Episode 1132 Scott Adams: Scalia's Last Words Discovered, Iran Gets Flexible Maybe, Coronavirus Surprises, Biden HOAXES
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Political pundits targeted, Carpe Donktum sued
If Eisenhower was right...so is President Trump
Not trusting our press or our generals
3 HOAXES by conservatives
DOJ human trafficking arrests
California ethnic studies college requirement
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's going to be lit. It's going to be off the hook.
It's going to be crazy.
Yes, that's how good it's going to be, just like always.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it features the simultaneous sip.
I know that's why you're here.
Those of you who are scurrying to get your cup and your mug ready, fill it with your favorite beverage, all you need really is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen.
Jug or flask. A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join 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! One of the best.
Dare I say, the best.
Well, The simulation is not disappointing us today.
It's giving us news that's fun.
That's right. It's not just news.
When I was a kid, when I would watch the news, it would be all about death and war and people dying.
And somewhere along the lines, that changed.
Remember, they used to say, if it bleeds, it leads.
And now that's sort of changed to, if it misleads, it leads.
Because the news stopped being about violence, for the most part.
I mean, if there's a big, you know, mass event, they're going to cover it, of course.
But for the most part, the news has turned from a whole bunch of violence to a little bit of violence, but mostly just crazy political stuff.
And hoaxes and...
And stuff like that.
So here's my favorite news story of the day that shouldn't even be news.
This is in the category of things that you shouldn't even care about.
But we do.
The New York Post ran this headline, and this is the exact wording of the headline.
Robert Kraft likely to get off in Florida massage parlor case.
Yeah, he's likely to get off.
I'm not even going to add anything to that.
That's it. Do you know author Naomi Wolf?
Naomi Wolf was tweeting this morning that she was not happy with the fact that the UK was going to have...
they were considering a $50 fine for not wearing a mask.
And she thought that was unreasonable.
Because you should never have a situation where you're penalized for what you wear or don't wear, in this case.
It's completely over the line to have your government financially penalizing you for what you wear.
That's ridiculous.
Or, in this case, for what you don't wear.
I commented back, I feel the same way about pants.
Because I don't know if you've ever tried to go out in public without wearing pants, but you'll get fined or arrested.
I'm not sure exactly what the penalty is, but I'm pretty sure the current situation is you can't wear anything you want.
So she removed that tweet within a few minutes of my comment.
I don't know if it was my comment, but if you said something as dumb as that in public, That the government can't determine what you wear.
And then somebody says, yeah, I feel the same way about pants.
You're probably going to delete your tweet pretty quickly.
I don't know if it was because of my comment.
Probably other people said the same thing.
Now, I know this will seem weird to you, but we've been hearing a lot about Justice Ginsburg's final request, her final words before she passed.
And people said, you know, usually you don't put a lot of credence in somebody's final words, but because she was a Supreme Court Justice, maybe, in this case, we should ignore the Constitution of the United States and focus on the importance of her last words.
And I thought to myself, well, maybe that's something we could extend a little bit.
That's such a good idea, to ignore the Constitution and just look at somebody's deathbed words, that I thought we should maybe do more of that.
Now, as luck would have it, I went to my researchers, and I have here the actual, the last words of Justice Scalia.
Now, didn't get much attention, because I don't know why, it's just the way the news covers stuff, but I do have Justice Scalia's Final words.
I'll read them to you. Oh, well, okay.
It's maybe not as newsworthy as I thought it would be.
It turns out it's an off-color joke.
Those were his final words.
Do you want to hear it? It's a very off-color joke.
So put the kids wherever they are back to sleep or send them off to school or something.
Don't let any children hear this.
You ready? You've been warned.
This is Justice Scalia's final words.
He said, let's see, what did the leper say to the prostitute?
Keep the tip.
Okay, well, I'm glad he left that with us.
But let's take that into consideration when we're making public policy.
The CIA came up with an assessment.
And listen to this.
This is from the CIA. And it's a good thing we've got the CIA to protect us.
Because this is exactly the kind of assessment that keeps us safe.
If we didn't have a CIA, how do we know this stuff?
So here's a new report from the CIA. Quote...
We assess that President Vladimir Putin and the senior most Russian officials are aware of and probably, probably, they don't know for sure, but probably, directing Russia's influence operation aimed at denigrating the former U.S. Vice President, I guess that would be Biden, supporting the U.S. President, Trump, and fueling public discord.
You know, I came to that same conclusion as the CIA, except the method that I used to come to that conclusion was I sat in my house and I thought about it.
Huh. I wonder what Vladimir Putin is doing and thinking right now.
Came to the same conclusion.
So, you don't really need a CIA. If you could just sit in your house and think of stuff.
Because the CIA didn't say it's definitely happening.
That would have been different. Because I couldn't have done that.
Something I couldn't do is tell you what Vladimir Putin is definitely doing.
I don't have that kind of skill.
But as they worded it, they say he's probably aware of directing things.
That's something I could have done.
And in fact I did.
In my house, with no help whatsoever, I sat there and I thought, I think he's probably aware of it and, I don't know, probably directing it a little bit, maybe, or if not him, his senior people, something like that. So there you have it.
That's my valuable intelligence offering.
I've been asking, as you know, For somebody to explain to me how it is that President Trump killed 200,000 people with his bad performance on the coronavirus, and I was looking for a little bit of specificity.
Can you tell me exactly what he did that killed people?
How did that happen?
And some people helpfully chimed in, in this case Pat East, Here's his list of how the president killed 200,000 people.
Number one, he still doesn't wear a mask.
That's right. President Trump doesn't wear a mask and therefore, logically, 200,000 people died.
Now, you might say to yourself, I'm not seeing the connecting tissue here.
Are you telling me that as a role model, he encouraged people to wear fewer masks?
I guess that's what the point is, right?
But I ask you this.
At what point did you tell yourself that President Trump was your role model?
Was there any point That you said to yourself, you know, I've been watching this guy for a while, and I feel like I need to model my life more similar to President Trump.
