Episode 1122 Scott Adams: Biden's Biggest Lies, Google's Election Interference, Fact-Checking Tapper, Woodward Story Goes Biden
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Gavin Newsom: forest management vs. climate change
At what point can you call well-meaning protesters...assholes?
2 Sheriffs Deputies shot, outcome of "fine people" HOAX?
Search engine results: "Does Joe Biden have dementia"
Dangerous, destructive lies from Biden, Harris
4chan: Joe Biden's dementia medication and incontinence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I'm literally, not literally, but figuratively I'm in house arrest because it is unhealthy to go out there.
The air quality is literally unhealthy.
And what does my governor say about that?
My governor, Governor Newsom, has decided to go completely anti-science on this and has decided that he's going to blame the forest fires on climate change.
Now, if you know anything about climate change, there are two claims.
Number one, climate change will make everything wetter.
And number two, Climate change will make everything drier.
I'm not even making that up.
Those are two claims that I've just read even this week.
Climate change will make it wetter, and climate change will make it drier.
In the same places, apparently.
And everybody ignores the obvious, which is that the The forests have not been managed, the underbrush has not been cleared out, and anybody could have predicted these fires.
So anybody who was in the fire management business could have told you this was going to happen without any climate change.
Completely irrelevant, it was still going to happen.
Well, but that's not why we're here.
First, we need to do this on a spontaneous hip, and we need a A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better when you're in jail, as I am right now.
Can't go outside, can't go anywhere.
And it's called the subtleties.
Take a sip. It happens now.
Go. Mm-hmm.
I do not see the air clearing up.
Well, let's talk about all the things in the news.
I've decided that there are two kinds of people in this country.
People who are trying to work toward making things better for all people, and people who are trying to stop those people.
Now the trouble is, people don't know which group they're in.
Lots of times people don't know.
I caused, as I told you, I caused some trouble on Twitter by saying something true which caused people to go nuts and what I said was that you heard this a little bit the other day I said that Antifa the original Antifa there were several of them I guess but one in Germany in the 30s was allied with Hitler now of course all of the Antifa loving people said you crazy dope you know nothing about history in fact It was the opposite of that.
Don't you know that Hitler imprisoned and killed Antifa in Germany and that Antifa was against Hitler?
How do you not know that, Scott?
How do you not know that?
To which I say, well, those things are all true.
It's true that Antifa and Hitler hated each other.
It is simultaneously true, and here's the fun part, That Antifa and Hitler were on the same side at the same time, meaning that they were both opposed to the German government for different reasons, but they were both opposed.
Antifa was essentially supported by Stalin, and Hitler and Stalin both wanted a change in the German government for different reasons, but they were allies in the sense that they both fought against a common enemy.
Now, could you think of another example like that?
Am I overusing the word ally?
Am I? Well, let me ask you this.
If you were to do a Google search on Stalin and Russia and the United States and their fighting in World War II, would the Internet say that Stalin was an ally of the United States?
Well, yes it would.
It would say exactly that.
If you look it up, the word ally will show up as just a common description of Stalin and the United States, because for a while we fought against a common enemy.
Now, if we didn't have a common enemy, which was Nazi Germany, would we have been fighting against each other?
Yes, because as soon as the common enemy was defeated, we immediately lined up against each other.
So it is not a conflict To say somebody is both an enemy and an ally, even at the same time.
So, what I really wanted to get people to understand, though, is that Antifa, the original anti-fascist organization, defined fascism as any form of capitalism.
Usually they said late form, but it ends up being the same.
In other words, Bernie Sanders' version of a socialist capitalist system would be something that Antifa in Germany would have wanted to destroy.
So Bernie Sanders is nowhere near what Antifa wants because Bernie is still a capitalist.
He's on the edge of capitalism because he wants a big socialist component.
But Bernie says directly, yes, capitalism.
Yes, yes, yes. Totally, I want capitalism.
Bernie is very clear about that, but, you know, a modified, kinder version in his model.
So, when every idiot says to you, Scott, don't you understand?
Anti-fa means anti-fascist!
Anti-fascist!
If you're against them, you're obviously, because of the logic, you must be for fascists.
Can you explain that, Scott?
And part of the fun is making the pro-antifa people understand that fascists and capitalists, even the Bernie Sanders version of capitalists, are the same thing.
Because you can't really have capitalism without it.
Without at least the accusation of fascism.
Anyway, that was fun.
What about that Bob Woodward book?
That's kind of gone, isn't it?
The biggest bombshell we had going was this Bob Woodward thing.
It's sort of already gone, I think.
You know, there's like one little note on it on the CNN homepage.
The Fox News was done with it on day one.
How do you explain that? How do you explain that there was a gigantic bombshell that should be like the biggest piece of news you've ever heard and it just sort of disappeared?
Well, here's my explanation.
It was never news.
The bombshell was that the thing that Trump had been telling us directly was true.
That's it. But the way they told it, they tried to make it into something, but it never was something, because there's such a good record of Trump saying directly, yeah, it was very serious, that's why I closed travel, it's five times worse than the flu, as he told Woodward, serious business, and I'm going to downplay it because I think this is the way to play it.
And he told the public he was doing it while he was doing it.
