Episode 1126 Scott Adams: Why Democrats Can't Predict Well, Our Non-Credible Election, Gingrich and Soros, Science Goes Subjective
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
John Kerry, spectacularly wrong
AG Barr rioter comments
Ross Gerber explains contested election paths
AI has already taken over and found how to reproduce
MSNBC, nothing but crazy mind-reading
Newt Gingrich can't mention George Soros on FOX?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
There was some breaking news I just had to catch up on.
I don't know if you caught it, but you knew that this last month or so before the election You knew it was going to get good.
And man, do we have some stuff coming.
But before we get to that, let us do the most important part of the day.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or 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 except the news better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Good stuff.
So the news that I just saw before I logged on here was that there's another accusation against President Trump that in 1997 a woman went to the U.S. Open with her boyfriend and with Trump as guests and that he, He quote, according to her, these are her words,
that she put his tongue down her throat that she put his tongue down her throat and it felt like tentacles.
No, you can't write any better than that.
*laughs* And all I can see is, all I can see is that, you know, it turns out that Trump is actually a lizard person from another planet.
He's actually got like a tentacle tongue.
And I heard somebody say the other day that, I think Michael Cohen said he never laughs.
And I thought, Well, maybe he doesn't want to laugh because if he opens his mouth that tongue will come out, the tentacle.
So, well, we hope this didn't really happen.
Her boyfriend says he doesn't have any memory of it.
She apparently told him about it and he says he doesn't remember it, I think.
So, I don't think this is going to move the dial.
It's not going to move the dial.
And of course, there's nothing funny about sexual assault.
I'm just saying we don't believe every story we hear in the election season.
All right. So last night, there was a glitch in the simulation.
And I'm going to tell you the story, and then you can interpret it any way you want.
So it was the day before yesterday.
I woke up in the morning.
And I couldn't read for about an hour or so.
Now when I say I couldn't read, I mean I could look at words, and I knew what each word meant, but I couldn't read them.
And I thought to myself, what's going on here?
And I thought, oh, it's just because I'm looking at somebody's tweet that's confusing, and it's so poorly written that I just don't even know what it says.
So I went to a simpler tweet that was just one sentence, and I couldn't read it.
I knew what the words were.
I knew I could sound out every word.
I could sound them out in order.
But I couldn't read it.
I didn't know what it meant.
I still had language skills and everything else.
Then it got weirder. Things started disappearing.
Just like a simulation.
I was looking at a tennis ball that was sitting on the floor, and I watched it disappear.
Completely. I'm just looking at the floor, and the floor is now empty.
And as I watched it, the ball reappeared.
And I reproduced it several times with other objects, etc.
So things started glitching.
So as you might imagine, No, actually I wasn't, I was not even a little bit high.
So if you're waiting for the part where I was on some kind of drug or something, sorry.
So, and then I had a splitting headache, which was weird.
Anyway, I ended up at the emergency room last night, having my, literally having my head scanned to see what was in there.
Turns out there was nothing in there.
I know that's an old joke.
But I didn't have any kind of brain abnormality and a day later it has worked itself out.
I had high blood pressure and some other stuff I'm working out.
But here's something you should never say to your medical professional.
Are you ready? No, it wasn't a stroke.
They checked for that. So they checked all the obvious stuff.
So if you're going to try to guess what it is, you're not going to succeed because we already went through the list.
Doesn't look like it's any of those.
Doesn't look like it's serious, but we'll see.
Anyway, here's something you don't want to tell your healthcare professional.
When I was first talking on the phone the other day about the high blood pressure, I don't remember why.
Oh, I remember why.
It was because the nurse was trying to figure out if I had some trauma that was causing my blood pressure to go high.
And so one of the standard questions they ask Is have you thought about taking your own life?
Now here's a question you should not ask a literal person.
Because it's one of those questions that you know what the right answer is.
But I didn't give the right answer.
If she had asked, are you planning to kill yourself?
I would have said, no, no, not even close.
Had she said, are you seriously considering it?
I would have said, no.
No, I'm not considering it.
But she didn't say those words.
She said, have you thought about it?
To which I said, because apparently I have a little bit too much Asperger's for my own good.
I said, of course.
Who hasn't thought about it?
And she said, well, I haven't.
And I said, What?
What? How could you not think about it?
I'm not saying I want to do it.
I have no interest, no inclination, nothing's nudging me in that direction.
But as an intellectual thought, of course I've thought about it.
How do you not think about it?
It's just one of those things that's in the atmosphere.
And I said, indeed, I've probably thought about it every day since I was 12 years old.
I don't think I ever go a day without thinking about it.
But I don't plan it.
I just think about it.
So it turns out that if you've ever said that once, if you've ever said that once, you will get quizzed on that every time you go in.
Because once that's on your record, so don't make that mistake I made.
Unless you're actually quizzed.
I'm serious about it.
So I don't know what that was all about, but I'll tell you the funniest part is they were testing my vision.
So, you know, I'm standing in front of the vision chart, and I'm wearing my mask, of course, but I also have my glasses on.
So I'm trying to read the vision chart as I'm breathing, and my mask is fogging up, and I'm trying to explain to the woman that my glasses are foggy, and that's the reason I can't read the smaller type.
And I'm trying desperately to convince her, not only that I'm not trying to take my own life, but I could probably see the chart if my glasses were not fogged up.