Because I like him as a president, and therefore, logically, I should sort of copy him in all things he does, personally and professionally.
You all thought that, right?
Come on, you're Trump supporters.
Be honest. You don't need to lie to me.
You know that you looked at President Trump and you said to yourself, there's a bunch of stuff I'm going to copy.
I like everything he does.
Now, I know some of you are going to lie and you're going to say, no, I like him because of his lowering taxes or something about Supreme Court picks and stuff like that.
Crazy stuff. But I know.
I know the real thing you like about him is that you'd like to model your life after all of his personal choices.
Because they're so strong and they fit your life so well.
So when you saw the president...
Who had the benefit of testing each and every person who came within his contact, testing them for coronavirus, you said to yourself, you know, that's just like my situation.
I also test everybody who comes within 100 yards of me.
Because I have a full medical department in my house, just like the White House.
And if anybody gets close, I don't wear my mask because I make sure they all get tested and I've got a result before I get near them.
So that's just like you, right?
Didn't you decide to not wear a mask because the president does?
And your life is a lot like his.
Very similar, or it should be.
I mean, really, you should model your life after the president.
So that's what Democrats think.
They think that Republicans looked at the president and said, you know, that situation applies to me.
In fact, I don't...
I don't need to carry firearms or have them in my house.
Do you know why? Because my Secret Service has that covered.
So one of the reasons I decide to have a gun or not have a gun in my house for personal defense is I look around and say, why would I need a gun?
I have my entire fleet of Secret Service people.
They have guns. They'll protect me.
So I don't need one, right?
Didn't you make the same decision?
Come on. Admit it.
A lot of you had guns, and then you saw that President Trump doesn't care.
I think. I think this is true.
He doesn't carry a gun with him in the Oval Office.
And you said, well, why?
Like, I have a gun.
I thought it was a good idea for self-defense.
But I noticed that the President doesn't.
He doesn't carry a gun.
I don't think he keeps one in the Oval Office.
Why? Well, obviously, his situation is the same as yours.
He's got the Secret Service to protect him, just like you do.
Just like you do. Yeah, it's a fleet.
It's called a fleet of Secret Service.
It's like a gaggle or a murder of crows.
Come on, keep up with me.
So that's what Democrats think that Republicans do to make decisions.
Then also that the early testing was horrible, and obviously the president is personally responsible for the tests being inadequate.
So the first tests that we had, they just didn't work.
They were technically imperfect.
And you have to think that's the president's fault.
Because all of the hours that he spends in the lab, testing kits and running this test against this other, he does a lot of science on the job.
And I think that's sort of his fault.
I mean, if President Trump spent all that time doing direct building of test kits and then making sure that they worked, and he didn't build them right, I know a lot of you are thinking, well, wait a minute, Scott, I don't think the president does that personally.
It feels to me as if it wouldn't have mattered who was president.
Because was Obama actually in the lab and working on those test kits?
So if he had been president for a third term, we'd be okay, right?
Because he would have worked out the science, unlike dumb old President Trump.
It's like he doesn't even know how to mix chemicals or something, right?
So that was the other good reason.
And then there was this one. The PPE was confiscated by the feds.
What? What?
Okay. If there wasn't enough PPE, I think it did make sense to give it to the frontline workers.
I'm not sure anybody else is holding that against the president.
And then the fourth thing that the president did that killed 200,000 people is that he said the virus is going away.
Which is very similar to or exactly what everybody in the world thinks.
It is going to go away.
I don't know when.
And of course everybody knows the president is a little hyperbolic.
But if you thought the virus was going to go away, how did you act differently?
Did you say to yourself, someday in the future, the virus will go away, therefore, logically, it cannot infect me today?
You thought that, right?
You're sitting at home and you said, oh, the president just said that someday in the future, we don't know when, but in the future, the virus will go away, and therefore, since the virus will go away in the future, It poses no risk to me today, so I don't need to wear a mask, because it won't exist in the future.
So that's the fourth good reason that Pat East gives me on Twitter for why the president killed 200,000 people.
He didn't wear a mask, which made everybody who follows him not wear a mask, obviously.
He botched those test kits that he made personally.
He allowed the PPE to go to the frontline workers.
And he thought it would go away in the future, which caused people in the present to think that they couldn't be infected by an active virus.
Because that makes sense.
So those are the good reasons that are given for why the president killed 200,000 people.
You may not know this, but now you will.
There's a lawsuit against our favorite meme maker, Carpe Donctum, who got kicked off of Twitter.
And you can see it in my Twitter feed, or you could just search for it, Carpe Donctum.
And you should donate to that.
Because if you haven't noticed the war within the war, A lot of the people who are effective at promoting their side are being picked off in a way we didn't used to do before.
It used to be that people would go after the professionals, after the politicians, but now people are going after pundits.
People are going after any strong advocate, if they can get them, anyway.
So here's Carpe Dunctum, not some rich guy, right?
He doesn't have You know, resources, unlimited resources.
And he gets sued for a meme in which two little toddlers were shown and the parents of the toddlers are suing him.
Why? I mean, what possible harm could have happened because two toddlers that nobody recognized?
And by the way, the video he used was something that was already public.
He just used it in a different context to make it look different.
But it was obviously a joke.
Anybody who saw it knew it was a joke.
It had nothing to do with the two little kids in it.
It wasn't accusing them or anything or blaming them because they were toddlers, right?
So nobody could possibly make any kind of judgment about the kids.
And again, it was already public video, so it's not like they were being seen for the first time.
So this is just more of The badness of people trying to take chess pieces off the board, simply because he's a supporter of President Trump, he gets sued.
Now, do you think that the lawsuit, the purpose of it, is to win?
Do you think those parents have anything to win?
What are they going to win?
Are they going to get all of his money that doesn't exist?
All of his wealth or something that doesn't exist?
All it does is punish him.
It is nothing but a way to take a piece off the board and punish him away from politics.
So if you can donate to his legal defense fund, you would be doing a good thing for the world, I think.