That is the closest to nothing That anything could ever be.
Now you could certainly say, I disagree with how the president handled it.
That would be a normal thing.
People always disagree with every leader, right, on some issues.
But it is not a thing to say that the Woodward Brook told you something you didn't already know.
There was literally no news there.
It was just a retelling of what we all, all, every one of us, already knew.
Now, how is it that the news can turn nothing into what they sell as a bombshell, which actually may change a voter's minds?
How can they do that?
They can do that because they are brainwashers, not a news organization.
If you still think that the news is just the telling of facts, you're many years behind.
The news, and certainly the social media platforms, Have for some time now been just pure brainwashing vehicles.
And so they actually brainwashed the country into thinking something they already knew was news.
And not just news, but so important that you should change the government of the United States based on something that you could just look at and say, there's actually nothing here.
There's literally nothing here.
But they are that good.
All right. Brian Stelter did a piece on talking about how Fox was downplaying the bombshell.
And he showed some clips of Fox people saying it was a big nothing.
And I'm thinking to myself, that is so bold to act as though there's something wrong with Fox For saying something that is clearly nothing, and you can just look at it and say it's nothing.
They're saying it's nothing.
And CNN is reporting it as something wrong with Fox.
No, that's not what's happening here.
What's happening is you tried to make something out of nothing and Fox didn't buy it.
That's it. Katherine Watson, who I guess works for CBS, She tweeted, because Biden put a lid on his schedule yesterday, that's sort of insider language.
If you put a lid on it, I just recently learned, it means that the candidate will not be available for any public stuff.
Now, this close to the election, can you come up with any possible reason that Joe Biden would not be available For the public.
Now, I certainly understand if he had a busy schedule, say, meeting with advisors or practicing maybe a speech or something like that.
But the entire day?
While you're running for president?
The whole day? You can't sit in front of a Zoom and take a question and make some news?
The whole day?
Nothing. Because I'm pretty sure that during a whole day, President Trump does a lot of stuff.
And I think he does a lot of stuff when he's tired.
This is Trump.
I think he does a lot of stuff when he doesn't want to, because it's a busy job.
He probably does a lot of stuff every single day, on weekends.
Do you think on a day when you know he's golfing, do you think he's also not working that day?
No. There are no days that the president doesn't work.
So seeing a CBS person saying, not sure why Biden isn't doing more to show he can outwork Trump.
I have a theory.
There might be something wrong with Joe Biden.
We'll talk more about Joe Biden's issues here in a moment.
But I want to put out this thought.
And I don't know why I'm the person who has to say this.
There's some things that you see in the world and you say, well, surely...
Somebody will explain this correctly if I wait long enough.
Okay, they haven't done it yet, but surely by tomorrow, somebody will do a good job of explaining this thing we're all looking at.
So I guess it's up to me, because nobody did it.
But here it is. It goes like this.
And I tweeted this earlier.
If a hundred well-meaning protesters do their protest...
But in the course of their protest, they are quite aware that they've created an environment where just two of the hundred people, just for example, just say two of them, caused some looting and some rioting and some trouble.
Now the first time that happens, you say to yourself, freedom of speech?
I'm certainly feeling bad that some bad stuff happened.
Nobody's in favor of that.
But at least we got our free speech and it was an important issue.
The second time they do it, if there's also rioting and some bad stuff, they have to say to themselves, huh, I wonder if what we're doing is making it easy for this other stuff to happen.
We don't mean this to happen, but we're kind of making it easy for it to happen, guaranteeing that it happens.
Now what happens if you do that process a hundred times in a row, like Portland?
Literally a hundred times in a row.
At what point do you say, okay, protesters, we all got the message, so there's no new freedom of speech thing happening.
We all got the message, but you keep showing up every day knowing that two of your hundred, might be a different two, are going to burn down a big part of the city or cause trouble or get somebody killed.
At what point Do the 98 people who are the good people, they only mean well, at what point do you say that all 100 of them are assholes?
Well, I'm already there.
I think the protesters, whether you say 98% of them are peaceful, and I think that's probably about right, wouldn't you say?
If you looked at all the protests, many of them don't get coverage because they're nothing but peaceful.
So if you looked at everything, Maybe 98%.
You know, if you say it's 99%, that's fine.
But something like 98% are peaceful.
But they're also assholes.
Not originally.
Not originally. Originally, they were just free speech.
They had a cause. They had a concern.
Most of them, I believe, genuinely wanted to make the world a better place, put that energy out there.
Very American. It's very American to put your energy out there, complain, I'm all good with that.
But a hundred times in a row, when people are dying and stuff's going up in flames, that's not really the same thing anymore.
And if you're defending it at this point, you're kind of an asshole.
There isn't really a way around that.
If you know that you're bringing this danger with you, even if you don't mean it, but you know it's going to happen because of what you're doing, You're just an asshole.
You're not technically guilty of the crimes.
True. But you're still bringing them.
And you're still an asshole.
So let's get that clear.
Oh, and here's a funny thing that happened when I tweeted that.
On Twitter, nobody expects anybody to have a consistent political opinion.
You've seen this, right?
That people will make a claim for their team, and then the other team will say, well, aren't you being a hypocrite?