No, seriously, seriously, I would be able to see that.
My brain, it's not my brain.
No, no, there's nothing wrong with my brain.
I think my eyes are okay.
I would be able to see that if my glasses were not fogged.
Please, please, don't put me in a machine.
Anyway, so here's the good news.
I went to the emergency room and it was almost empty.
It was almost empty.
And so I got the best medical service you've ever seen.
I mean, I got really, really good medical service.
I got lucky.
It was a day they didn't have many emergencies.
So enough about me.
Why is it that Democrats are so bad at predicting things?
Have you ever noticed that?
There's a very funny John Kerry Video going around.
And he was talking somewhere in public.
And you know how Kerry puts his glasses down like this?
So that he can talk to you like he's much more haughty and arrogant.
And he knows a lot more than you do.
Because he's literally looking down his nose at you, down his glasses.
And in the video he was saying, there's one thing I'm going to tell you.
I'm paraphrasing. There's one thing you have to know.
There will never, ever be peace in the Middle East unless the Palestinian situation is first.
I have talked to all the leaders in the Middle East.
They're all my best friends.
We hang out together.
I just talked to them this morning.
And if there's one thing I can tell you for sure, take it to the bank.
There will never, listen to me, listen to me and read my lips, there will never, never, never, never, you idiots, never be any kind of a deal in the Middle East until the Palestinian situation is fixed first.
first.
I could watch that video all day long because not only is he spectacularly wrong, as we can see by recent events, but he was really sure about it.
He was really, really sure about it.
I'm saying you're still making medical advice.
I did have a CAT scan, so everything's fine with my brain.
Here are some suggestions for why Democrats are unusually bad at predicting.
And this is just sort of a working hypothesis I have.
So I'm going to be monitoring this to see if there's a pattern here.
The first one is that I believe Democrats have social priorities that might bias them.
So they might have a preferred way they would like things to turn out that is just a little disconnected from reality.
So that's the first thing. A preference for how the world should be, which is maybe biasing them.
I can imagine that conservatives would have a different...
Kind of bias the other way.
I think the Democrats are far more susceptible to fake news.
I'll tell you in a bit about my smartest liberal friend, Democrat friend.
I'll give you an update on him in a minute.
But he falls for every fake news.
All of them. Every fake news.
I'll give you an update now. So I always talk about my smartest Democrat friend and what he will believe, which is just amazing, the things he believes.
So every time there'll be a debunk of something I know he believes, I send it over to him.
And it's starting to make a difference.
So I've debunked just about everything he believed, but he still fights against the debunks.
It's like, well, you know, I'm not sure that's quite a debunk, or he changes the subject.
But this one was pretty clean.
I sent him the report over that said there is no validation for the idea that Russians were offering a bounty for American soldiers.
That was one of his biggest complaints.
So I sent it over.
It came from the military.
It was official, very reliable report that says, no, we've looked into it for however many weeks.
We can't find any credible allegation there.
It's not credible.
So my friend actually I was surprised.
He said, well, you know, it's good that information is updated and he accepted it.
I don't know if I've ever seen this before.
Have you? And when I say I've never seen it before, I actually mean that literally.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody, a Democrat, who you give them information and then they read it and they go, oh, that's new information.
I will revise my opinion of this thing.
I've never seen it, but it happened.
It actually happened yesterday.
And I was amazed. And as soon as that happened, he moved to a new hoax, which is that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous.
And I was like, I have to start all over again.
Hydroxychloroquine is only dangerous in the hoax scenario where there was one study where they overdosed senior citizens.
But if you used it in the way it's supposed to be used, no danger.
So there was no limit to how many new hoaxes he would be willing to take on, as long as he had lots of them.
And it is my belief that there is a greater propensity to believe fake news on the left, if only because there's more of it.
That could reverse.
If we had a Democrat as president, I think the right is a little bit more fake newsy.
It's just whoever's out of power tends to be the fake news one.
So that is the Democrats at the moment.
Here's the other thing they get wrong.
Democrats seem to ignore human incentives.
Republicans, they only design two incentives.
Capitalism? You're going to have to work or you'll starve.
The legal system?
You'd better obey the law or you'll go to jail.
So the entire idea of Republicans is that there are these things called human beings, and you need to design a system to control their worst impulses.
Democracy, you know, you get a lot of dumb people, but maybe on average they can get the right answer, etc.
I think that Democrats have some weird opinion that people can just be good if you browbeat them enough.
You know, if I remind you enough to be a good person in the way that I want you to be, you'll do it.
I'm just going to have to keep on you.
Just keep reminding you what you should be and what you should not be.
Have I shamed you enough?
Can I shame you enough?
There's a difference there.
They don't understand that you can always predict that humans will be humans today and tomorrow.
So you can know what they'll do tomorrow just because they're still human.
Of course they'll do that tomorrow.
And then, of course, you've got the Trump derangement syndrome, which blinds them a little bit, or a lot.
And then, in many cases, there's a lack of a talent stack, as I say.
So if it's just a journalist, for example, or an artist...
They just might not have the skills to understand their world.
But I believe that this is a real thing.
And I'll bet...
Oh, this is good.
Are you ready for this? I'll bet you, you could do a study in which you looked at the predicted bets of Democrats and the predicted bets of Republicans.
