Episode 1134 Scott Adams: Peaceful Transfers of Power, Fake News Riots, Biden's Lid, TDS Cures, Impeaching Pelosi, Nadler's Waddle
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
A voting system designed to fail and spark chaos
Whiteboard: Breonna Taylor, Two Realities
Did CNN reporting, increase the violent rioting?
Van Jones question...if Breonna had been white
Hunter Biden new info, lots of swampy info
Joy Reid's corrosive comment about "bygones"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or cyanocantean drug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Oh yeah, that's good stuff.
Who says that?
That was Johnny Carson.
That's good stuff. That's good stuff.
Well, it's hard to evaluate the news if you're not an expert yourself on some things.
And there are a lot of things I'm not an expert on.
One of the things is political campaigns.
I'm not an expert on political campaigns.
So, when I look at Joe Biden calling a lid on his schedule, meaning that he will not appear in public today whatsoever in any way, and when that lid is called first thing in the morning,
I ask myself this, because, again, I'm not an expert on political campaigns, but if you're running for president and it's 40 days or so before the election, Do you not know what your schedule will be tomorrow?
Do you not? Because it seems to me they could have called the lid for today yesterday.
Because I'm pretty sure they knew yesterday that there would or would not be any public appearances today.
Am I wrong? Wouldn't they know that yesterday?
But they called it this morning.
It sort of makes you think...
That maybe, sort of just possibly, they make their decision about whether there's going to be a lid based on how he's doing that morning.
Now, you can tell me, no, no, Scott.
You don't understand.
He's fundraising.
Needs a whole day to fundraise.
Or, or he's fundraising and he's preparing for the debate.
You need to clear your schedule and get ready for that debate.
To which I say, have you heard of Zoom?
Because you can do a national interview in 10 minutes.
You can do it during break of your preparations for other stuff.
So it seems to me that there's no legitimate reason that a candidate for president would just disappear for a day this close to the election.
Unless they're trying to hint to us that the cat's on the roof, if you know what I mean.
The old joke that is suggesting that there's more trouble ahead, but we're going to break it to you slowly.
All right, the big news of the day, well, a couple of big news, but one is that a reporter asked the president yesterday, the reporter says, win, lose, or draw in this election, Will you, talking to President Trump, will you commit here today for a peaceful transfer of power after the election?
And Trump, in his inimitable way, instead of saying the obvious thing, which is, of course we don't want any violence and we're all going to follow the Constitution and it'll all work out.
That's what you expected him to say.
But President Trump does not say what you expect him to say.
Sort of ever. And so when asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election, Trump says, and I quote, we're going to have to see what happens.
Now, the reason I like that is that it's transparent and it's honest.
That was the only honest answer.
Did you want him to lie?
Did you want him to lie because that would change something?
What would have changed if he lied?
What if he said, oh yeah, I can commit to that?
Because, you know, he can't commit to that.
He doesn't have the ability to commit to that.
Because he's only one person.
And while he has vast powers as the president, he doesn't control all of our actions.
He doesn't control 330 million people.
If 330 million people feel like they want to get a little violent after Election Day, what the hell is Trump going to do about it?
How in the world can he commit that that's not going to happen?
When in fact, we've designed a system that's guaranteed to make it happen.
You know how you could, and the President referred to the same thing, if you created an election process that the entire country thought was a valid process, well, maybe.
Maybe in that case you could come close to guaranteeing it, because you'd be at least getting rid of the primary reason for any violence.
If you got rid of the reason, you'd have a pretty good shot at having no violence.
But if you design the reason for violence into the system, You actually create a system that guarantees violence.
How is the president supposed to commit to it not happening when you've designed it for violence?
What I mean by that is if you design a system that 40% I'll just use a number pulling it out of my you know what but probably 40% of the country I'm guessing you know could be 30 or 50 whatever but in that range let's say 40% of the country is not going to trust the result if there is a mass mail-in kind of a vote which looks like the way it's heading.
Now, for those who are new to this, there are three separate kinds of mail-ins.
If you don't know that there are three different kinds and you just say to yourself they're all reliable or you say to yourself they're all not reliable, you don't understand the question.
There are three different kinds.
Two of them, pretty reliable.
I would be comfortable with two of the three.
The third one, completely unreliable, and it's the big one.
The reliable ones are...
Absentee ballots, and they're reliable because you request the ballot.
So it's a little harder to cheat if you've requested it, you get it, it's got your name on it, you sent it in.
We've done that for years.
People are pretty comfortable with that.
That's one of the three. Pretty good.
Second one is five states have gone through the history of doing generic mail-in ballots to everybody.
But they've also had time to scrub their databases and figure out what their base is, so if anything is out of whack, they'd say, oh, this one's out of whack, because, you know, prior years it didn't look like that.
So for five of the states, pretty good.
I'd like it to be better, but pretty good.
So that's two of the three types.
The absentee balance, very well tested.
The five states that have been doing it and had time to refine it, very well tested.
And then the third category, which is the big one, which is all the other states who haven't tested it.
They've never tested their databases to know if they're going to send them to the wrong homes.
People are going to get massive wrong mailings.
We don't know. Now, it could be good and it could be not good, but would you trust it if it's never been tested and, let's say, it gives you a result you don't like?
No. No.
It's a system that's designed to fail.
It's designed from the start to fail.
If you don't get that it's designed to fail, You're not paying attention.
If you fall for the trick that there's one kind of mail-in vote and it's all like absentee ballots, therefore it's all good, you have fallen for the fake news.