Because what about this?
If you're going to say that, then don't you also have to agree that it's true on the other side, you know, in some other different way?
And so people came after me when I said that all hundred protesters are assholes.
They said, okay, Scott, now do police, all right?
Let's say there are only two bad cops...
But 98% of the cops are somehow supporting them.
You know, they're backing them.
How about that, Scott?
What do you say to that?
Gotcha! Gotcha!
To which I say, no, that's an example of 100 cops that are assholes.
That's exactly the same.
If 100 cops are consistently protecting two bad cops that are killing citizens who shouldn't be killed, yeah, yeah, they're all...
You might not say they're as bad, but they're all assholes in exactly the same way.
So I hope that wasn't a surprise to my critics that I am completely consistent that if you're an asshole Democrat or you're an asshole Republican, it's still the same to me.
I'm completely consistent on that.
So, there's that.
I love watching Daniel Dale, the fact-checker for CNN, partly because he has so many things to fact-check from Trump that he's like the partly because he has so many things to fact-check from Trump that he's like the
And so he is arguing that the Trump campaign ads that say Kamala Harris is in favor of the riots is not true.
And his description of why it's not true that Kamala Harris is in favor of the riots is that when she says stuff like it's going to keep going and she says she's in favor of it, she's talking about the legitimate protests.
So it is not true that Kamala Harris is in favor of the riots.
It's only true that she's in favor of The things which guarantee there are riots.
You see the difference?
Right? Totally different.
She's not in favor of the riots.
She's in favor of doing all the things that guarantee there are riots.
So, obviously, the Trump campaign must be totally lying about that.
Because those aren't the same.
Right? Those are completely different.
Come on! Obviously, supporting the riots has nothing in common with supporting the things that guarantee you'll get riots.
Different. So, that's funny.
Also, that Daniel Dale claims that the types of lies that the Trump campaign says are so outrageous that And he acknowledges, so Daniel Dale acknowledges, as context, that all campaign ads have a problem with the truth.
We're all on the same side on that, right?
All campaign ads, Biden, Trump, doesn't matter who it is.
They all push the truth as much as they can.
So he does acknowledge that, but he says that the Trump campaign ads are a whole different level of bad behavior.
To which I say, Doesn't it depend what you fact check?
Because it's the Biden campaign that's based on the most destructive and divisive lie in American history.
There's nothing Trump has ever said that's even close to the fine people hoax, or even close to saying that the president suggested drinking bleach to get rid of coronavirus.
Nothing the Trump campaign is It's even in the same zip code with how evil just those two things are.
And those aren't the only Biden lies.
They're just the alpha lies that are the most impressive lies in American history, in my opinion.
I doubt anything has hurt the country as directly as that lie.
So I don't know how you compare lies.
And the Trump campaign, when they were challenged about the The veracity of their campaign ads, they responded by saying it's comedy and you should lighten up.
Now, when you see the Trump campaign ads, and let's say they've stretched a point a little bit to the point where the fact checkers don't agree anymore.
When you're watching it, do you watch a campaign ad like it's true?
Because if you do, you're going to have to...
You've got some questions to answer here.
If you watch...
Anybody's campaign ad and say to yourself, yeah, I think that's true.
You should check yourself, right?
Campaign ads are not designed to be true.
They're just not built that way.
It's not their purpose.
They have no intention of transmitting the truth.
It's a campaign ad.
It's a lie by design every time.
At the very least, it's a lie by omission.
At the least, right?
It's never going to say, well, the other side has good points, too.
But there's no comparison.
All right. Two police officers in Compton were, it looks like they were just hunted, and they're so far surviving, I don't know how bad in shape they are, but they were both shot in the head.
They were both shot in the head.
They were just sitting in their car in Compton, And somebody ran up and just fired bullets into it and just executed them.
Now, would that execution have happened without the fine people hoax?
Would it? Did these two cops get killed because of Joe Biden and the mainstream news creating this division with the fine people hoax?
Because in my view of things, the fine people hoax caused All the other hoaxes to be believable and caused people to believe that black people were being hunted by police officers.
And a lot of the protest energy comes from that core hoax.
I would argue that these two police officers, maybe, you don't know if this was just a crazy person or maybe it was personal, you don't know, but there's a good chance That this sort of thing is directly coming from the Biden type of lie.
There's nothing Trump does that does this.
It doesn't cause anybody to shoot a police officer.
And while we don't know that that was the direct cause, you could see how it could be.
I mean, there's a pretty direct line of cause and effect, even if that wasn't exactly what was happening.
My smartest Democrat friend, and I mean that literally, as if, you know, if he took an IQ test, he'd do great.
If you looked at his academic credentials, top shelf.
So literally, no joke, a smart, smart person.
Told me he doesn't think that Biden's campaign ads are lies.
What? What do you do with that?
What do you do with that?
He thinks only Trump lies in campaign ads.
So here's a model or a filter on the world that I think you should use.
I believe that people are walking around the earth experiencing three different Or three different dimensions, if you will.
The lowest dimension of understanding your reality is to believe that both of the campaign ads are telling you the truth.
So the lowest understanding of your reality is to look at a Biden ad and look at a Trump ad and say, yeah, they're both probably true.
