All Episodes
Sept. 20, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
52:14
Episode 1130 Scott Adams: Supreme Court Gender Discrimination, How to Escape a BLM Mob, Beta Storms Aplenty, Schumer Threats

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Senator Schumer and Blumenthal threaten...violence? It is NOT okay, to say you hope half the country dies COVID19 ethnic differences in mortality Monetized incentive to code deaths as COVID19 Potential SCOTUS strategies for President Trump SCOTUS candidate gender discrimination ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody, come on in Come on in. It's time.
You came to the right place at the right time.
Yes, we're going to have a great start to the day.
Today is going to be incredible.
I mean really just incredible.
And all you need to get it off to the right start is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea, 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 dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens right now.
Go. Christina taught me a brand new beverage.
It's called coffee with about half of it filled with hot water.
So it's like a weak coffee that gives you the suggestion of coffee without all the jitters.
I need that today.
All right. What do we got going on?
Are there crazy things happening in the world?
Yeah. Yeah, there are.
At the top of my list is New Tropical Storm.
And the name of the tropical storm is Tropical Storm Beta.
That's right. The simulation is serving up a beta storm at the same time beta males are riding all over the country.
So what do I tell you about code reuse?
So I have this theory that one of the ways that you can tell if you are a simulation Is if there's something happening somewhere in the world that would take a great deal of processing power, that there might be other things that slow down or they have to reuse code to compensate for the fact that all the energy is going into one part of the program.
And does it seem to you like there's a tremendous amount of activity and complexity going on just because of politics, but at the same time We have these weird coincidences going on where it seems like the same names are getting reused for stuff, and we're seeing these familiar patterns.
It's like, haven't we seen this before?
It just seems like there's a lot of repeats going on.
I noticed this the other day.
I told you the story about it.
I went to the emergency room the other day, and what was really...
Interesting about it is that it wasn't busy.
And I kept saying to them, is this weird?
I'm at the emergency room of a major emergency room and there are only two other people here.
How weird is that?
And they said, yeah, it's really weird.
Normally we could have people filling the hallways.
But today, no real reason.
Just nobody's here.
And I keep running into these situations where I see fewer and fewer people at the same time.
Have you noticed that? It's called social distancing.
So suddenly the complexity of my personal life has like shrunk way down.
It's way less complicated because I don't have a social life, as most of you are experiencing some version of that too.
So the world is way more complicated in politics, but there is other areas of life that suddenly, coincidentally, became way less complicated Is that a coincidence?
Probably yes.
But it's fun to talk about this simulation.
Alright. I have a suggestion for all of you who think you're clever, but maybe other people don't.
You know who you are.
If you have ever tweeted that actor Rob Reiner is a, quote, meathead, you may not be a creative person.
Because you're the same people who tweet at me, or actually it's people on the other side who tweeted me, saying that they've just discovered that I'm not actually the cartoonist, but I'm really the pointy-haired boss in my comic strip.
Please, if I can beg of you one thing.
You can insult me all you want.
That's cool. I'm used to that.
You can insult Rob Ryder all you want.
I've done it myself.
I enjoy it.
Honestly, insulting Rob Reiner is one of the things I enjoy.
And if other people enjoy insulting me, well, okay.
Good for you. But can you be a little more creative?
A little more creative than accusing them of being a character they played on TV? You just need to raise your game a little bit.
I'm begging you.
Only because There's a certain level of lack of creativity that hurts my eyes, sort of in the back.
You know, when I read this, if I read one more tweet calling Rob Reiner a meathead, there's like this shooting pain behind my eyes, and I go, ah!
Ah! It's so uncreative!
Ah! So, that's just a personal favor.
I'm begging you.
Just stop being uncreative.
Call them something else.
Anything else. All right.
Many of you saw the video, it's a viral video, of a couple of guys who got stopped in their car by protesters.
I think it was Portland.
And they were surrounded by the protesters, and the protesters, at least the ones in the video, looked mostly like white men.
And they were insisting that the The men in the car who may have been Hispanic, I don't know if it matters to the story, you can decide, but they were being forced to declare Black Lives Matter.