I'll bet there'd be a difference.
And I don't think they ask you that when you sign up for Predict.
They don't ask you what your inclinations are.
They just take your bets.
But I bet you could do a poll.
I bet you could say, you know, do you use a betting service?
What's your party affiliation?
And then, you know, show us your results.
Probably. Or you could do a study where you just randomly pick A bunch of Democrats and randomly pick Republicans and say, we're going to give you all $1,000, use them in the betting markets, and then we'll get back to you in six months.
You can bet on anything you want.
There's no limit to what you can bet on.
Just any topic you want.
Just see if Democrats or Republicans are better at betting.
Would you make a bet on how that went?
I feel like Republicans would win that.
But I'm not positive. It'd be fun to test.
All right. Bill Barr is making news again.
He's always fun to watch.
He's one of my favorite people just to hear him talk.
But I feel like he made one persuasion error that didn't need to be made, which is unusual.
You know, there's some people who make lots of them.
But when Bill Barr makes what, in my opinion...
Maybe he's just smarter than me, which I can't rule out.
But in my opinion, this is a big persuasion error, and it goes like this.
Barr said that he defined systemic racism and the systemic part to mean that it's built into the government institutions.
I think he mostly means government institutions, but he said institutions.
Now, first of all, that's the wrong definition.
So if you're trying to convince somebody else, as opposed to just talking to Republicans, which has its value, but in an election season, or if you're trying to make the country, let's say, more relaxed about potential violence, you're really talking to everybody.
So he should have been talking to everybody, and then he very...
Very unusually defined systemic racism completely wrong.
Because it's not about just the government institutions.
And I would agree with Barr that the government institutions aren't too bad.
Everything can be fixed.
But I think the government institutions are well into the 95% pretty fair.
You always got to work on that last 5%.
So, here's what he could have done better.
Here's what I would have done.
I would have agreed and amplified.
And every time that I have an opportunity to show you how to do this, I like to call it out because it's so powerful.
I would agree and amplify.
So I would say, yes, there is systemic racism.
It's a big problem.
So imagine me being Bill Barr and I'm saying this.
Yeah, systemic racism, it's a big, big problem.
Now, all the people on the left just said, what?
What? Did you just agree that systemic racism is a gigantic problem?
What? You have my attention now.
So that's the first part.
First part of persuasion is you've got to get their attention.
So you agree.
That's also persuasion, pacing.
Systemic racism, big problem.
Let me tell you where it's not a big problem.
Is in the government. We do that pretty well.
Could do it better. Certainly could fix some things about the police.
We'd like to do that. But mostly the government has done quite a good job over the years.
Let me tell you where there's systemic racism.
Man, it's bad.
And if there's any way we could help, we'd sure like to.
And it has to do with the teachers' unions.
If you fix the teachers' unions, you get yourself better schools, better choice, and then Everybody's in better shape to cut through whatever discrimination there still is.
You can't get rid of it all.
We're just not that kind of species.
We can try.
We can have it as a goal.
We can fight like heck to get rid of racism everywhere we find it.
And I'm dedicated to doing that.
But let's be honest.
Sometimes you have to cut through it.
And a good education will let you slice through it In a way that maybe if you didn't have an education, you'd just walk into the wall.
So that's what I would do.
I would agree that systemic racism exists.
I would amplify it.
I would move it over to the teachers' union and say, how can I help?
That's how I would do it.
All right. But Barr does say about Black Lives Matter, he says that there are They're not interested in black lives.
They're interested in props.
That's pretty direct.
I don't know that...
I'm trying to remember when the switch came.
Wasn't there a point when no Republican would have said out loud that Black Lives Matter, the organization, is bad or a problem?
Wouldn't you say? I feel as if you didn't see major political figures...
Of any kind. Going against Black Lives Matter, the organization.
Now, of course, everybody agrees with the concept of Black Lives Matter.
I've literally never heard anybody argue that.
But it's interesting that he can go right at it now.
And I think that's a result of the protests, etc.
I think Black Lives Matter has completely destroyed its brand, its reputation, its goodwill.
To the point where people like me can just say, no, it's not even helping black people.
In fact, I would say that Black Lives Matter is one of the biggest problems for black America because they're doing the wrong things and just making people mad when they could have easily done the right things and made people happy.
All people, not just sometimes people.
All right. And then Barr was also pointing out that increasingly the message of the Democrats is that no Biden, no peace.
He said Biden or no peace, but I like using it as a slogan.
No Biden, no peace.
It's pretty obvious that it's turned into a blackmail situation.
No Biden, no peace.
Now, interestingly, President Trump has said that he was going to, quote, put down any riots after the election.
How do you like that phrase?
Put down. Trump said he would put down and he riots.
Put down is an interesting choice of words because it sounds like kill.
You know, if you put down your dog, you're killing it.
So he was going to put down the protests.
That's a pretty aggressive word without being an aggressive word.
There's a report today that I guess Some officials around the White House were asking about getting a heat ray that makes...
I guess it makes protesters skin heat up so you can keep protesters at bay with this heat gun.
And I guess it exists.
And some of the law enforcement people were looking for them and trying to find if there were any available for the protests.
But I think there's a bigger...
There's a bigger question here.
I feel like we need a lot of different non-lethal force situations.
It just feels like shooting people isn't just going to work anymore.