So there's something really interesting happening in the world of batteries.
Now, that doesn't seem like a sexy topic, except it's going to change the whole frickin' world.
There's something about ready to happen.
And when I say about...
It could be within the next two years, but you could see some things really soon.
The first one is that Tesla is talking about something they call battery day.
Battery day apparently, if I understand it right, The theoretical day at which buying a car with a battery will just be less expensive than a car with gasoline.
And once it becomes more economical to have a battery instead of gasoline, then everything changes quickly.
Things are changing, but that's when it changes really quickly.
Because nobody's going to want a gas-powered A lot of people are just going to say, oh, well, I'll take the one that costs less if that's electric.
Why wouldn't I? Lots of advantages.
So, I guess Musk said that that might be two years away, and that might have to do with how long it takes to build production and create enough batteries.
And apparently Tesla is at least...
Teasing that they might start making their own batteries instead of buying all of them or buying, I don't know, most or all of them from other places.
So that's big. Now, if you didn't know this, the improvement in batteries is very similar to the improvement in microchips.
You know how microchips just get better and better and better and you say to yourself, Well, when is this going to stop?
When do microchips stop getting faster?
And the answer is, I don't know, but they just keep going.
They just keep getting faster.
Batteries are doing the same thing.
But I think it's a slower rate, so you don't see it as, you know, it's not as flashy.
It's not like it's doubling every year.
But it's very consistently getting better every year, and quite substantially, to the point where everything will change.
The feasibility of all kinds of things changes if you can store energy economically.
There is apparently another startup called QuantumScape.
And they're talking about an IPO, but they won't reveal the details of their technology.
But they claim to have some kind of battery breakthrough that would even leapfrog where Tesla is now.
And where Tesla is now is pretty darn impressive.
But if this is true, and we have reason to believe maybe it's not as true as it could be, because they're not being forthcoming with their details.
But if it's true, I mean, it's a billion-dollar-plus enterprise, and they say they're going IPO. So if it's a fraud, it's a big one.
So it's either pretty important, or it would be...
It would be a pretty bold fraud if it were a fraud.
So I'm guessing it's real.
The other thing that's changing is that the batteries are becoming so good, and we anticipate that they will get better at such a rate, that it will be practical to have airplanes that are electric.
And there are companies actively working on electric jets.
So if you've got electric jets, you've got electric cars that are cheaper, You've got a big part of the solution for maybe something that deals with climate change, for example. Now, of course, you still need something to generate all that electricity, and I'm guessing it's going to be nuclear.
But if you add nuclear, plus solar, plus batteries, plus some people are going to want to do some windmills, Maybe you should do more nuclear and fewer windmills.
But there's also a transition thing.
You could do a windmill faster than you can do a nuclear.
So I think you're going to see the point where climate change is, at least we feel it's being addressed.
If you don't think climate change is a problem, that's separate.
But a lot of people do.
And I do think that the climate's getting warmer.
So it might make a difference.
It might make a difference.
That's right. So nuclear plus better batteries is just a complete game changer.
Complete game changer.
But here's the other way it's a game changer.
I don't believe we would see as much progress in the Middle East in terms of peace deals with Israel unless all of the oil producing regions could see that in the long run oil is going to be less important.
If you own a country that produces oil and everybody needs it and they just have to deal with you, They just have to deal with you because they need oil.
You can be a bad actor.
You can be a very bad country as long as you have oil.
Because people are still going to buy your oil.
But what if people don't need your oil?
Well, if you're looking at 20 years from now, You're going to say to yourself, uh, we'd better make friends and quick because we're going to need to have a different kind of economy.
It's going to require more cooperative, you know, win-win deals.
We're not going to be able to just strong-arm people and say, hey, you want oil?
If you want oil, I guess you've got to deal with us.
That will be the old way.
So when you look at the Tesla, you know, battery deal, you're looking at Elon Musk Creating peace in the Middle East.
Is that too much of a statement?
I'm not sure it is.
I don't think it is.
I think Elon Musk, through the power of his entrepreneurial will and, you know, unnatural ability to get things done, I think Elon Musk is making peace in the Middle East possible.
Because I've told you lots of times, That people are more influenced by the direction of things and where things are heading than they are by where things are.
Because you really care about where you're heading, but you don't think so much about where you are, you just get used to that.
And where things are heading, thanks to Elon Musk, probably the biggest influence on where things are heading in terms of batteries, the Middle East has got to get flexible.
Recently, we saw that Iran said that it would exchange all prisoners with the United States.
Now, is that foreshadowing a little bit of flexibility from Iran?
I don't know.
Maybe not. I mean, historically, they've done prisoner things before, and it didn't change their overall behavior.
But it could be.
It could be. And...
And I was looking at Pompeo, was tweeting and announcing that Europe is still selling arms to Iran.
And I thought to myself, what?
That's one of those things you don't really pay attention to until you get slapped in the face with it.
And I thought to myself, who exactly is selling arms to Iran in this day and age?
And Pompeo was a little bit vague about who was doing it, but don't you kind of want to know who exactly is selling military-grade stuff to Iran?
How in the world does that make sense?
Why are we doing business with any country that's selling Iran, selling weapons to Iran?
Are we talking about a big country like France?
Who the hell is selling weapons to Iran?
And Pompeo said it was Europe.
He didn't say it was China or Russia.
So I got questions about that.
But I do suspect that it is possible, because of the direction of where oil is going, that Iran might actually get flexible.
And the administration is sort of surrounding them with allied forces at this point.
If Israel and the other countries that are not Iran start being friendly, it's going to be tough to be Iran.
Tough to be Iran.
I just have to look at this.
I won't even tell you what that's about.
So yeah, selling weapons to Iran.
Let's get some more information about that.
Because this is one of those things that just needs a little sunlight, doesn't it?
Somebody's asking about Turkey.
I don't know. Let's find out.
Because we should be putting a lot of pressure on any European country.
Why would we defend Turkey?
A European country that's selling arms to Iran.