Now, one of the guys in the car was like a little iffy on it.
He's like, okay, I'll put the fist up a little bit.
And then they insisted that he wasn't enthusiastic enough.
He wasn't really putting his fist up.
He was just sort of raising it a little bit.
So they were on him. And it was pretty threatening.
It looked pretty dangerous, actually.
If they had resisted more than they did, it looked like their vehicle would be destroyed.
They might be hurt. Could get dragged out.
Who knows? Just about anything could happen.
So here's my suggestion of how to handle that situation if you find yourself in it.
Now, you're going to say to yourself, Scott, that won't work because they will immediately know you're joking.
No, they won't. No, they won't.
They will not know you're joking if you say the following.
If they say, say it.
Say Black Lives Matter.
Here's what I would say, and I would say it really loudly, and I would repeat it as many times as I needed to to make sure everybody heard it.
And it would go like this.
Black Lives Matter more than white lives.
Heil BLM. Heil Antifa.
Death to whitey. So that's how you do it.
You want to agree with them, but amplify it.
Don't just say Black Lives Matter, because, you know, you don't want to be a tropical storm beta, if you know what I mean.
Just go for it.
And just say, Black Lives Matter more than white people!
Heil BLM! Heil Antifa!
Death to whitey! Now, again, you think to yourself, Scott, they're going to know you're joking.
No, they won't. This is the only thing I promise you.
No, they won't.
They will not think you're joking.
In fact, they might nominate you to be the leader of their group.
You could end up, you know, they might give you snacks from the snack van.
If you wanted free snacks from the Antifa snack van, I think all you have to do is say that.
And they say, hey, would you like a snack?
We've got some bottled water here.
It's nice and frozen. Would you like it?
So that's my recommendation.
By the way, if anybody gets killed using any of my recommendations, what the hell were you thinking?
I'm a cartoonist.
Don't take my advice on self-defense.
If you're getting self-defense tips from a cartoonist, well, you kind of deserve what you get.
So that's my warning there.
One of my methods for predicting the future, I've talked about this before, but there's an actual theory behind it, and the technique is this.
If there's a situation in the world In which you can anticipate, well, things could go this way, or they could go that way, or they could go that way.
But it's fairly well-defined.
The things are either going to go one of these defined ways.
You can usually bet that the way it will go is whichever way makes the most interesting story.
Now you say to me, uh...
There's no reason that would be true, right?
Why would it be that if there are three possibilities and you don't have any way to know which one is more likely, why would it be that the one that's the best story ends up being more likely?
Not every time, right?
Just a biased or the good story.
Here's why. I don't think it applies to natural disasters.
In other words, if there are no human beings making decisions, Well, then it's just news and it was going to happen.
You know, the cliff collapsed, the earthquake happened, whatever happened.
But when there's a situation in which human beings are involved, humans are very affected by the fact that we live in a world of stories.
We learn by stories.
We're entertained by stories.
We tell stories. We listen to stories.
And stories have sort of a form that you recognize.
Movies, in particular, have a three-act form.
Books are a little different.
But we all recognize what a story is.
We would know if somebody told a bad story.
We would all recognize it.
It's like, oh, that was a bad story.
There was no conclusion.
There was no third act.
It just was flat. So, here's my hypothesis.
That people are drawn to the thing that they can conceive the most easily.
And you can conceive a story, one that looks like a story, more readily than you can conceive of something that's random.
And that we're drawn toward the story to the point of making it happen.
This is the part of the hypothesis that has the most question to it, I would say.
People are drawn to what they think about.
If you think about an accident all the time, you're more likely to have one.
If you think about a particular bad thing happening, have you noticed it's more likely to happen?
It's almost like you bring it on yourself.
You could almost wish yourself to get sick.
Have you noticed that if one spouse dies, let's say the two people have been married for 60 years, if one of them dies, the other one's usually going to be gone in a year.
And it's because that person is following the story.
Right? Not intentionally.
But you know if your partner dies, You kind of want to follow them and you don't want to wait too long.
So the odds of you dying pretty quickly go way up.
And that's shown to be true.