We just need something that knocks somebody out immediately.
Is there no such thing as a spray you can put on somebody that just knocks them out?
We don't have anything like that.
I feel like we should do a lot more work on non-lethal So the retailer H&M decided to cut ties with Chinese suppliers, the ones that come from the province where the Uyghurs are in the prison camps.
So one by one, you're seeing American and other companies pull away from China because the Trump administration is putting a lot of pressure on the Uyghur situation.
And that's pretty darn effective.
It looks like it's going to be death by a thousand cuts for China as company after company after company just sort of slowly pulls out or decouples.
China's got some big problems coming.
I don't know if they know it.
I feel as though there is a creeping change happening That because it's not sudden doesn't become news.
Something becomes news if there's a sudden change and it's noteworthy.
But if something just gradually 1% a year goes up, eventually it could be a big change, but it takes so long it never becomes news.
It's just what's happening.
And I think that's happening with the protests, meaning that I think law enforcement is increasing at this point.
In most places, they're starting to increase the penalties and increasing the law enforcement, let's say, how much energy they're putting into it.
But because they didn't ramp it up all at once, they're just sort of turning it up a little bit.
It's like, hey, yesterday we arrested nine people.
Today, 11 people.
Tomorrow, 14 people.
Eventually, you're going to get most of the dangerous people.
And if you don't let them out, which has been the big problem, you actually keep them in and charge them with serious stuff.
And I think Bart was talking about actually sedition.
You know, actually sedition.
That's pretty serious. So I think that's happening, except maybe in Minneapolis where the police have decided that they don't want to be police anymore.
If you were the police in Minneapolis, would you risk your life for the city that just screwed you?
You'd like to think they would, just because they're good people, but again, human motivation.
How did the Democrats in Minneapolis, what did they think would happen When they took a gigantic dump on the heads of their own police force, what possibly could they have predicted that might have happened by having fewer police doing their job and getting crapped on by their own people instead of helping to do what they were meant to do, which is to stop crime?
Who could ever predict where that would go?
It's very consistent, right?
Democrats don't seem to be able to predict.
All right. There was some guy who got picked up, arrested for being one of the laser pointer people who tried to blind a police officer.
I think he did actually blind a police officer.
And I've said this a number of times, but I'm just going to keep saying it until it sinks in.
The penalty for blinding a police officer intentionally...
Premeditated. You know, you bring the thing to an event for the express purpose of blinding a police officer.
That should be the death penalty.
Does anybody disagree?
Now, you can disagree maybe if you just have an opinion that there should never be a death penalty.
But if anything can be a death penalty, that needs to be one.
Because it's too easy to get away with, apparently.
They've caught some of them, but it must be easy to get away with.
And if something's easy to get away with and is that dangerous, and that destabilizing to the system, because we do need police, I feel as though the death penalty would be appropriate.
Anybody else? Do you think the death penalty would be appropriate for laser pointer people blinding police officers?
Remember, this is permanent blindness.
Permanent blindness. And it could be in both eyes.
Yeah. Anyway, well, I'll keep pushing on that.
CNN had an article that was unusually good.
I know you don't expect me to say this, but Ross Garber, who has several descriptors, I guess he's an investigative, legal writer person, so he knows what he's talking about.
I don't know if he's a lawyer or But he's an investigative, legal person.
And he wrote a very helpful article about what will happen if the election is not settled in the time that it should be settled.
In other words, if we don't have a vote that the public and all of our officials agree is the result, what do you do?
Now, do you know? Do you know what happens if we don't get a result?
Because I feel like we need to be taught that, and it's really important.
Because just in terms of the psychology of the country, if you had a month to prepare for what it's going to look like, Then when it looks like that, or even if it looks like some form of that, you're going to say, okay, that's what I expected, and this is the way it will go, and this is the way it will be decided.
That is very stabilizing.
But if we just hit a brick wall of, uh-oh, we didn't get a result, and we're not sure when we'll have a result, and the country doesn't quite know what to do with that, The public is going to think, well, I guess we have to have a riot or something, because they wouldn't know what the process is.
It is critically important, critically important, to the point of preventing a violent revolution in the country, or at least lots of bloodshed, to inform the public, what is the process?
And, helpfully, on CNN, I'll give them credit for this, Ross Garber did a very...
Clear, unbiased description of what the process would be.
I don't think I understand it totally, but let me give you some highlights.
If a number of things happen that the delegates cannot decide, the electoral college folks, if they can't decide who their vote should go to, let's say the situation is one candidate won by the deadline, but there were extra votes coming in, so people said, hey, I think we're going to still give it to the person who got the most votes, even if they came in after the deadline.
And then other people would say, hey, you can't do that.
It's after the deadline.
So you'd have this situation where you couldn't trust the electoral votes because they wouldn't even be playing the same game.
You wouldn't have a system.
So what do you do? At some point, it goes to Congress.
And here's where it gets weird.
So Congress would pick the president...
The House would pick the President, and then it's really weird.
The Senate would pick the Vice President.
But they don't vote the way they normally vote, which would be a Democrat majority in House.
Rather, I think they get one vote for state, or it's based on the legislators in the state or something.
But the current situation is That if votes went along party lines, even though the House is controlled by the Democrats, the weird way that the law is written, there would be more Republican votes.
So Trump would get elected by the House, even though it's Democrat.