So given that these are both true, I'll pick my preferred candidate based on these facts, the truth in these campaign ads.
Now that would be a first dimension thinker.
Higher up, a second dimension thinker would be one who says, hey, one of these two ads is wrong.
I think it's this one.
And that's where my smart Democrat friend is.
He believes that one's wrong and one's right.
A third dimension thinker, which I hope all of you are becoming, you're either there or you're becoming, is somebody who understands that none of it's true.
It's not meant to be true.
It's not designed to be true.
Nobody has the intention of making it true.
It's never been true.
It will never be true in the future.
Not either of them.
And again, when I say not true, that doesn't mean that there are no claims in them that are technically true.
But they're all lies of omission, lies of persuasion, etc.
So, if you're a third dimension thinker, and you know it's all lies and why, and you're talking to somebody from a first or second dimension, it's like being a ghost where you can't actually talk to them.
Have you noticed that? Imagine in your mind you're an actual ghost, and you're in the room, and people are saying things that are just ridiculous and dumb, and you're trying to correct them.
And you're like, no, no, no.
Yeah, but what about the facts?
Here's my source. And they act like you're not actually there.
They don't argue it exactly.
It's more like that movie The Sixth Sense, where they're doing something independently, and you as the ghost are trying to interact with them, but they don't have any idea that you even exist.
That's the kind of feeling you get.
It doesn't feel like a conversation, does it?
Have you noticed that? It doesn't feel like a give and take at all.
I just had one of those on Twitter, as I do every day, in which I asked people to give me some examples of Biden lies.
So I wanted to see how big the list was.
So people gave me some lies, but of course a troll came in, a Biden supporting troll, to say, well, what about the president saying you should drink bleach?
And with some other claim that he had wrong.
Now, so here's somebody who believed that he understands the world and has been watching the news and that the President of the United States once asked about, in all seriousness, drinking bleach or a disinfectant to cure coronavirus.
Now, those of you who follow me know that that never happened.
That there was a technology with light, UVC light, as a disinfectant that would be injected by a ventilator-type device into your trachea.
Maybe they can get it further into the lungs.
It was being actively tested.
People talked about it on the internet.
It was in the news.
And the president asked about it.
Now, all the people who didn't know that it was a real thing and it involved UVC light as a disinfectant, the very word that they use, and injecting, The very word that they use, the people doing it.
If you didn't know that, you'd say, oh, the president's crazy.
He wants to drink bleach.
So I send them a source, a new source, that describes the company that's doing this exact thing contemporaneously with the president's claim so that you can see he was talking about a real thing.
What did the second generation, or what did the two-dimensional thinker do?
Did the two-dimensional thinker say, oh, that's new information to me.
Interestingly, I had never heard of this.
And so I guess I was confused when the news told me about drinking disinfectant and I believed it, but now that you show me the clear fact, I changed my mind.
Did that happen?
Nope. Question the quality of the source.
Now keep in mind, All you have to do is take the name of the company out of that source and just Google it, and you would get other sources saying the same thing.
So you don't have to depend on the source.
You just use another source.
And I find that the two-dimensional thinkers will generally either attack the messenger, well I guess it's the same, or the new source is the same.
Attacking the messenger.
And they don't ever really even address, huh, I guess I had all my facts wrong.
So that's why you don't get into any debate with somebody who's on a different dimension.
So you have to first understand, can they say something bad about their own team?
Here's a little test for you if you want to test what dimension somebody's on.
So you say to somebody, let's say they're a Biden supporter.
Let's say you're a Trump supporter, hypothetically.
And you're trying to determine, are they in the same dimension I am?
And here's how you do it.
You say, hey, just to see if we're in the same dimension here, why don't you say several good things about Trump, and I'll say several good things about Biden.
No criticism at all.
Then when you criticize Trump, I'll know that you can see it in context.
And likewise, when I criticize Biden, you'll know that I can still see the good qualities.
And so maybe we'll have a little credibility that way.
So then I'll go first.
Joe Biden, very experienced.
Joe Biden, a lot of people say he's a good guy.
A lot of people say he has good intentions.
There you go. Those were some good things about Joe Biden.
I'll even throw in some Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris, very smart, very ambitious, which I happen to like.
Of course, she gets knocked for being a woman if she's ambitious, but I don't knock her.
I say, that's great. How about more of that?
Kamala Harris, good politician.
She has most of the game.
She needs a little practice, but she has all the raw materials.
So there, did you see that?
That was me. Operating in the third dimension saying, there are some good things about this candidate which I can clearly see.
Now let me tell you the bad things.
Boom, boom, boom. And I can do the same thing with Trump.
If you ask me, hey, why do you always say there are good things about Trump?
I say, uh, that's the opposite of what I do.
I say bad things about what he does or has done all the time.
I also say, That the good things he does are far bigger than the other things.
Not even close.
But I do always acknowledge the mistakes.
And the thing that always amazes me is that people will come at me and say, but don't you understand?
The president's failed the fact-checking 20,000 times.
What about that, Scott?
Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it.
And then you'll be on my side.
And then I say, I've never denied that.
Have I ever denied that?