So with this situation of, let's say, Trump running for president, one of the filters I saw was that the most amazing story would be if he came from behind and won, right?
That was the best story.
If you were going to make a movie of 2016, It had to end that way, didn't it?
It had to end with Trump winning, because that was just the best story.
You might not enjoy it if you're a Democrat, but you can't ignore the fact it's the best story.
Likewise, one year ago, when people were talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health, I said to myself, all right, what would be the best story?
The best story is not that she died a year before an election.
No. The best story would not be that she died a month after the election.
The best story, to make it like a regular plot of a movie, is that she dies 45 days before the election.
Why 45? President is number 45.
Now, that's just a coincidence.
But the exact timing of her death feels entirely like a movie plot.
And I did, in fact, privately.
I don't think I said this publicly.
I don't like to publicly predict somebody's death.
But privately, I was saying, you know, it's going to happen a month before the election, because that's the story.
So watch for that pattern.
See how many times the best story wins.
And if you were to take that concept to, let's say, Durham.
So the Durham investigation is happening now.
What would be the best story?
The best story would be Durham comes out before the election.
Again, it's like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, right?
Before the election is the better story.
After the election?
I don't know. Would it be as interesting no matter what it is?
But before the election?
I've got a feeling you're going to see something about Brennan and Clapper.
At least Brennan.
So there's going to be something I think interesting because that would be the best story.
The best story would be that Durham not only found something, but found something that just makes your whole head come off.
And I feel like we might be heading that way only because it's the best story.
We'll see. Um...
Let's see, what else we got here?
I was talking yesterday about the strategy that Trump might want to look at.
One strategy would be what apparently he's going to do, which is try to get his nominee for the Supreme Court pushed through before Election Day.
I did say that it would be interesting and maybe clever as a strategy to not do that.
Imagine if he decided not to.
Just say, how about I'll wait?
We'll wait. And then just use it as a means of getting your voters to show up.
Now, that would be risky.
But also, it wouldn't be Trump, would it?
Do you think that, you know, if you had heard that Trump said, you know, maybe you're right.
You're right. Maybe we'll just wait.
Wait till after the election.
That sounds fair to me.
If he ever said that, you'd say to yourself, what happened to Trump?
You'd think, we elected the guy who doesn't know how to do anything but fight.
We intentionally elected the guy who doesn't quit.
We very specifically elected the guy who would be the pirate who, if he needs to kill somebody to get something done, he's going to kill somebody to get something done, legally, we hope.
So if Trump did not do exactly what Trump did, which is say, oh yeah, we're going to try to get this through before the election, if he hadn't done that, who is he, really?
I mean, who would he be?
He wouldn't be the guy you elected.
He'd be a different guy.
So I think that politicians do have some responsibility for being the person that got elected and not baiting and switching.
So independent of whether it was a good strategy or a bad strategy to push it through versus waiting...
You still want Trump to be Trump, don't you?
Don't you still want him to be the fighter who probably never even considered holding off?
You know, it's hard to know.
But if I had to guess, I'll bet there was never a time when Trump said, yeah, let's hold back.
I just don't think his brain works that way, and that's exactly why he got elected.
He got elected because he won't hold back.
You know, he sees some potential money on the table.
We don't know if this is money on the table because there's going to be a fight.
But if there might be money on the table, you want your president to pick it up.
That's what he got elected to do.
He didn't get elected to leave money on the table.
Nobody wanted that guy.
So I would say that I respect and I appreciate the This method.
I don't know if it'll succeed.
And also, because I don't know if it'll succeed, I don't know if it's the best strategy.
But it could be. It could be.
Here's what's good about it.
Number one thing that's good about it Is that by actually having the nomination, it forces Kamala Harris to come back to Washington.
So he can take Kamala Harris off the board.
That's pretty good, right?
Taking Harris off the board might help, just because she'll be bogged down.
But at the same time, she'll also get a stage in front of the world to say her thing.
And that could be, to her credit, So it could work either way.
A little dangerous there. The other thing it does is, did you look at the headlines today?
Everything else disappeared.
There's nothing else that anybody wants to talk about.