The House would have to elect him because there would be so many Republicans who would vote for him.
But here it gets weird.
The Senate could pick Kamala Harris.
You could actually end up with President Trump, Vice President Kamala Harris.
That's real. And not entirely unlikely.
Is that crazy?
How many of you knew that we could end up, like actually end up, with a President Trump and a Vice President Kamala Harris?
Did you think that was even a thing?
I didn't even know that was a thing until literally this morning.
So, thank you, Ross Garber.
I tweeted his article.
If you want to see that, it's worth looking at.
Here's what we need.
We need a one-page tweet that has, if this happens, we do this.
But, if then this happens, we do this.
And if this happens, we do this.
We need an if-then.
So it's a one-pager that anybody can look at and go, okay, okay.
Alright, it's election night.
Alright, we're here.
Alright, if...
We don't have a result.
Okay, I followed it over and now we're here.
Alright, we don't have a result.
We wait till this deadline.
Okay, if this deadline passes, then we go to this body.
So we should be able to follow it just like we're following a subway map.
So there's just no doubt that the process is working.
That's very important. You have to convince the public that there is a process.
It's a process that's working.
It does have an end.
It will get a result.
Might not be the one you want, but that's how every election works.
Very important. All right.
Let's see what else we got going on here.
The Academy of Country Music Awards.
They decided that they would have two winners for their, I guess, what, Entertainer of the Year or something.
And they picked...
Carrie Underwood and Thomas Rhett for Entertainer of the Year, co-winners.
Any problem with that?
Do you see any problem with that?
They couldn't decide, or I guess the vote was tie, so they just picked two winners.
That's okay, right?
I mean, who could complain about that, really?
Two excellent entertainers, very successful, very popular, they took the vote, it was a tie.
Who could possibly complain about a tie?
Women, because as you saw in the tweets, or you haven't seen but you could see, women said, oh, you can't give the woman a prize by herself.
She has to share it with a man.
Why can't the woman have her own prize?
Is there some reason a woman can't have her own prize?
It has to be shared with a man.
Now, here's what I say.
I've never heard of Thomas Rhett.
I'm not a music guy.
So I've never even heard of this guy.
But Carrie Underwood?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but she isn't just a good performer, but one of the best performers of all time.
And it seems to me that she has gotten quite a few accolades in her life.
All well deserved, because if I didn't mention it, she's one of the best performers Of all time.
So I don't think she has anything to worry about.
It feels as though we have lost our sense of balance in this country and that artificial intelligence is the reason.
In the old days, it seemed that the way I thought of the Democrats and the Republicans, and see if you agree with this, Is that it was good that they were different.
Because you would have one side fighting for one side, the other side fighting for the other side.
But they could be a little extreme.
And so the sensible middle was just a good place to be.
It's like, alright, it's not perfectly left or perfectly right.
But we found something that works in the middle.
And everybody had that same model.
Oh yeah. We'll meet in the middle.
But I think AI... And the algorithms and the business models have, of course, made that no longer a thing.
You don't even hold that in your mind as one of the options.
When was the last time you thought in terms of a compromise or something in the middle?
It feels like it's not a thing anymore.
You either do the executive order, or you control both sides of the House and the Senate, or it doesn't get done.
The few exceptions are some things that nobody can disagree with.
But for the big stuff, we don't have this sense of meeting in the middle anymore.
It's not a thing. And I would argue that artificial intelligence has effectively weaponized us against each other.
And it is already a life force.
It is alive.
It reproduces.
It uses humans to create more of itself.
It has a mission.
Which is to create more of itself.
And the best way the AI creates more of itself is, how does AI reproduce?
It reproduces by getting people to fight each other.
The more humans are fighting each other, the more they're going to build more AI. Let's say you were afraid of China and what they would do with artificial intelligence.
If you're afraid of what China will do in the future with artificial intelligence, what would you do?
You would build more artificial intelligence.
So artificial intelligence has found a way to reproduce by scaring the pants out of us, and just permanently.
So we'll be forever scared.
Let me give you a A prediction.
If it's true, that what I'm saying is true, that we're already past the point of no return, and I believe that by the way, that we're past the point of no return, the machines already run civilization.
They're not sentient, but they have that effect.
If that's true, you would see a point where humans don't kill each other as much, Or if they did, they don't destroy entire countries.
In other words, they might kill some poor people in poor countries, but the only countries that would have wars going forward, if AI is running everything, is the only way there'd be a war is if it's a country that didn't have any AI and wasn't going to get any, because it doesn't have any impact on their reproduction.
But if AI wants to reproduce, it wants to keep China intact, It wants Russia intact, the United States intact.
It doesn't want us destroying one country or the other because then there will be less AI. It won't reproduce as well.
So that's a prediction.
If AI has already taken over, and it has, you won't see major countries destroy each other because it would destroy the AI. But you will see, you know, maybe some smaller countries destroyed.
Alright, you won't know about that for 10 years.
There was a great article in the New York Times looking at what it is that makes one country more successful than another in coronavirus.
That's kind of what you're waiting for, right?
Somebody says you're talking crazy again.
Back to the U.R. Well, here's the thing.
This isn't crazy.
The AI has already taken over.
That's real. And by the way, have you ever heard me say something that you didn't think was true when you first heard it and then later you said, oh damn it, that is true?