Are we part of NATO with some country that's selling arms to Iran?
Let's find out what that's all about.
It's been 84 days since Joe Biden promised to release his potential Supreme Court nominees.
Why do you think it is that Joe Biden does not want to release his list of potential Supreme Court nominees?
Well, I have a suggestion.
The suggestion might be that in the conservative world, people largely agree what a good judge looks like, or a good Supreme Court justice.
They know what that looks like.
So I think conservatives, you could rely on them to like the same group of people.
But I don't know if that's true for the Democrats anymore.
It could be that the Democrats have now split into the reasonable moderates and the more extreme ones.
And it could be that there's no such thing as a list that Joe Biden could put out that wouldn't drive his own base apart.
It's possible he can't put that list out because it would reveal that the Democrats are not unified and it would give them a reason to hate each other.
I guess the U.S. military is going to cut in half once again its troops in Iraq.
How many times...
Does President Trump have to do something that the military says shouldn't be done or couldn't be done and it works out fine?
How many examples have we seen now where Trump and the military have disagreed and Trump turns out to be right?
A lot? All of them?
Doesn't it look to you like Trump is right on military stuff a lot?
And could it be because Trump is right that the generals are dopes and we just didn't know it.
Or could it be that the military-industrial complex makes the generals act dumb?
They're not dumb, but they act dumb because they're beholden to other interests.
Is that possible? Well, Eisenhower said it was a fact.
Nobody said it wasn't a fact.
From the day that Eisenhower did his military-industrial Speech where he said, hey, watch out for the military and industry trying to influence the government.
They have too much power. Nobody from that day to today has said that's not real.
Nobody has ever said, nope, there's no such thing as a military-industrial complex.
And here we are, and you have Trump basically saying that the generals are effectively not on your side.
Is he wrong? Well, if Eisenhower was right, so is Trump.
He just says it differently.
Eisenhower says, watch out for the military-industrial complex.
It's real. Trump says the generals are dopes.
It's kind of the same thing.
Because I don't think they're dopes in the sense that they're actually not smart.
Nobody would make that claim.
These are very, very smart people.
But if they don't make the right decisions...
And they consistently don't make the right decisions.
You've got to kind of look at Eisenhower, don't you?
And say, well, why is that?
Is it because they all get lucrative jobs later?
Is it because of who they hang out with and how they're influenced?
I don't know. All I know is that the guy who's not supposed to know anything about the military, Trump, keeps making the right decisions.
And the generals don't.
That's just a fact now.
You know, before I think you could say, hey, Trump is crazy if he's overruling generals.
But not now. Now I think you could say Trump overruling the generals is pretty much exactly what I want to see more of.
A lot more of it, actually.
All right. Two of the best things that Trump has brought the country...
are a complete lack of trust in the press and a complete lack of trust in our own generals.
Now, I know people are going to say, Scott, those sound like bad things.
It's bad that we don't trust our press.
And it's bad that we don't trust our generals.
Is it? It's only bad if it's wrong.
If the press were legitimate and the president said don't trust them, well that would be a problem.
But the press is not legitimate.
They're not even close to legitimate.
They're not even slightly legitimate.
So when the president trains the public to understand that the press is no longer legitimate, has he done a horrible thing to the country, or one of the most valuable things that's ever happened?
I would say it's one of the most valuable things that's ever happened, our understanding that the press is no longer what it used to be and can't be trusted.
What about Trusting our generals or not trusting them.
That too looks like more of an Eisenhower super useful thing to understand.
Because how often have you heard, you know, hey, the generals say there's only one way to handle this.
And it just happens to be a military answer.
I don't know. I think these are the two best things the president has brought us.
Lack of trust in the press.
Lack of trust in our own generals.
There's a reason we have a civilian leadership over the military, and we can see it now.
Steve Cortez tweeted that deranged Don Lemon threatens to, quote, blow up the entire system, including the electoral college and stacking the court.
I love deranged.
Deranged Don Lemon.
There are very few words that fit so perfectly.
Because, you know, if you say Don Lemon, any other insults like, oh, he's dumb or he's whatever, biased or whatever, there's no other word that would fit quite as well as deranged.
When you watch Don Lemon, that is the word that jumps into your mind when you're watching him.
You're thinking, well, he's clearly smart.
He's clearly talented.
But what's going on here?
There's something deranged happening here.
So when we're talking about everything being on the table, it's really getting interesting, the world of politics.
Because I think the idea of stacking the court went from a ridiculous idea to, yeah, that could happen.
Stacking the court looks like a real thing that would definitely happen if Biden got elected.
I would say if Biden got elected, the odds of the court being stacked are close to 100%.
It went from like a wild idea to, yeah, probably.
How about getting rid of the Electoral College?
I don't know what's involved with that.
Does that require a constitutional change?
But I think they're quite serious about that too.
And I don't think that was serious.
As serious in prior years.
And then here's the most fun part of the bare-knuckled politics that's going on.
So Nadler wanted to require these Department of Justice people to come in and testify, and the Department of Justice rejected it.
So the Department of Justice publicly rejected Nadler's request for testimony Because of the way they treated Bill Barr and they didn't wait for his answers.
So because they didn't let Bill Barr speak, they can completely legitimately say, yeah, if Congress wanted us to testify, like actually give you answers, sure, that would be perfectly appropriate.
But now we know...
We know with certainty that that's not the plan because of what you did with Barr.
So I think the Department of Justice is on completely firm ground just saying, yes, I would of course comply with a request from Congress to testify if it were a real request, but it's not.
They can actually argue that it's just not a real request.
And it's a perfectly strong argument because of how they were treated last time.
So watching how things that used to be completely unimaginable, you couldn't imagine the Department of Justice saying, no, no, we don't think you'll play fair, so we're just not coming.
Just unimaginable.
And now it's all imaginable.
You can imagine every bit of this happening.
My smartest Democrat friend that I talk about all the time, because I debate with him on Trump stuff, his latest outrage, and he thought this was just beyond the pale.