If Trump can keep this going, I would say that that's an advantage.
Because he just took everything else off the table.
And if the only question is Supreme Court...
And let's say that Trump actually got the nomination through and actually got it completed right before Election Day, hypothetically.
What would that do?
Well, if you're a Democrat, maybe you would be demoralized, as in, ugh, you know, we're so far behind.
Or do you decide that you have to have a revolution and do an armed revolution of the country?
I don't know. Could be dangerous.
But I do like the fact that Trump took everything else out of the headlines and is going to concentrate in an area that I think is stronger for him.
I do believe that Trump has an advantage if this is the option.
If this is the topic everybody's talking about, I think he has an advantage.
Now, how about some more about this?
If you're watching the news, you know that Senator Lindsey Graham was in a ticklish situation because he's on record in two different times on camera saying that in this exact situation that he would delay the nomination.
That would be his choice. And then he came out and said, oh, I'm totally not going to delay the nomination.
Now, if any of you thought that he was going to rely on principle, or that he would keep his word, and I said I'd do it, so I guess I'm down by my word, I've got to throw you an LOL. Because we're not in a world where people keep their promises on stuff like that.
That was just so obvious that he was going to find a workaround, a lawyer workaround, which he did, and he gave his reasons that were so ridiculous that I forgot them already.
So I read his reasons about why he's changing his mind, but does it matter?
No. It doesn't matter what his reason is.
If he didn't have those reasons, he would have made up another reason.
Because one thing he's not going to do is go against the president while he's running for his own re-election and it's razor thin.
Lindsey Graham wants to get elected.
Our system allows him to do that.
This is just my personal opinion, but to me it is not unethical To do legal things that get you elected.
Even if it means changing your mind.
He's allowed to do that.
If that's what it takes to get him elected.
And he's doing it transparently.
There's not really any secrets to it.
You know what he said before.
You know what he says now.
You know it's the opposite. He puts it right out there.
You can do what you want with that.
And at least it's transparent.
So the Democrats, the leadership...
Has decided to threaten the public.
That's the way I take it.
So, Schumer said that, quote, nothing is off the table if the president pushes through this nomination.
Nothing is off the table.
What's that mean? Nothing's off the table?
And Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat senator, said similarly, he tweeted, if Republicans recklessly and reprehensibly force a A SCOTUS vote, before the election, nothing is off the table.
Now, if this were normal times, and a politician said nothing is off the table, what would you think that meant?
You would think it meant, oh, parliamentary procedures.
It might mean that they're trying hard to raise money.
They're going to push all the envelopes.
You'd probably think it was something peaceful and clever and strategic.
But it doesn't feel like that today, does it?
As you're watching the riots and you're watching people say, in public, you've seen a number of Blue-check people say in public that if they don't get their way, it's going to be revolution and violence.
They say it directly.
Now, given that violence and revolution are literally on the table, these Democrat senators saying that nothing is off the table basically have threatened violence against, here's the key part, against you and me. Our politicians have actually threatened the public.
They haven't threatened just Trump.
And I'm not saying it's because you're a Trump supporter, necessarily.
I'm saying that they've threatened the public.
The public! Because this is not exactly a limited threat.
It's not a, we'll do anything to stop President Trump.
They literally said nothing is off the table in the context of violence and And people making death threats right and left.
This is really dangerous stuff.
So I think that this is a tremendous advantage for Republicans because they're creating a situation where Democrats feel like they want to win.
They have their concerns and they're quite worked up.
But they've framed it As Republicans are really in trouble, like physically in trouble.
If that doesn't get you to the voting booth or to mail in your vote, I don't know what will.
But it feels like a gigantic error on the part of the Democrats.
Listen to the sort of things that people are saying.
This is Ray Sonny.
I think she's...
I don't want to judge people's ethnicity from their profile picture, but not a white woman, let's say.
I won't say what she is, but probably does not identify as a white woman, would be fair to say.
And she tweeted this. Respectfully, white men got us into this.
I don't know what this is.
And it frustrates me endlessly that white men...
Voted Trump in and somehow get away scot-free.