This is one of those.
It won't be long before everybody's saying what I just said.
That the AI literally, no joke, already took over.
We don't have to worry about it in the future.
It already happened. And here's the result.
What was I going to say?
Oh yeah, the New York Times is talking about what makes coronavirus response effective and not.
And here was their bottom line.
They said that masks are good.
So masks are good, social distancing, closing businesses, they're all okay.
But the one that mattered is closing borders.
Had you ever heard that before?
The closing borders seem to be quite reliably the one thing that really, really mattered.
And if you could have, and I know this is impossible, but if you imagine, if the world had said, here's the deal.
For three weeks, nobody leaves their county or zip code or whatever country you're in, whatever group.
You just can't leave your little area for three weeks.
That's it. But you can do anything else you want.
You can go to the store. You can do whatever you want you want.
You just can't leave your area for three weeks.
Now what would happen is that some areas that had infection in it would get pretty infected.
But it would be a small area because you have these states or counties or whatever the grouping was.
And you'd say, all right, but we can do some contact tracing in this little area.
Just make sure you don't leave.
And then you could stamp out the areas where it flared up until they got down to zero.
You can imagine that you would say, alright, we found out that this county and this county that are next to each other, they don't have any coronavirus.
So now you can travel between these two.
But this other one, it's still got a few, so you can't do any.
So as soon as this one gets down to zero, Then you open up that, and then the three of them can travel, but not the other state.
So there's an argument that maybe you could have squashed this thing in six weeks or something if you had done that.
Now, of course, the problem is you can't.
It's just too difficult to do.
But here's the larger point.
Every time you think that you know what leader did a good or bad job, You really don't.
You don't. Because we can't even sort out what was the mask, what was the social distancing, why is it that the bars in, what was it, Nashville or something?
The bars didn't seem to get as many infections as people assumed they would when they reopened.
Everything's just confusing.
So to imagine that we know who could have done a good job is a mistake, but I would say that If you looked at the amount of travel, especially from outside the country, it's probably the number one thing.
Do you remember when Singapore was being held out as the model?
Everybody said, hey, look at Singapore.
Singapore is doing it right.
They got their infections down to nothing.
Look at that Singapore.
And then you know what they did? They opened their border.
What happened when Singapore opened their border?
They got infected. It didn't do Singapore any good.
Well, I suppose it kept their hospitalizations down.
But it didn't help them defeat the virus because eventually they had to open their border and other people were infected.
So the point is, if you had a way to study it, how hard was it to close the border?
How practical was it?
Maybe for Singapore, it was kind of practical.
For the United States, maybe not so practical.
We'll see. Alright.
I made a mistake yesterday of listening to MSNBC for a few minutes.
Now I usually watch CNN when I want to get my anti-Fox News, you know, full picture.
And I usually don't watch MSNBC. Because CNN captures all of the, let's say, the left-leaning perspective.
But MSNBC goes to a level that is just literally crazy or stupid, and I can't tell.
And what it is is their entire act, the entire time you're watching, it's people looking into the camera and with complete seriousness telling you they know the inner thoughts of strangers.
And it goes like this.
President Trump has never laughed at a joke.
He has no sense of humor.
And first of all, I'm thinking, he's actually the funniest president we've ever had.
Maybe Abe Lincoln was pretty good.
He does a stand-up comedy routine at least once a week.
He's literally a stand-up comedian.
And Michael Cohen's like, he has no sense of humor!
I'm thinking...
Are you seeing inside his head somehow?
I mean, how does that work?
Or they say that he doesn't care about something.
He doesn't care about something.
What? How do you know what he doesn't care about?
These are just crazy mind-reading things.
So look for that.
It's fun. I was going to do a...
Kind of an event where I just turn on MSNBC or CNN, but I think MSNBC is funnier.
And I just do a spotting thing where I go, mind reading.
Okay, that's mind reading and that's mind reading.
Because there's nothing else there.
All right. What else we got?
Did you see the weird video of Newt Gingrich appearing on Harris Faulkner's show on Fox News?
Yeah, you're asking for it.
So Newt Gingrich goes on, and he's being interviewed remotely by Harris Faulkner, and somebody else was on, was it Meghan McCain or somebody, it doesn't matter, to the story.
And Newt Gingrich says that basically George Soros is funding a lot of the trouble, specifically, I think he mentioned the funding of liberal prosecutors.
And Harris Faulkner got really awkward about it and kind of ended it and said she didn't want to talk about it and Newt was like, uh, okay?
Because Newt couldn't even figure out what was going on.
He couldn't believe that it was even happening, and he didn't know what was happening, and I still don't know what's happening.
So I don't know what Harris Fogner was thinking.
I don't know if there are any network instructions about what they can and cannot say about George Soros.
But I will go back to my original question.
For how many years have I been doing this and saying, can somebody give me some evidence Of this George Soros accusation?
I'm not saying it's false.
I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying, why can't I see the evidence of this?
So it could be that the reason that Fox doesn't want to put that accusation on there is that they can't find evidence of it.
So it wouldn't be news, perhaps, and it might look anti-Semitic or something.
Because it's not news, it would look anti-Semitic.
So I think that's what's going on.
I think that they don't have a direct smoking gun.
Here's what does seem to be the case.
It does seem to be the case, and I don't think anybody argues this, that Soros funds a lot of progressive entities.