Not once. Now, of course, I would argue with lots of individual fact-checking, but am I unaware that the president uses hyperbole and salesmanship and persuasion when there are facts that maybe don't quite fit the persuasion, the hyperbole, etc.?
Does anybody think I'm not aware of that?
Seriously? That's that second, third dimension thing.
To imagine that I'm not aware of that and I haven't incorporated that into my larger thinking is not even on the same dimension.
That's a second dimension thinker and it's like being a ghost.
You can't have a conversation with a ghost.
Alright. Here's Here's something that just blows me away, and if this doesn't make your head spin, I haven't done enough work with you yet.
The following topic should make you feel unmoored from reality.
It's that big, but it probably won't.
Let me test it. It goes like this.
Take your Google page, open Google, and type into the search box, Does Joe Biden have dementia?
What you'll notice is that the autofill will never fill it.
You have to type out the entire sentence, does Joe Biden have dementia?
If you do that, you can get some results.
Now go to Bing or DuckDuckGo.
Start typing in, does Joe Biden have dementia?
How far do you get before it autofills, does Joe Biden have dementia?
You get to Does J? That's right.
Does, and then the first letter of Joe Biden, autofills have dementia.
Now, if you're Google, do you want people to know that the most popular search is, does Joe Biden have dementia?
Now, is there any scenario you can imagine in which this happened naturally?
No. No, you can't.
And so, given that it's public, you know, you can just test it.
I tested it myself.
I saw somebody tweet it, and I thought, I better test this.
Because, you know, it's the sort of thing you read and then you think, I don't know if this is true.
Because if it were true, it would be a huge, gigantic example that would be impossible to question That's election interference.
Is there any way to not define that as election interference?
Is there any lawyerly argument?
And again, I'm trying to be open-minded here.
If there were an argument for how this is not election interference, I would mention it even in the context of saying why I agreed with it or disagreed with it.
As far as I know, there is no argument offered for why that would be legitimate.
Can somebody fact check that?
I'm not aware of any argument that says that's natural.
And if it's not natural, it's generated by people and it clearly has a tremendous effect on the national consciousness.
Now, If what I say is true, and there's an obvious public, public being the key mind-blowing part of this, you don't have to do research.
It's public.
It's right in front of you.
Why is this not the biggest story in the news?
Because it's not the biggest story anywhere.
It's the biggest thing, but it's not in the news.
Why? Here's why, and you're not going to like it.
Are you ready? We don't form our own opinions on politics.
We don't form our own opinions.
We believe we do.
It's one of the great illusions of life.
We believe that we're looking at sources, forming our own opinions.
A little bit of that happens.
But in general, the big picture is that your opinions on politics are assigned to you.
Literally assigned it to you.
So if you're watching more of the news on the right, they'll assign you a certain opinion and you will adopt it.
If you're watching more of the news on the left, they will assign you your opinion and you will adopt it.
Yeah, there are a few people who can think through that, but it's rare.
In general, you are assigned your opinion.
And here's the part that will make your head blow off.
The reason that the biggest story in the country, if not the world, is this Google manipulation and brainwashing, the reason it's not the biggest story is because it hasn't been assigned.
Let that sink in.
The only reason it's not the headline story is that they haven't assigned it to anybody.
We don't come up with independent opinions.
It's not a thing.
Opinions are assigned, and this isn't assigned.
And until somebody assigns it and says, here's your opinion, we won't act on it, and we can't really deal with it.
It's like, if it hasn't been validated by the assigners of opinions, and I'm not one, so I'm not an official assigner of opinions, I can tell you about it, you can hear it, You can hear all the details.
You can logically understand it.
You can logically know this is a gigantic problem.
I mean gigantic. Maybe one of the biggest problems of civilization.
That's how big it is.
Bigger than climate change, by far.
It's not even close. If the citizens of the United States are being brainwashed to this extent, without their agreement or understanding, Would you agree that's bigger than climate change?
Because that would affect everything.
It would affect climate change.
It would affect whether we go to war.
It would affect the economy.
It's by far the biggest story.
But it's never been assigned to you.
So you don't hold it in your head as a big story.
And even having heard it from me, it still won't be a big story.
You will leave this periscope, and it will leave your consciousness.
But if it had been constantly on the news and social media, it would be the biggest topic in your mind.
And you would think nothing was more important than that.
You do not have opinions.
They are assigned to you.
Alright. So, if that didn't blow your head off a little bit, I don't know, I'll win.
Here are some of the destructive lies from the Kamala Harris group.
So she's talking about, as is the Governor of California, that the climate change is what's fueling and intensifying the wildfires, as I mentioned.
Now, what is the evidence for that?
And I've asked people, can you give me some evidence that it's climate change causing this?
And sure enough, they'll send me to a source.
And it'll be a source that says, climate change is making this worse.
And then I'll say, alright, now connect the dots.
I hear the claim, but why?
And where's your data?
What study shows that?
And it's just not there.
So there are people who keep reading the claim, and the claim is in fairly reputable places.
So they'll read the claim, and they won't notice that there's no connecting tissue to any kind of data or anything.
Just some hand-waving that might make things drier at the same time it's making things wetter.
And that's basically the argument, which is a non-argument.