As if because their racism and selfishness is a given, we don't have to drag them.
Drag the 53% and the 62%.
What does drag them mean?
You mean actually like tie them to the back of the car and drag them?
Does it mean hurt them?
What does drag them mean?
If you could tweet in public...
Specifically against an entire ethnicity and gender, white men, and your tweet doesn't get taken down, you don't lose your job.
I don't know, I think she's a comedian or something.
That's a pretty dangerous situation.
There was a Marshall University professor who said on video the other day, yesterday or something, that she wishes every Trump supporter would die before the election.
What? How do you go on video?
You're a semi-public person because you teach at a college.
And you say in public with no reservations at all because apparently you've been only dealing with people who agree with you for a long time and didn't realize that it wasn't okay to say in public that you hope half of the country dies and actually mean it.
Because she wasn't joking.
She sort of... I mean, she wasn't being literal, but she was certainly being...
It looked like she was being accurate to her own feeling about Trump supporters, like she wouldn't mind if some of them died.
Certainly not all of them.
So... It's just crazy that these things can be said out loud.
This is the sort of stuff...
They should predict a Trump landslide.
Because I think Republicans are staying quiet and doing two things.
They're ordering their ballots if they don't have them.
And they're stocking up on ammo just in case.
Just in case.
So this is a pretty dangerous situation.
I continue to believe that the Republic can handle this quite easily.
So every now and then I feel it's my role to put things in context, to make you feel better.
If it's so easy to get caught up on each topic is the end of the world, oh, the replacement of the Supreme Court seat, it's the end of the world, we'll all kill each other if we don't get our way.
The coronavirus is the end of the world.
The economy is crashing.
It feels like every story is going to be the end of the world.
But how many of them have been the end of the world?
So far, none. This won't be the end of the world either.
As problems go, if you were to look at the history of the United States, it's easy to forget How many things this country has survived?
We've survived some really big stuff.
Way bigger than this.
So if you were to rank where the Supreme Court thing is in terms of ripping the country apart, it's a two.
Two out of ten.
If you're trying to say, how worried should I be about the future because of this Supreme Court stuff, two out of ten.
That's about it. But it will be treated like it's a 10 out of 10, because that's what we do now.
We're all going to treat it like it's a 10 out of 10, but no matter how it goes, we'll still be the United States.
Our economy will still be improving, we'll still be inventing things, we'll still be fixing things and solving things.
And we will be fine.
And we're a lot closer to solving our more recent big problems than we are to not solving them.
Speaking of which, I forgot to mention this.
I thought it was politically brilliant for Trump to, what did he, he approved $90 billion for Puerto Rico.
Now, the people who are critics of the president will say, and I think it's a completely fair statement, they'll say, why'd it take so long?
Now remember, I always kid, I always mock people for saying, That if somebody did something good, that you mock them for taking so long.
Because that's just the easy, cheap thing to say, well, why'd you take so long?
I will criticize you for doing the wrong thing, but I'll also criticize you for doing the right thing, because you could have done it sooner.
Now, of course, you can do anything sooner, so it's the universal non-thing.
But with the Puerto Rico thing, I think there's a better argument for why not sooner?
If you ask me the reason why not sooner is, you know, number one, it was probably helpful for the election.
But there are a couple of reasons why maybe not sooner made sense.
One is there's a tremendous corruption problem there.
It might have taken them a while to figure out how to pump money into Puerto Rico and not have it all stolen or wasted.
Because stolen or wasted is exactly what would have happened if you had put $90 billion into their You know, a month after the hurricane.
Do we all agree that if you just said, let's throw money at this place a month after the hurricane, it would just all be wasted because they don't have the systems, the controls.
They just didn't have a way to watch that money and keep track of it and get it to the right places.
It could be, it could be, I don't know this, that it probably takes a while to get some confidence that you've got a structure in place That you can now put money into it and it'll go someplace useful.
Probably takes a while.
Probably a whole lot of planning, a whole lot of figuring out what really needs to be done.
So maybe it just took two years.
But I don't think that's the full answer.
Obviously, it's not a coincidence that there's an election coming up.