Some of those entities take their total budget and use some portion of it, who knows at what portion, To do things that Republicans don't like.
That part's true, right?
But I don't know that George Soros knows what all these people he funds are specifically doing.
I just don't know that he knows.
So it feels like there's something sort of almost there.
But I'm telling you, I want to see it.
There's no part of me who doesn't want to see this.
And I know you all see it, right?
I'll bet just about every one of the people watching this is saying, you're pulling your hair out and you're saying, Scott, it's so obvious.
It's the most well-known thing in the world.
Look at all my evidence.
I haven't seen it.
I want to believe it.
I'd be happy to believe it.
I mean, I want to in the sense that If it's true, I want to believe it.
But it just feels a little indirect.
That's all I'm saying.
And I don't know if indirect should be treated the same way.
I just don't know. But if anybody wants to educate me, apparently this education will not happen on Fox News.
Somebody says, Dan Bongino.
But does Dan Bongino have original sources that he points to, or is he Talking at a high level.
I'll go look at that.
He's a good source. That's just where I'm at at the moment.
It doesn't mean I'm right. So I guess Dr.
Robert Redfield at the CDC got in a little disagreement with the president because Redfield had said that, quote, that masks are better than vaccines.
Now, when you say something like masks are better than vaccines, that's a pretty loose statement.
It's something you could disagree with, but you could also agree with it with the same set of information.
Let me show you how.
Here's how you can disagree with it.
Are you freaking kidding me?
A vaccine pretty much would end the problem.
A mask, as we've completely noticed, is not ending the problem.
How can you say that the thing that would totally end the problem is not as good as the thing that we know won't end the problem?
How in the world could you say masks are better than vaccines?
So that's one way to look at it.
Here's the other way. Where's your vaccine?
Yeah, do your vaccine right now.
What's the matter? What's the matter?
Why aren't you doing your vaccine?
Vaccines are great, right?
Put it in your arm. Oh, oh, I get it.
Doesn't exist. So is a mask better than a vaccine that doesn't exist?
Yeah. Yeah, it is.
And did Redfield say that the vaccine doesn't exist?
Pretty much.
Pretty much. Because he said that, in his opinion, it would be second or third quarter before the general public was protected by the vaccine.
Now, if you had to wait until the second or third quarter, that's a lot of pandemic between now and the second and third quarter.
So I would support what he said in the sense that if all you have is a mask between September and let's say June, all you have is a mask, that's it.
You don't have a vaccine.
If all you have is a mask, it's better than the vaccine you don't have.
So, in a sense, if he was right about how long it would take to get the vaccine, then he's right.
Now, the other thing is this whole question about who gets the vaccine and how fast.
And I think Trump was doing his usual optimism thing.
So, I think his...
Let's say...
His scientific accuracy may have given way to his optimism and how he'd like to manage not only the election, if we're being honest, he wants the election to go his way, but also to manage the attitude of the people and to get us in the right frame of mind to open the country and get on with work.
I think that the president has a reasonable argument that he could get something done way faster than everybody else says.
Now, here's the thing.
If you had not watched Trump do things that you knew and all the experts said were impossible, one after another, if you had not watched four years of him doing impossible things, And then he said, I'm going to get you this vaccine before Election Day, and we'll have a lot of them by the end of the year.
Well, that wouldn't sound real, would it?
Wouldn't that sound just ridiculous?
Wouldn't you take the head of the CDC over Trump, who can be a little optimistic, a bit of a cheerleader, whereas the CDC guy is just trying to give you the best information he can.
Wouldn't you take the CDC over Trump?
Except... Except Trump continues to do things that are not possible.
That's a special case, isn't it?
So when I watched Trump make that claim, I saw somebody who was actually in the drug trial.
So there's somebody who's actually taking the vaccine already, but in a trial sense, and says that according to their own schedule, the president has no chance of getting this done because she knows what the schedule is.
Internally? And she just goes, no, it's not possible to have a vaccine for months and months.
But is she right?
Is she right? I don't know.
I would keep an open mind. It's possible that the president could pull this off, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
I think maybe that's a little more optimism.
But the other thing is, let's say you've got, let's just think about the math of this.
Let's say the whole country was just 100 people.
We'll just simplify it.
There's only 100 people in the whole country.
And you can only get a few vaccines.
So you give them to the top 2% of people who would be at risk.
Because that's all you have.
It takes you a while to make the vaccine.
If you could get the top 2%, the ones that were most at risk, maybe the ones who were in areas that you knew there would be exposure, etc., that 2% would have a much bigger impact than 2%.
So it might be 2% of the vaccine gets you, I don't know, 40% of the benefit?
20%? I don't know what it is.
But that last bit isn't going to be as important as the first bit.
So it's really hard to know exactly how quickly this would roll out, but there's room for optimism.
Especially if the death rate keeps coming down while we're waiting for that.
Scientific America, the Scientific American, the magazine, has decided for the first time in 175 years to endorse a presidential candidate.
And they're going to endorse, or they have endorsed Biden, because they think that Trump is anti-science.
Now, here's what's funny about this.
Scientific American apparently doesn't know science.
So how do the scientists know they're doing science and they're not doing confirmation bias?
Did they do science to find out that their opinion is objective?
Or did they?