And then you say, well, maybe we should ask the experts at forestry.
How many experts in the country who are experts at forest fires and forest management, how many of those people think the problem is climate change?
It's kind of zero.
It's basically zero.
The people who know forest management say, well, just look at it.
We didn't do forest management.
We got exactly the outcome that that would predict, which is why there's a thing called forest management, removing the underbrush, etc.
There's a reason it's a thing, because it predicts this.
There's a direct connection.
Now, is it true That climate change also has some impact?
I don't know. Do you know?
Because if we know that the forest management piece predicts all of it, could it be that there is an extra 5% kicker on there from climate change?
Could be. I would be completely open to the argument that it's a little 10% worse because of climate change.
Maybe 20%. But there's no science for that.
There's no science for that.
It's just maybe. Maybe.
Who knows? So when you see somebody like Harris promote a lie that big, she's either completely anti-science, which is a problem, especially since she accuses the other side of that, or she's telling one of the biggest lies you could ever tell, Which would tell you not to do forest management.
Why would you do forest management if Kamala Harris, who might be president someday, if a person this important is telling you it's climate change, why would you do forest management?
Doesn't seem to be a variable, according to her.
This is the kind of lie that you can't compare this to anything Trump has ever done.
Maybe there's an exception.
That I can't think of.
But the worst things Trump has ever said, if you believe them, you would still end up doing the right thing.
Right? So let's say the worst thing he said was, there are a lot of rapists coming in over the border.
And you say to yourself, that's just a terrible thing to say.
Maybe. I'm not even going to argue the point.
But what would be the downside?
The downside is we would get a better border security.
And then there would be, in fact, fewer rapists coming in because there would be fewer people.
So you don't even need to know what the ratio of rapists to regular immigrants is.
You would end up ahead, right?
If you liked immigration, of course.
So the Trump, quote, lies all have that quality, I think, where if you believe them, you'd end up in a good place.
The Kamala Harris ones...
If you believe them, you end up with a divided country.
You end up with California on fire.
I don't know. Maybe you end up being friends with China while they're trying to destroy you.
All of their lies are the kind that can kill you.
Whereas Trump's lies are the kind that, oh yeah, well, it wasn't exactly true, but we came out ahead.
And obviously he knew that, which is why he framed it that way.
All right. I know you want me to talk about this.
There's a post on 4chan.
You ready for this?
Okay, so the first part you need to know, it's on 4chan and it's anonymous.
So what kind of credibility should you place on something that's on 4chan and it's anonymous?
The answer is none.
So if we can be honest, let's try to keep some kind of rational thought here.
The credibility should be none.
What credibility should you put on the Bob Woodward anonymous, or anybody else's, anonymous stories about President Trump?
Zero. The same.
Now you could argue that if you've checked on the anonymous source and you found out at least it's a real person that could have been in the room, that that's a little more confirming than just an anonymous stranger on 4chan.
I can see that.
But it's such a small difference that it's more rational just to say these are two things in the category of non-credible things.
That said, since it is now the election season and apparently it's okay to say things that are anonymous reports, I will report this to you with the caveat I wouldn't think it's credible.
But there's something I want to call out in it.
There's a detail in this report, it's about Biden having dementia, so that it's reportedly some campaign insider, who is now no longer with the campaign, who reports that it was just common knowledge that Biden was on dementia medication, and that the dementia medication would cause incontinence, and that the real reason they don't want him answering questions or staying too long in public is the incontinence.
Again, this is something an anonymous person on 4chan is saying.
The odds of anything in that category being true, not so good.
But I'm reading this thing and trying to answer the question just to my own satisfaction of, is it obviously untrue?
I mean, can you pick it up by the way it's told?
Or is there something in there, a tell, a little signal, That there might be something true.
And here's what's interesting.
There's a detail in this post that it's hard for me to imagine somebody would have thought of this detail to put it in a fake story.
And here's the detail.
The detail, again, it's an allegation.
Don't take any of this as credible.
But the allegation is that the Biden team has had actual, literal meetings On the topic of what kind of depends undergarment would cause the least amount of obvious visual something, but also would crinkle the least.
That wouldn't have a crinkling sound.
Now that detail either means it's true, or that this post was created by a really good liar.
A really good liar.
And you can't rule out either of those possibilities.
Because if you were a really good liar, and you wanted to put a rumor someplace, well, 4chan would be a good place to do it, right?
So I only call out this technique.
If you're trying to determine if somebody is lying about a story, look for the weird detail.
Because a liar doesn't come up with weird details.
They're trying to just give you the most basic version.
Yes, there was a gun on the sidewalk.
I picked it up, blah, blah. But they wouldn't throw in something like, I picked up the gun and there was like, I don't know, there was something on it.
Like, I don't know if it fell in some tar or it was gum or whatever.
So I'm scraping off the gum, off of the gun, and it goes off.
If somebody tells you a story like that, you say to yourself, okay, nobody makes up that story.
Nobody makes up a story they found a gun on the ground and there was...
Some kind of stuff on it.
I mean, it could be made up, but you wouldn't make up that story.
You would make up something that just sounded more real.
So anyway, the crinkle part of the story stands out as either a very experienced liar or true.