And it's not a coincidence that the president would like to shore up his Hispanic support and do everything he could that's counterfactual to whatever the claims are about him.
So the claims about Trump are, hey, he's a big old racist, so what's one thing you can do if people are accusing you of being a racist?
How about putting a world record amount of money into Puerto Rico?
It's a pretty good idea, because it's hard to argue that that's some big racist thing, even though it's obviously politically motivated.
So, that was good.
And then, of course, the TikTok looks like the sale is going to go through to Oracle and Walmart.
If you told me two companies that I thought should never be in a business deal, it would probably be Oracle and Walmart.
What do they have in common?
Other than, I guess, they have the cash and the willingness to do it.
But there's some word that What China might do is keep the algorithm, but sell the company?
To which I say, how hard would it be for the United States to build its own algorithm?
What if we took everything from TikTok, the assets, the customer base, but the only thing we got rid of was the algorithm?
We just delete it.
And replace one that just says something simple, such as you'll see more things from your friends, the people you follow, and maybe you'll see more things from just some easy algorithm.
But couldn't you put, given that it's mostly for children, it's young people who use it mostly, don't you think we should have an open algorithm that we can all see?
I feel as if I feel as if the Oracles of the world and the Walmarts too, they should guarantee the government that the algorithm will be public so everybody can see what it does.
Is that wrong?
I don't know. Maybe they can't make money that way.
But given that it's directed at children, well, how about this for a law?
How about a law that says if children use your platform, you have to reveal your algorithm?
Oh, that's pretty good.
I'm so happy I just thought of that.
Has anybody ever come up with that idea?
You know, the big platforms from your Facebooks to your Snapchats to your Instagrams, etc.
Twitter's a little different because kids don't follow politics and stuff.
So I'm not sure how many kids use Twitter compared to other platforms, but less, I guess.
Wouldn't it be reasonable...
Given that we want to protect children more than we might want to protect adults who know what they're getting into, shouldn't we require that any platform that has children on it has to reveal their algorithm?
It has to be public. Anybody can see it.
So parents can see it.
Now it would be hard to understand it, but at least be public for people who do know how to read the code and look at the algorithm.
That would be my idea.
All right. Here's a little mind effort for you.
You ready for this one? So there's increasingly news and of Europe That they're having another wave and that infections are spiking, coronavirus.
And here was a statistic I saw that was useful because it's simplified things, alright?
So hold on to just a few numbers here.
I'll keep it really simple.
Just hold these in your head.
That the Europe has 750 million people.
Let's say the U.S. has 330 million people.
So we've got a little less than half as many people in the United States as there is in all of Europe.
But although Europe has more than twice as many people, they have almost the same amount of deaths.
217,000.
Ours is about 200,000.
So about the same amount of deaths, but Europe has a little bit more than twice as many people.
So that's pretty clean, right?
That's one of those things where you can say, oh, okay.
Now I see how the United States is really doing poorly because we've got twice as many deaths, you know, that they do relative to population.
But I ask myself this.
Are they the same?
Is there something about the United States that's different from Europe on average?
And here's one thing that's different.
What's the black population of the United States?
Because as we know, the black population has something like four to five times the problem with coronavirus.
It's a gigantic difference, right?
It's something like four or five times worse if you're African American.
Let's say black because we're talking about Europe.
It's about four or five times worse.
So wouldn't you expect That the country that has the biggest population of black residents should, all things being equal, would have way more deaths.
Because unfortunately, the coronavirus is not an equal opportunity virus.
It's just slamming the black populations.
Just slamming them. So I said to myself, well, if it were true that the percentage of black population is skewing our coronavirus death count, you would be able to see that easily.
For example, you'd go to Europe and you'd say, well, if there's anything to this hypothesis, if you looked at Europe, shouldn't you see that whatever country in Europe has the most black population would have the highest death rate?
And sure enough, that would be France.
So France not only has close to 9%, I think, black population, but it is not too far behind the United States at 13%.
So this is just one data point, so don't make too much out of one data point, right?
So the United States is doing poorly and also has a 13% black population who are doing far worse.