This was one of the big things that we should be worrying about.
If you're looking at the coronavirus or global warming or the economy, those, oh sure, those are important too.
But this is the thing.
Oh, this is the thing.
That really, we need to focus on this.
And it was that Trump doubted that Ginsburg's dying wish was exactly as stated.
That's it. That was an outrage.
It was an outrage that President Trump would doubt the veracity of Ginsburg's final wish that she'd be replaced by the next president.
Now, first of all, Every one of you doubted that.
Every one of you, the moment you heard the words of her final deathbed request, the moment you heard it, be honest, you said to yourself, I'm not so sure.
Maybe. It could be.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm a little bit skeptical that it's a little bit too much on the nose, if you know what I mean.
And anyway, the reason I point this out is that if you start with what are the most important things that you hate Trump for if you're a Trump hater, and you debunk them, you end up down with little stuff like this.
Wow, but what about that tweet?
How about that?
What about that tweet?
That's it. I mean, that really reveals that what's going on is like an emotional...
Response to the president.
It has nothing to do with his policies.
It has nothing to do with what he does or doesn't do.
It has nothing to do with his priorities.
They just don't like this guy.
And it comes out in a lot of different ways.
All right. Well, what else is going on?
Did you see that Joel Pollack pointed out in a tweet...
That Biden was wearing his mask for a Zoom interview.
That's right. He was all alone on a Zoom call, and he wore his mask the entire time.
Now, what's that mean?
Does it mean he's trying to be a good role model?
So, thanks to Joe Biden, would you be more likely to wear your mask during a Zoom call?
Because he did. Because that's how it works, right?
You see somebody like Biden or Trump, depending on who you imagine is your role model, and then you sort of copy them.
That's what I've been told.
So would we not expect to see lots of Democrats wearing a face mask all alone on a Zoom call?
Right? But let me suggest...
There might be at least one other reason he might wear a mask all by himself on a Zoom call.
Did you see his little speech yesterday?
He looked so sick and weak when he went up to give his speech yesterday live.
Not the Zoom call, but when he gave, I guess there must have been a few people there.
He seemed very sickly and weak, but he also coughed.
And he also wore his mask, although he was quite a ways away from the people he was talking to.
Now, you know this simulation has the obvious trick waiting.
If you were a bad script writer and you were going to write, all right, what happens next in this movie that we're watching called Life, of course you would give Biden coronavirus.
Is there any doubt...
That if you were the writer of this simulation, you would give Biden coronavirus.
Now, as a human being, I hope he does not get it.
I don't want anybody to get the coronavirus.
I would not be happy if Joe Biden gets the coronavirus because he would be seriously at risk.
He would be more at risk than the average person because of age.
So let me be clear.
There would be nothing funny about this.
If somebody his age gets the coronavirus, that is deadly serious.
Doesn't matter who it is.
So we're going to take that seriously.
But you know the simulation wants to give him coronavirus.
Because it's just the way the story works best.
You know, tragic as it would be.
It would be the way to get Kamala in there gracefully, etc.
But let's hope that doesn't happen.
But man, the hints...
The hints are incredible.
Oh, true story.
I was talking to my doctor about some blood pressure meds.
So I'm testing some meds for my blood pressure.
I'm at that age. It's genetic in my case.
My lifestyle is sort of perfectly suited for not getting high blood pressure.
But it's genetic, so it caught up to me.
And one of the choices for blood pressure meds is that there's one of them that works really well, but has a weird side effect, which is it can give you a dry cough.
And my doctor's explaining, well, there's this one that does this, and there's this one, but the downside is it'll give you a dry cough.
And I was like, stop. Let's never talk about that one again.
Because if there ever was a time to not take a medicine that gives you a dry cough, it would be right now.
Because I would rather die of a heart attack than walk around in public with a dry cough during the coronavirus pandemic.
I don't need that.
So give me anything else that doesn't cause a dry cough.
So it could be that Biden is on some meds to give him a dry cough or it was just an ordinary cough.
But it certainly makes us look.
Let's talk about all the hoaxes.
Did you see the hoax?
I'll call it a hoax.
It's fake news, let's call it.
There was a report that the Nashville mayor's office was trying to keep a secret that the opening of the bars did not cause much extra infection.
It turns out that that was never true, that this was public knowledge and the story as reported, I think Fox News reported it a few times, just wasn't true.
A lot of people sent me that story and said, Scott, look at this.
Nashville is hiding the fact that opening the bars didn't make any difference to infection or very little difference.
And I saw that and I said to myself, I'm going to wait.
I'm going to wait on this.
Do you know why? Because it didn't look real to me.
Do you know why it didn't look real?
It was lacking context, and it was a little bit too on the nose.
If you see those two things, hey, I don't see the full context, and it's a little too perfect, a little too perfect, you should wait.
So I'm going to pat myself on the back, because the moment I saw that story, I said, I don't know if I trust that one.
That's got those two tells.
Not enough context, and it's a little too perfect.
So I waited, and sure enough, it turned out not to be true.
Because that information had already been public, I guess.
So I bet it was withdrawn by the local news group that put it out.
All right, here's two more Biden hoaxes.
Did you see the video in which Biden appeared to forget the words of the Pledge of Allegiance?
Did you see that on Twitter?
A lot of people were tweeting around.
It looked like Biden started the Pledge of Allegiance and then forgot the words and then changed the subject.
That was just fake news.
Just a hoax.
What you thought happened didn't happen.
He was talking about the first few words of the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's all he was doing.
He was just talking about the first words of the Pledge of Allegiance, and then he made a point about that.
That's it. He never forgot the words to the Pledge of Allegiance.
It just didn't happen. It's the same way they make fake news about President Trump.
You just truncate the news so that you can't tell what the context was.
And then Then the other fake news, this one is still going around, by the way.
Most of you think this is real.
This is obvious fake news.
He was doing an interview with a Telemundo guy, so he's in the room.
Telemundo guy is here.
But Biden apparently was reading what people thought was his answers to the questions off a teleprompter.
