, and I couldn't even tell you any song that Cardi B had ever done.
I don't think I would recognize it if I heard it.
I just don't listen to much music.
But that said, objectively speaking, she's sensationally successful.
So if somebody is sensationally successful with their art, I say, that's good art.
It's good because people wanted it.
It's good because people bought it.
There's nothing else you have to discuss Art is not objective.
If a whole bunch of people want to listen to your art, you're an artist.
End of story. So Cardi B, I have maximum respect for her as an artist, but I will differ a little bit with Candace, and maybe not even much at all.
Maybe none at all. But I like the fact that she's involved in politics.
I like it. Because there's nothing about her that suggests that she's done learning.
There's nothing about her, Cardi B, that would suggest she doesn't want to round out her knowledge of politics.
So if she's open to making this a continual system in which she's getting more informed as she goes, I say more of it.
Let me give you this thought.
I've talked about it would be good to have more than a debate like on TV because the debates on TV are too limited.
They don't have enough time.
You've got to get to the next question.
It basically just doesn't work.
But what also would not work is giving your politicians all the time that they want to debate.
And here's why it wouldn't work.
The politicians will just lie.
Both of them. Doesn't matter who they are.
Both sides will just sit there and in the context of a debate, they wouldn't say a single thing that was true.
Because the truth doesn't work as well.
So if you're trying to win a debate that's televised, you're just going to lie through your teeth because it works better.
And I thought to myself, how would you like to see a debate between Cardi B and Candace?
Because presumably Candace would be filling in a lot of blanks, you know, just background knowledge that would be good to have, to have an opinion, and you could watch that happen in real time with two people who actually want good things to happen to the black community and to the country.
Because don't you believe that both Cardi B and Candace are genuinely interested in the well-being of the country, And I think it goes without saying, interested in the well-being of the black community, it goes without saying.
I would love to see them debate.
And if you say to yourself, no, no, Scott, because Cardi B might not know as much as some pundit, might not know as much about politics as some professional, I say, that's okay, because the pundit and the professional are just liars.
They're professional liars.
I don't need to see a debate between two professional liars.
But if you put Candace and Cardi B in front of the camera and just turn it on and just step back and watch what happens, you're going to end up smarter.
Because you're going to hear something from Candace that you've never heard before and you're going to say, really?
And you're going to look it up.
And you're going to find out that's a thing.
So watching Candace, let's say respectfully, because I think she would do it respectfully, respectfully fill in the blanks for Cardi B would be really good.
That wouldn't even be just worth watching.
That would be the best thing I could watch this month.
Not counting the Biden riots, which are very entertaining.
So, let's do it.
Who's with me? Wouldn't you like to see that?
Tell me the truth. You would like to see that, and it would be better than watching the politicians, because they would just be liars.
I don't think Candace...
Has she ever been accused of lying?
I mean, I'm sure everybody's been accused of lying.
But I would trust Candace to come with the truth.
If anything she said wasn't 100% accurate, it wouldn't be because she intentionally lied.
Cardi B, I see no reason to think she wouldn't be completely honest.
I would love to see two honest people have a debate.
How often do you see that?
Two honest people who actually just want the world to be better.