France Within Europe, France is one of the bad ones, right?
It's one of the worst countries in Europe and also has the highest percentage of black population, about 9%.
Now, is there any other country that you could look at that would be maybe confirming or disconfirming this hypothesis?
So I took a look at Brazil.
Now Brazil's a tough one because Brazil is like super racially mixed.
So they've got a whole bunch of wonderful stuff all mixed up.
The people are just...
Almost every person in Brazil seems to be some mixture of interesting stuff.
But we can glean a few things.
I think they have 9% black population...
But somewhere between 9% and 30%, at least partly black.
So Brazil has an enormous percentage of black population and is one of the worst in terms of coronavirus deaths.
Now, what about those countries in Europe that have almost no black population, below 2%?
How are they doing?
Pretty well.
Pretty well, it turns out.
Turns out that having almost no black population really gets your death count down.
Surprise? Shouldn't be, because it's well known on the thing.
So, let's say that's one calculation that needs to be done, which is you have to normalize it for ethnic differences in terms of mortality.
And what about differences in incentive For coding something coronavirus death.
Can you compare the United States, where people get, the hospitals anyway, would get a large, large dollar amount profit if they code something coronavirus, whereas in Europe, they don't.
Do you think that you get the same count?
No. In no world do you get the same count if somebody is monetized in one case and not monetized in the other case.
You don't get the same result.
Never. We don't live in a world where people are immune to monetary incentive.
It just isn't a thing. Now, it might be a 5% difference, not a 100% difference, but still, that's something pretty important you need to calculate.
And then, of course, you've got the number of obese Americans, which is greater than others.
We're a bigger country.
And then how about this?
Is it fair to treat the United States as one big ball, given that we have lots of states with power?
You know, we have an unusual situation.
Our states have a lot of power.
Shouldn't we be comparing each state to Europe?
Wouldn't that be better? How many of the individual states in the United States are doing as well or comparable to Europe?
And I think the answer is a lot of them, right?
Out of our 50 states, 30 or 40 of them, maybe?
What would you say? 30, 40 are doing as well as Europe?
So that's another way to look at it.
Anyway, there's a million ways to look at it, and I don't believe we've looked at it all the best ways we can.
You are noticing that the Ruth Bader Ginsburg stuff has just kicked everything off the news.
It makes everything a little bit boring for a while because there's just really one story and it's all we're going to talk about for a while.
All right. I'm watching your comments.
A lot of people are agreeing.
There's a 15% plus payment differential for coding COVID on medical bills.
Yeah, 15% is certainly enough.
Too many variables to compare?
That is correct. Oh, somebody's talking about putting...
Oh, let me bring up this idea.
So President Trump has said publicly that he's probably going to pick a woman.
And I think that's true.
He probably is. Now, here's what's wrong with that.
And let me say, before I start, I am completely in favor of a diverse, you know, a very diverse Supreme Court.
I think we're all better off if we've got all the voices, you know, accounted for.
So long as everybody's capable to do the job, that's all great.
And obviously, there are plenty of capable people.
I'm just saying, as long as you have capable people, It would also be good to have them diverse.
But we have this thing called the Constitution.
And we have this thing called the Supreme Court, whose job it is to uphold it.
How is it constitutional for the President of the United States to say that he can't pick me for the Supreme Court because of my cock?
Seriously. I personally, there's no exaggeration here, I personally I've been told by the President of the United States that I would not be eligible, not that there was much risk I was going to get picked.
Let's say Ted Cruz, you know, somebody who actually would be in the top 20 or whatever, he can't get the job.
Do you know why Ted Cruz can't get the job?
His cock. Do you think that if somebody sued the President of the United States for job discrimination and said, hey, you're saying right out loud that you're not going to even consider a man, what's up with that?
And what about your genders that are not either male or female entirely?
What about all of your in-between genders?
You know, your shades and your various...
What would be the best way to say it?
The rainbow of different genders.
What about all that?
Don't we care about that anymore?
What about transsexual?
If you're transsexual, can you be on the Supreme Court?
I don't know. Maybe that's okay as long as you've transitioned in the right direction.