And in fact, he gave it away by saying...
He said, I lost that last line.
So Biden, instead of looking at the interviewer, he's looking to the side and he's answering the question.
He goes, I lost that last line.
So the fake news, the hoax, is that his answers were on a teleprompter.
The teleprompter got out of whack and he was telling the teleprompter person to put his answer back there because he was so incompetent that he needed to read his answers.
And then the And then the interviewer said, Jose said, we can talk you and I on that.
So he told Biden to talk to him.
He says, we can talk you and I on that.
Here's what actually happened, if you see the larger context.
The screen was not a teleprompter.
The screen was a citizen asking a question.
And so he was looking at the citizen asking a question on the other screen instead of looking at the interviewer because that's what he's supposed to do.
There's somebody on the screen asking him a question.
So he looked at it. Okay?
That's the first part.
Secondly, it looks to me that the context was, and I might have this wrong, but certainly the major part of it I have, right?
It looked to me like maybe he missed the question when he said, you know, what was the last line or I missed the last line.
It was the last line of the question.
It wasn't the last line of his alleged answer that's written on a teleprompter.
Complete fake news, right?
Now, the reason that I point out all of these fake news is that these were fakes on the conservative side.
These are conservatives hoaxing themselves, basically.
Because all of these came from conservatives.
They hoaxed themselves and tried to hoax other people at the same time.
Those are three pretty big hoaxes.
Three pretty big hoaxes.
And if you didn't notice them immediately, you need to tune your filter.
I would say that all of these were obvious to me.
From the first moment any of those three fake newses happened, as soon as I saw them, I said, well, that's not buying that.
So somebody's saying in the comments, you said this was fair game.
It's totally fair.
Yeah. It's fake news, but somebody said, hey, you said it was fair because the other side is lying.
Yeah, it is. It is completely fair, but I don't want you to be fooled.
Right? I don't want you to be fooled.
I want you to have actual useful information that informs your world.
But yeah, it's totally fair.
We are in a contest where lying is the rules.
Lying does not break the rules.
Lying is the game.
That's what a political ad is.
It's a bunch of lies. If you imagine that it's even trying to be the truth, you don't understand it.
George Papadopoulos tweeted this.
He said this drive to combat human trafficking out of the DOJ should be nationally and globally applauded.
This is a serious issue.
And one of my...
Subscribers on Locals.
Locals is the platform that I do some of the stuff that I don't do in public, you know, the edgier stuff.
And other content that I do a lot of micro-lessons on success and persuasion, etc.
over there. And somebody on Locals, and that's a subscription site, locals.com if you're looking for it, said that I'm not doing enough talking about What the government is doing battling trafficking and child trafficking and sex trafficking, etc. And I agree with that.
And for some reason it's not making as much news as you think it should, as George Papadopoulos points out.
And so Ivanka Trump tweeted that A.G. Barr and Ivanka...
Announced the largest investment for trafficking support services in U.S. history, over $100 million in grants.
So this is one of those things that the president is not getting nearly enough credit for.
This is one of the best things a president ever did.
He's just going totally Viking on these fucking...
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to swear.
The president is going barbaric on the traffickers, and it looks like they're just pulling out all the stops.
It looks like they've decided, like ISIS to me, to me it looks like what the president is doing for the sex trafficking is very similar to what he did to ISIS, which is this.
What do we need to do to defeat ISIS? Okay, now we'll do it.
Right? That's how President Trump defeated ISIS. Tell me what we need to do.
Okay, that's what we need to do.
Okay, these are your orders.
Do that. I'm simplifying, but that's basically what it is.
With this trafficking, it looks like the same thing.
Okay, what do we need to do to stop all this trafficking, or at least put a big dent in it?
What do we need to do? Okay, that's what we need to do.
I order you to do that.
I don't know if it's harder than that, because it seems to me that the Department of Justice probably knew what to do.
They just needed the order and the money and the support.
Same as the military fighting ISIS. It's a gigantic accomplishment.
Very underappreciated.
The department...
Every time I read news about my own state, California, it makes me laugh because it's so stupid.
The things that we do in this state are just beyond parity at this point.
So you know that the president said he would maybe reduce federal funding for states that were...
Trying to push the 1619 curriculum, the anti-racist curriculum that in fact is racist.
So the California Department of Education, they decided to develop the nation's first statewide ethnic studies curriculum.
So they're going to make ethnic studies and anti-racism a curriculum.
And Governor Newsom is heading it up and blah, blah, blah.
And another bill signed by Newsom last month, it would require that all undergraduate students in the California State University system complete an ethnic studies course before graduation.
So it will actually be an ethnic studies requirement before graduation.
Let me suggest a better way to go about this.
There's a general principle or rule about the human mind that whatever it is you focus on becomes the most important thing to you.
So if the only thing you think, if you talk about and think about is the color red, then everywhere you go you're going to be noticing the color red, right?
You've noticed that if you're in a crowded room and there's background noise and you can't make out any words, but somebody says your name, you can make out your name out of this cacophony of indistinct sound.
Your name is really clear.
And it's because the human brain tunes itself for whatever you tune it to.
That didn't make sense.
But you can tune your brain To focus on whatever you want.
By creating a curriculum and having Black Lives Matter being a focus of attention and all this focus on the kneeling, etc., we have created a situation where race is the dominant filter in our environment.
Is that good? Is it good that we've put front of mind race?
Now, you might think, and I would say that most Democrats would say, yeah, that's good.
Totally good. Because race is such a big thing.
It affects everything all the time.
It's everything from employment to fairness to health care.
I mean, there's nothing in our environment that doesn't have a racial component, and it matters.
It matters, right?
So yes, yes, we should be focusing on race and ethnicity.
But what if we didn't? I'll just put this out here as a what if.
What if we didn't? What if we took the following approach instead?
What if we said the filter that matters is responsibility?
That people who take responsibility for their own life, as well as their community, that people who take responsibility and do it right, they have a strategy that makes sense for taking responsibility, Are all on the same team.