But it's definitely not a bad lie.
You can rule that part out.
All right. Here are some of the Biden lies that people suggested.
That if Biden had been president, he could have prevented all the COVID deaths.
That's crazy. That Biden was for the travel ban.
There's a doubt on that one.
That he was against NAFTA at one point, that he's for fracking.
The fracking one, by the way, seems to be a lie on the conservative side.
So here's me.
Just take note here.
When I said that the campaign ads from both sides are lies, well, here's an example.
This is just a lie from the Trump side.
So the truth on this one is that, I think, is that Joe Biden was against fracking on public government land.
And so there's a quote saying that.
And then there are other quotes saying he's not against fracking.
So I believe that he said he's against it on government land, but he's not going to ban it in private, where most of it, I imagine, happens.
Whereas Kamala Harris has said directly that she's against fracking, but she's the vice president.
It doesn't really matter what her opinion was, because she would have to adapt Biden's.
Now, is it A giant lie?
Not really.
Because I think the Trump campaign is, let's say, in the neighborhood of truth, without being technically true.
They're in the neighborhood of truth because it is fair to say that the entire pressures of the base would cause Biden to probably fold and he would probably become anti-fracking, especially if Kamala Harris is anti-fracking.
Once he got in the job, you can easily imagine That he's so close to being anti-fracking, you can imagine his base pushing him over the line.
So I would say that's another example of the Trump campaign, or Trump, saying something that might be not exactly true in terms of the fact-checking, but it's basically directionally true.
Even if it's not true, it leads you to the right place.
Because the Trump campaign wants you to know that these are two people who are not too firm on fracking in a party that's very much against it, and if they get power, what are the odds that Biden's weak little complaint that, no, no, no, I only meant government land, is that believable?
Could you depend on it?
Probably not. Probably couldn't depend on that.
And so I would say that even though it fails the fact-checking, it certainly gets you in the right direction.
There's a whole bunch of other lies here.
I won't mention them.
I asked if anybody could come up with the first documented, as in the internet documented, case of somebody who had seriously accused Biden of dementia.
And I wondered how far back that went.
And I don't know for sure, but a lot of people did some research for me.
Thank you. And there's a Mark Levin quote in which he says, seriously, I think Joe Biden may have dementia.
And then he goes on to talk about it.
This was April 28, 2012, eight years ago.
So if this stands as the earliest serious question about dementia, I think Mark Levin gets the award for the first one to spot it.
I would say that Biden wasn't really on my radar back then, so I wasn't looking for it one way or the other.
I think my first mention of it was...
Somebody says that I mentioned it in August 27th of 2019.
So that might have been my earliest mention, but there are mentions in 2008 that were sort of semi-serious.
So there are a number of people who talked about Biden being slow in 2008 and 2009, but they stopped short Of asserting an actual medical diagnosis.
It was more like... It was a little bit more like just insulting a politician on the other side.
He's stupid. He's slow.
He's losing it. That sort of thing.
But the actual...
I'm completely serious.
I think there's dementia.
I think Mark Levin might have the winner on 2012.
So think about that.
Eight years ago. Eight years ago.
A smart observer...
Levin is definitely smart.
A smart observer picked this up eight years ago.
Robin Williams in 2008.
But you know, I think a lot of them were just joking.
But I think Levin was actually dead serious on that.
In October 2012, Dr.
Keith Ablo mentioned that he thought Biden might have dementia.
Or at least it had to be considered, he thought.
Because if you're a doctor, you don't diagnose people you haven't met.
So Dr.
Ablo was more saying it has to be considered.
Alright. Here's an interesting factoid.
There's data that shows that half of the donations in 2019 for a democratic action group, ActBlue, came from untraceable, quote, unemployed donors.
And there was $400 million in donations.
And so the thinking is that maybe these were untraceable foreign donations because in the United States it would be weird if half of all your donations were from people who didn't have jobs.
I am not sold on this story.
Call me a skeptic on this.
It sounds a little bit too perfect like a story that you'd see in a campaign season, but here's my problem with it.
I don't know if everybody who donates to every organization gets the same form to fill out.
It would be easy to imagine that the people who got donations from this group had a form in which the employment box looked optional.
I'm just making something up here to show you that there are other ways this could be explained.
Maybe the box was optional or maybe it was explained differently, you know, how important it was or something like that.
But here's the thing you should understand.
Most people in America don't work.
So don't be fooled by the fact that there was a 4% unemployment rate at the time these donations were coming in in 2019.
A 4% unemployment rate means half of the people in the country don't have a job.
Did you know that? Go out in the street during the workday any week, and the street is filled with people.
The stores are filled with people who are not working.
You know, all the seniors, all the spouses who are in between jobs, or the other spouse works, maybe one stays at home, which is working in itself.
There are students, there are children.
I think there are a hundred-some million workers in a country of 300-some million people.
So, I wonder if the Republican numbers are right.
Meaning that the Republicans show only a tiny percentage don't have jobs, but the Democrat donations show that half of them or so don't have jobs.
Half of them is closer to real.
Because if you took all the retired people, etc., who give $10, I think half of the people would be unemployed in a normal anything.
If a big group of people just Met across the street from your house.