Maybe So here's what I'd ask you.
If somebody sued the President of the United States, which I actually think would be a good idea, if somebody sued the President of the United States and said that is job discrimination, you're saying that men can't have this job, where is that in the Constitution?
I would like a constitutional ruling from the Supreme Court about whether the President can limit his choices to one gender.
I don't think that's going to pass constitutional muster.
Am I wrong about this?
Can somebody who's smarter than I am about the law tell me, am I just off in outer space here?
Or is it completely obvious that what the president is doing by limiting his choice to a woman, or even just saying it, we don't have the actual choice yet, but even just saying it in public and saying this is what I'm looking for, Is there anybody who could argue that that is constitutional?
Because it looks to me like grossly illegal.
It looks to me as illegal as anything could ever be.
Now, I do not have this feeling about somebody running for office.
Different situation.
If somebody says, hey, I'm running to be a senator or a president, And I think, you know, I think we need more women in this job, you know, give us more representation or whatever.
That doesn't seem illegal to me, because that's a case of the public gets to vote.
And that's just one of the variables.
It's like, oh, I care about that variable or I don't, but I get to vote.
It's not like a job.
But the Supreme Court is picked like a job interview.
I don't get to vote on the Supreme Court.
If I did, I'd be fine with that.
If I got to vote on the Supreme Court, along with all of you, if all the voters got to vote on the Supreme Court and somebody was saying, yeah, we should have a woman replace RGB, no problem at all.
I would have no problem with that at all.
Somebody says, I think you're off.
But what would be the reason?
Somebody is laughing white-privileged?
I don't even know. See, you can't tell a parody from reality anymore.
So people are making comments with little laughy faces.
And I don't even know if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
That's how weird things are.
Somebody says, this is playing the lefties game.
Well, saying in advance that you're going to pick a woman is definitely playing the lefties game.
Maybe you were speaking of someone specific.
I don't think that helps.
I mean, maybe that would be a defense, but I don't think that's what's happening necessarily.
Because apparently there are two women who have risen to the top of the likely list.
So it's not just one woman.
It's his choice, man or woman.
Well, it is his choice, but if you say to the public...
That you're limiting it by gender.
Is it still legal?
I don't know. It could be.
I would be willing to believe that it wouldn't be treated like regular employment.
And if the president has complete power to do what the president wants, well, maybe it doesn't matter.
Maybe he could be completely discriminatory and sexist.
President picks, and he disclosed, and you vote for the president.
Read my comments, and you will see the reason, somebody says, although I don't see where your comment is.
As long as he gives the opportunity to all, he can say anything.
He's not giving the opportunity to all.
That's the opposite of what he's doing.
All right, he's not discriminating.
How is he not discriminating?
Who breaks a tie?
That's a good question.
What happens if the Supreme Court has a tie?
You know... One of the reasons you don't want to elect me for president is that I would lock up the Supreme Court, if I could.
I would try to make it a tie.
So if there were more conservatives than liberals, I would add a liberal.
If it was the other way, I'd add a conservative.
And if I were president, I would make the Supreme Court eight people, four and four.
I wouldn't even replace a ninth person.
Do you know why? The reason is this.
If the Supreme Court can't make a decision that breaks out of the liberal and or conservative silos, hell with it.
I don't want them to do anything.
If the only reason that a decision goes one way is you have more liberal or you have more conservative judges, if that's the reason the decision went the way it went, that's not legitimate.
I mean, it's the law.
It's legitimate in terms of that is the system that we've all bought into.
But it doesn't seem to me like a good idea.
I only want things that somebody is willing to Here, we'll take care of this for you.
Whoever said boring and stayed on here, there, you're blocked.
It's okay to be bored and then leave, but don't be bored and then tell me you're bored.
Just leave. You got a choice.
All right. Somebody says, tie goes to the lower court decision.
Oh, that makes sense, right. So it doesn't get to the Supreme Court until the lower court is ruled.
If the Supreme Court is Thai, somebody is saying, and this sounds right, that that means there's no decision that the Supreme Court, so the lower court ruling would stand.
Seems reasonable. Alright.
Export Selection