And anybody who doesn't take responsibility is on the other team.
Suppose... And you could even forget about Democrat or Republican.
There's nothing about Democrat or Republican in any of this that is relevant.
There are responsible Democrats.
There are responsible Republicans.
And you know who you are, right?
You know who you are.
And if you, as a responsible Republican...
Have a friend who's a responsible Democrat.
Do you get along? Yeah, you do.
You do get along. Because you're both responsible.
That is the dominant thing that keeps people together.
Do I think that black people should organize for political power as a group?
That black people should be, you know, we're all together.
If you're black, you have a common set of problems.
So we black people need to stick together Have some political power or get some stuff done.
Well, there was a time in our history that made perfect sense.
If you looked at the 60s, for example, civil rights, yeah, yeah, because if you were black, you were discriminated against just for being black, period.
So, of course, organizing according to that political group, perfect sense.
And it worked.
Organizing... As a group of black people and getting a lot of support from other people, very successful.
Now fast forward to 2020.
When you look at the people who are getting stopped by police and they resist arrest and they get murdered or killed, let's say not murdered, let's say killed, keep it less political, they get killed by police.
If you are a successful professional person, Black person in the United States.
Do you want to say, I'm going to throw in with that guy?
Because I've got a lot in common with that criminal who just resisted arrest, has a lengthy record of crime, and got killed by the police.
That's the team I want to be on, because we've got to stick together.
Me, who has this, you know, A responsible life where I did all the right things.
I stayed out of trouble. I worked hard.
I made money. I took care of my family.
Yeah, I've got a lot in common with that crook who just got killed by the police.
No, you don't.
Do you give me permission to swear?
Because there are just some statements that require Cursing.
Just requires it.
Do you mind? I'll give you a little warning to those of you who want to mute it or get somebody out of the room.
This makes me crazy.
Because I think black people in this country are getting fucking screwed.
Just screwed.
If you're a black person in this country and you've led...
What I'll call a responsible life.
You said to yourself, alright, what would it take for me to have a good life?
And then you did those things.
And you built yourself a good life.
Do you know who's fucking it up for you?
Black people. Let's be honest.
If you lived a responsible life and you're a black citizen and you just did everything right, you're just taking care of your family, you're paying your fucking taxes, You're just being a good person.
Maybe you're going to church.
You're just contributing.
You're just fucking contributing.
Why are you being dragged down by the fucking assholes who are breaking the law who happen to have the same color as you?
Don't be a sucker.
Don't be a sucker.
You're not on their team.
Neither am I. Because you know whose team I'm on?
I'm on your team.
You're responsible. I don't care what fucking color you are.
I don't care how gay you are.
I don't care how LGBTQ you are.
Don't fucking care.
Are you responsible?
Are you taking care of yourself or working toward it?
That's fine. You don't have to take care of yourself if you're working toward it.
You know, you could be a student or whatever.
But I'm on the team of responsible people.
People who take care of themselves, their family, The people closest to them, and then maybe if they've got a little left over, something for the town, something for the country, something for the world, if you've got a lot left over.
But the fact that both white and black people have fucking screwed the black public in this country, I don't know about other countries, but absolutely fucking screwed black people by allowing them, not allowing, but by encouraging, let's say, By encouraging this filter that black people are on the same team, you're not on the same fucking team.
And if you don't want to listen to me on this, listen to Dave Chappelle.
He says the same fucking thing.
He just says it in his own words.
He says he's rich.
He's not on your team.
He's not. He will be treated like a rich person.
OJ Simpson, he's not on your team.
That's a special case.
Not exactly a role model.
But how about we just stop treating black people like they're all on the same team?
Because they're just not.
And the worst fucking thing you could do to a responsible black person, which is most people, right?
Most people are responsible, just in general.
Most people are responsible.
The worst thing you could do is say, oh yeah, you're black.
Because that just lumped you in with a whole bunch of fucking irresponsible people that are not your fault.
It's not your fucking fault if other people are criminals.
It's just not your fucking fault.
And you should cut yourself off from them and say, let me live with the responsible people.
Let the people who don't care about color, don't care about ethnicity, they only care about the Constitution, they care about making the country work, let me deal with these people.
Because these people are not going to screw me.
So, the greatest, I would say, persuasion crime in this country is that We've packaged the citizens by color and to some extent by gender.
You know, there's a similar argument there.
All right, so that's enough about that.
So what you focus on becomes most real.
So as long as we're focusing on black versus white instead of responsible versus irresponsible, we will always get the wrong answer.
We'll always have the wrong filter if that's where we spend our time.
You know, there's a technology that's coming that might help this happen.
Let's say you're...
Oh, this will really get me cancelled.
You ready? Here's some serious cancellation material.
This will be easy to take out of context so they can cancel it.
Let's say you were...
I'll just keep this...
How can I protect myself best?
All right, here's what we'll do.
You're a young black woman.
You're walking down the street.
It's at night. It's maybe a neighborhood that's not as safe as it could be.
And you see coming toward you three 19-year-old black youths coming the other way.
And they're in the distance, so you can't quite make out what's going on.
But you can tell that they're black.
They're about that age. You're a black woman.
I'm just making everybody black in this situation so I don't get cancelled.
Do you say to yourself, this is just as safe as if I saw three Asian men walking in the same direction?
Well, if you say, if I will judge this based on the number of people in this category who have been jailed, suddenly you end up acting like a racist and it's your own race.
Because you say, eh, 19-year-old males...
We're black. What percentage of them have a criminal record?
Unfortunately, it's way higher than anybody would want it to be, right?
So if you're the black woman, do you say, hmm, maybe I'll cross the street, right?
Would that be unreasonable to make a judgment based on statistics?
Well, it's unfair.
It's racist.
Because those three people that are coming the other way, they could be like honor roll students.
They could be Harvard students.
You don't know anything about them.
You don't know anything about them.
But here's the technology that could change that.
Facial recognition.