It was just a big public rally.
How many people who went to a public rally have jobs?
Half? About half, right?
If you have a job, you can easily be misled into thinking lots of other people have jobs.
It turns out that having a job, it's not even the majority.
Most people have had a job or will have a job, but at any moment, most people don't have jobs.
All right. Here's another fact check one.
So Jake Tapper tried to fact check Peter Navarro, today I think it was, in which Peter Navarro claimed that Biden said it was xenophobic to stop travel from China.
And Jake Tapper quite rigorously fact checked him and said, nope, never happened.
Joe Biden never said that the China ban was xenophobic.
Is that true or false?
What do you think? Do you think it's a true fact that Joe Biden once said that the travel ban from China was xenophobic?
Well, I went to PolitiFact to find out.
Here's what PolitiFact says as they rate it mostly, it's mostly false.
So PolitiFact says it's mostly false that Biden called it xenophobic to ban travel from China.
But here's how they word it.
Carefully listen to this wording from PolitiFact.
So it talked about the situation and then it says, quote, but Biden has not directly said that the travel restriction was xenophobic.
So therefore it's false.
So PolitiFact says he has not directly said that China ban was xenophobic.
Okay. But they continue.
He has used that phrase in reference to Trump and his handling of the coronavirus outbreak.
What? What does it mean if Joe Biden did use the phrase against Trump that it was xenophobic the way he was handling the coronavirus outbreak, but he wasn't talking about the travel ban?
It happened about the same time as the travel ban, you know, just after it, and yet there was something else that the president did that was xenophobic that didn't have to do with the travel ban?
Okay. Okay.
Could it be that he was calling it the China virus or the Chinese virus?
I think you could say that was maybe offensive, but is it xenophobic?
The only xenophobic thing he did, according to the Democrats, was the travel ban.
So yeah, technically, maybe he didn't directly say it, but is...
Is the Trump campaign lying when they say he did say it?
Again, it's one of those directional kind of things.
If you were to believe the Trump campaign, you know, that they were technically true, and Biden said that he was being xenophobic, would you be misled?
Would it cause you to make a decision that's wrong?
No. No.
You might be not technically exactly accurate, but you would be the opposite of misled.
You would be led to Joe Biden saying that Trump is xenophobic all the time, which is true.
So, that's a weird fact check.
There are no real facts anymore.
Everything is subjective.
I think I have to fact check this myself.
But I think that Biden said it was xenophobic, the Europe ban.
So that technically you can say the Chinese ban, he did not call xenophobic.
He called it in reference to the European travel ban.
But check that. I saw it on the internet, but I don't know if it's true.
Alright. Did PolitiFact give Biden's actual quotes?
I think he gave one of them, I forget.
Calling it the China virus is accurate.
It is. Calling it the Chinese virus I think is a problem.
Because Chinese is a word that refers to the people as well as the government.
That's a little unfair. No, that's totally unfair.
It's totally unfair to blame the Chinese people for what the government decides to do.
But calling it the China virus is just a description of where it happened.
Totally fair, because we call the other viruses by their place.
And the president made that adjustment.
I say this a million times, but judging people from what they used to do, as opposed to how they corrected it, just feels like a loser way to go through life.
It seems like the smarter way to go through life is if somebody used to have an opinion you don't like, and then they changed it to an opinion you like, You should say, well, there's an awesome person.
That's an awesome person.
They agree with me. That would be the better way to go through life.
Alright. Somebody says, stop it.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Have you ever been fact-checked?
Yeah, all the time. Incorrectly.
Probably 100% of the time.
I think I've been fact-checked, not by politifact, exactly.
I've been fact-checked by the news a million times.
Not a million times, but I have been fact-checked by the news.
I don't think they've ever fact-checked me correctly.
Not once. Well, Chinese food is not racist because Chinese people eat Chinese food.
Is that an insult or something?
Can't even drive two hours away from the Bay Area to go to a gym or go for a run.
Yeah, the entire state of California is in smoke right now.
There's no place you can drive to that doesn't look like outside my window, as far as I know.
All right. Just looking at your comments now.
What about the Spanish flu?
Oh, so somebody's saying, why was it called the Spanish flu as opposed to the Spain flu?
Does it matter? Does it matter?
It doesn't matter because in the old days, if they were racist in the old days, that was the old days.
So I don't think we should use the standard of the early 1900s for how we name things.
If people are more sensitive today, that's fine.
By the way, I'm never the one who complains about all forms of social correctness.
I think a lot of that's useful.
I think that They call it political correctness, but I would call it social correctness.
I think that social correctness is something we should be tuning all the time.
You just don't want to go wild with it.
You don't want to go too far, but it's good stuff.
All right. What will be the October surprise?
Well, the obvious one would be Biden being replaced.
The obvious one would be Biden being replaced.
You want a bigger one?
A bigger Saudi peace deal?
How about some kind of a Saudi-Israel deal?
That'd be pretty big.
Somebody says they like my shirt and my lighting.
Oh, the reason you like my lighting is because I did it wrong.
My lighting is supposed to have the curtains down, but I forgot to put them down.
The only reason the lighting works today is because there's so much smoke inside that I'm getting a good lighting effect.