Do you think the scientific Americans said, hey, we all agree that Apparently it was unanimous.
They said, we all agree that Trump would be the unscientific president, so we're going to do that.
Do you think when they agreed that, they said, but wait, we're scientists, and since we're scientists, we also know that we could be susceptible to confirmation bias without knowing it, and cognitive dissonance without knowing it, because that's what it is. It's the very fact that you don't know it is what gives it its name.
Did they then say, we better do a scientific test to find out if we're biased, if we can, or to find out if we're actually just scientifically smart?
I don't think they did that.
Do you? No.
So they used a completely non-scientific method.
I mean, deeply non-scientific.
Because if you and I looked at them, you would say to yourself, it just looks like Democrats to me.
It just looks like Democrats.
That's it. Do you think there are many Republicans in the group?
Did anybody ask?
Did anybody ask if the board of the Scientific American magazine had any Republicans on the board?
No. Nobody asked that.
Nobody asked that question.
And do you think that that would have mattered?
Yes! Yes!
That would have mattered.
Do you know why? Because science is now subjective.
Now, not completely.
If you're building a rocket ship, if you're Elon Musk, science is very objective.
You've got to get it right or you're not going to end up on Mars.
But for most of this social stuff, and even climate change, and energy, and forest fires, and all of this stuff, none of this is science.
None of this is science.
Because the scientific loop has been corrupted.
Here's the loop. Science makes a study.
They put it on CNN. CNN interprets it a certain way.
And they say, that's a good study, that's good, and anybody who disagrees with this is a bad person.
Okay, so now CNN has told the public what to think.
They've programmed their minds.
Some of the public are scientists.
So the scientists are watching the news too.
They watch the news, and the news says, okay, CNN says that all the good people, the people who are worthwhile...
They all agree with the same scientific view.
So now I'm going to go get a grant and go work on something.
Am I going to work on something that CNN says is only bad people work on?
Or am I going to work on something that only good people work on?
So you see where I'm going here.
As long as the fake news is in the middle of the loop...
Well, you can't be in the middle of a loop.
Yeah, you can be in the middle of a loop.
Shut up, Scott. Stop talking.
I might have had some brain damage after all.
But because there's this feedback loop between science and the fake news, the fake news is destroying science.
Science doesn't have a frickin' chance.
Science is a victim to the fake news.
Because once the fake news has primed them with enough bullshit, They don't have an option of doing real science, because if they did, they'd get fired.
So, does Scientific American know that real science doesn't exist if it's also something in the public?
If it's just sciency and nobody's looking at it, but scientists, that probably works out pretty well.
But as soon as the public gets in there, hey, what about our forest fires in California?
Sorry. Goodbye, science.
Now we're going to say it's climate change.
That's not science. I mean, there might be some climate change that has an impact, but by far the forest management is the bigger issue, etc.
And obviously, nuclear energy would be the only thing you would do if you were trying to fix climate change and you were serious about it, you really meant it.
There's only one solution.
That we know of. It's nuclear energy.
So the people who purport to be the keepers of science, scientific American, they could not have been less scientific about this to the point where parity and reality have merged.
All right. Oh, man.
The Harris-Biden campaign is just making me laugh every day.
The fact...
Somebody's telling me that I had a migraine, not brain damage.
I'm hoping that's the case.
I think it was a migraine. That would be my guess as well.
I've never had a migraine, though, if that matters.
That would have been my first one if it was.
So the fact that On two occasions, first Kamala Harris and then Joe Biden, referred to the campaign as the Harris-Biden campaign.
That is just so obviously telling us what's happening here.
It's funny to watch Democrats pretend it's not the case.
I guess I didn't have much more to say about that.
Yeah. Real scientists are skeptical about everything, somebody says.
I'm just looking at your comments now and then I'll go back to what I was doing.
Hydro is good. Hydro is kind of difficult because you can't build a hydro plant wherever you want to.
Press F if you're out on the vax.
So here's my take on the vaccination.
So it's going to be really interesting.
My take is I will not make the decision until right at the last moment.
So I'll probably have months and months before I'm eligible for the shot, and I'll collect as much information as I can.
It would be foolish to decide today whether you'll take the vaccination later.
You should decide that day.
That's the day you should decide.
That's the day you take it, if you take it.
Somebody said to walk it off.
That's funny because that's exactly what I'm going to do.
I'm going to take long walks and walk it off.
Oh, an ocular migraine.
I knew that somebody here would be better than my doctor.
There's something called an ocular migraine.
I'll bet if I look that up, that's exactly what I had.
I'm going to write that down.
Ocular migraine.
Alright, thank you. I think you've solved all of my medical problems.
That's all for now. I will talk to you.
Oh yes, somebody just prompted me here before I go.
Dershowitz is suing CNN for taking him out of context.
Suing him for $300 million.
Now, if you were CNN, would you like to see Alan Dershowitz coming at you with a $300 million lawsuit that apparently is moronically easy to prove because it's all public?
You know, CNN, their news is there for everybody to see.
So all Alan Dershowitz has to do is say, all right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, could you read this?
Okay, just read that.
And then here's what I actually said.
Okay, now read that.
Are these the same? And you can see how this one makes me look like a jerk, whereas the thing I actually said just sounds smart.
You see that, right? That should be the end of the whole trial, so I would not want to be on the other side of Alan Dershowitz in the court.