Imagine if facial recognition was so good that somebody approaches and you could judge them individually.
Boop, boop, boop. Oh, three college students.
Probably no risk here at all.
And you just know that, even though they're strangers.
Or three people who have jobs.
Three people who have jobs are far less likely to attack you, no matter what ethnicity you are, or they are.
Far less likely than three people who don't have jobs.
It's not a universal rule, but likelihood.
So the question is, If we get to the point where we can judge people individually and instantly, somebody comes in for a job, boom, you already know who they are.
Then maybe you could be less racist, right?
Because racism is based on some assumption that somebody is similar to other people by the coincidence of their look and their melatonin.
Melanin? No, melanin.
And individual identification would help.
Get rid of that. Here's a little trick from Jonathan Tulin on Twitter.
He says this, if someone asks you how you are, say, quote, I'm amazing, thanks, how are you?
Now, I tweeted this because that's exactly what I say.
I use those precise words.
Now, not every time, but if I am actually having a good day, I usually say, I'm amazing.
Thanks. How are you?
Here's why I do it.
Repetition is persuasion.
And you can repeat to yourself something that you want to tune yourself to.
So if you want to be a nice person, you tell yourself you're a nice person every day.
If you want to be stronger or healthier, it probably does help to tell yourself you're stronger or healthier, even if the only thing that changes is it makes you exercise more or whatever.
So I would say as a good personal trick that if somebody says, how are you, don't say this.
Don't say, not bad.
That's the worst thing you could say.
Not bad. Because your brain doesn't recognize not, but it recognizes bad.
So it's like telling yourself you're bad every time somebody asks you how you are, and eventually you start convincing yourself you're bad.
But suppose you said, every time somebody asks you, it's an excuse to do an affirmation out loud, I'm amazing.
Because I'm amazing isn't just, are you well, or are you having a good day?
That's the beauty of it.
It's, I'm amazing.
Somebody says Charles Duhigg.
Did he say that in his book?
Because he wrote a book on habits.
Charles Duhigg actually spent a day with me when he was writing that book and ended up not putting me in his book.
But if it came from his book, it was great.
But use that trick.
Facebook, according to Josh Kaplan, he was tweeting that Facebook is considering restricting the circulation of content...
Whatever that means, if the election descends into chaos or violent unrest.
Are you comfortable with that?
That Facebook is at least teasing, I don't know if they'll actually do it, but they would restrict circulation of content, and they don't say what content, if there's chaos or violence after the election.
Now, you can think of a good way that would work.
The good way would be if somebody's trying to Organize a riot.
Wouldn't you be happy if Facebook did not help anybody organize a riot?
On the other hand, free speech.
On the other hand, what if they say we're organizing a protest, but Facebook thinks it will be a riot?
Then do they restrict it?
I don't know. How long would it take the people organizing their riots or protests to just move to another platform?
Just move to WhatsApp or something else?
Probably wouldn't take long.
Well, I guess WhatsApp wouldn't work, but some other thing like Signal or something.
So, I'm a little uneasy.
A little uneasy with the platforms manipulating public opinion directly because they're saying that.
I don't know how to read this any other way.
I believe Facebook is, number one, acknowledging that Facebook manipulates public opinion.
Right? Because if they say they're going to stop allowing certain kinds of speech under this circumstance, they are admitting that things that happen on their platform change the real world, meaning that they influence the world.
So that's pretty important.
But also the fact that they would use their judgment about what it is that's too important or too dangerous to put on there.
This is a tough one.
And I'm not even sure which way I go on this.
Because on one hand, I have mixed Zuckerberg feelings.
So on one hand, He probably is legitimately one of the best CEOs in history.
Even at a young age, he was one of the best CEOs in history.
So I have great respect for his talents.
I do think he only wants what's best.
I don't think he has any bad intentions for anybody.
But even so, trusting anybody to decide what we can and cannot see is pretty dangerous stuff.
The CDC changed their guidelines.
They said it was a draft report and they pulled it back, where they said that the coronavirus had a bigger risk of airborne transmission, and then they backed that off and said, no, no, no, it's not so much the airborne transmission as close contact with people and maybe something about services.
Now, when you see stuff like this, what are we supposed to think about trusting experts?
You've got Joe Biden out there, brain-dead Joe Biden saying, trust the experts.
We must listen to the experts.
And then the very next news story is about the experts being wrong.
So how does Joe Biden justify his very strict preference for following the experts?
How does he justify that in a context where the news, the news that's swirling around him, even at the same time, is that the experts were wrong about this.
The experts were wrong about that.
The experts were wrong about that.
If you look at President Trump's greatest accomplishments, what do they all have in common?
What do they all have in common?
The experts said that they wouldn't work, right?
Did the experts say that a trade war with China would always be a bad idea?
They did. What do they say now?
Oh, it looks like it worked.
Right? Now, it didn't work in terms of we got everything we wanted and we got a good deal.
But it certainly moved the ball forward to the point where decoupling makes sense.
We know what we can and can't get done.
We got as much as we could.
But certainly the president was right That pushing China was right, and the experts all disagreed.
It was almost universal disagreement by the experts.
How about getting the peace deals that the president's gotten so far in the Middle East by pursuing individual peace deals before doing the Palestinian thing?
What did the experts say you had to do to get peace in the Middle East?
Well, John Kerry was an expert, right?
And all of the other experts who agree with Kerry said, no, you've got to get the Palestinian thing first, or otherwise nothing else works.
All the experts were wrong.
What about the experts who said, if we pull our forces out from that zone between Turkey and Syria, the Kurds will be slaughtered.
Didn't all the experts say they would be slaughtered?
And the president said, no, they won't.
And they weren't. How many times do you have to see President Trump Do something that the experts did not say you should do, and it worked out.
He's done it a lot of times.
So Joe Biden and his expert reliance does seem like that's a little sketchy.
All right. So he says, John Kerry is not an expert.
He's an heiress, his wife.
Well, I think if you've been Secretary of State and you've been a senator for that many years, you could be an expert.