There are three different situations.
Two of them, pretty good.
Pretty good. The third one, the big one, don't know.
So even if it were accurate, which is sketchy, who knows, but even if it were accurate, Who would trust it?
Because it hasn't been tested.
And in our current situation, that is called planning to fail.
You can't draw any picture where if we do what we plan to do, it works out well.
Can you? Try to tell a story that includes doing exactly what we plan, and then everybody's happy at the end.
You can't do it.
There is no story that ends that way.
You can't even imagine one like in your Weird imagination.
So when the president says he can't commit to a nonviolent transfer of power...
That's just honest.
How in the world? He can't even stop the...
Apparently, he can't stop the riots in the cities.
Why would they stop?
If Trump gets elected, do you think riots are going to stop?
Let's say Trump gets elected in a landslide, and it's such a landslide that you don't even have any questions about the vote.
You might say to yourself, yes, there was some voter suppression, and there was some voter cheating, but it couldn't possibly be big enough To account for the landslide.
Even with a landslide of that size, do you think there would be no violence?
Of course not. Of course there would be violence.
Because there's violence now, and there's nothing that will stop it.
There's nothing that's lining up.
There's nothing about the election that would stop it.
Of course there would be. So that's getting everybody all worked out, and of course that plays into the you're a big ol' dictator if you're talking about that.
But here, of course, is the part that the fake news doesn't tell their audience.
And it goes like this.
I don't think there are any Trump supporters who want to violate the Constitution.
Have you ever met one?
Have you ever met a Trump supporter who would say, If we have an election that we can trust, and Trump does not get elected, we're going to take up arms to keep him in office?
This said zero people.
Have you ever met anybody who would say, if Trump loses, we want to keep him in office?
I've never met anybody who has that opinion.
In fact, I would argue, anybody who has that opinion is not a Republican.
Anybody who has that opinion, that the election doesn't count, and we're just going to keep...
Anybody who would have that opinion is not a conservative.
They would not be somebody who believes in the Constitution, and therefore they would not be on Trump's team to begin with.
That's pretty fundamental in the whole Trump support thing, is that if he doesn't win, he's not president.
Can we agree?
If any left-leaning people wander in here to see your comments, can you back me up in the comments?
Is there anybody who supports Trump who would support keeping him in office if he lost the election?
No! No, that doesn't exist.
That's completely imaginary.
Anybody who thinks that that's the case has got a real bad case of TDS. Now, we'll talk about that in a minute, too.
And then, I guess President Trump predicted that the Supreme Court may decide the outcome of the election.
I would say that's close to guaranteed, wouldn't you?
Among President Trump's predictions, this one's a pretty safe one.
I feel as if no matter what the outcome is, the Supreme Court's going to get involved.
It just feels like a guarantee.
Now, here's the thing. Are Republicans and conservatives going to trust whatever the Supreme Court says if they have a 6-3 majority, which they might have, right?
If conservatives have a 6-3 majority and the decision doesn't go their way, They are going to accept it.
They might say, hey, my justices are not as conservative as they hoped.
They'll have something to complain about.
But if a 6-3 conservative majority says Trump didn't win, you're not going to see a lot of Trump supporters marching in the streets.
Nobody's going to pick up guns over that because that's their court.
That's their court.
That's the way it goes. They're going to take that.
So I don't think you have to worry about anything from the conservative side.
Now, what if the election is actually stolen?
What about that?
What if the election was just obviously stolen?
You could tell that it was stolen.
And let's say it was stolen by the Democrats.
And Trump's still in office.
What then? What then?
What would you support if the election is stolen?
Well, I would support it going to the Supreme Court.
And if the Supreme Court said we're going to have to do a do-over, I would live with that.
Whatever the Supreme Court says.
As long as we're on the same page that we can trust the Supreme Court, you don't have to worry about the conservatives.
You do have to worry about The liberals, because they might not accept what the Supreme Court says, they might say, this court is rigged with all conservatives.
We do not trust it.
Alright, it looks like gun sales in the swing states are up 80% this year.
Is that bad or good?
Is it bad or good that gun sales are up 80%?
I don't know. I mean, it's good in terms of freedom, I suppose.
But will more people get killed because there are more guns?
Probably. We don't know.
Could go the other way. Maybe more people will be protected.
Hard to know. Kevin McCarthy finally said something I wish somebody had said a long time ago.
He said that if Nancy Pelosi tries to impeach President Trump just for trying to get the Supreme Court nominee that he wants when he wants it, That if she tries to impeach him for just that, in other words, doing his job, that they'll try to impeach her.
Now, I feel like that's completely fair, don't you?
If Pelosi tries to impeach the president for simply doing what the Constitution says is his job, even if you don't like it, I think she should be impeached.
That feels perfectly fair to me.
Alright, what should Trump do, or not do, about all the riots, about the police violence against black people, and the Black Lives Matter riots, etc.?
What should he do?
At the moment, he's just milking it for political gain.
And I have mixed feelings about that, right?
If the president was getting some flack for not coming out and saying, hey, calm down, let's not have any violence over the Breonna Taylor thing.
And so the critics are saying that the president should be more of a calming force on society.
To which I say, how would that work?
How exactly is President Trump, of all people, going to make the riots less rioty because he said something?
Is there anything that could come out of his mouth that would make the riots less likely to be riots?
I don't think so.
There's literally nothing he can do that wouldn't make it worse.
If all he did was say, I call for peace, we should all come together, what difference would it make?
Would it make a difference if anybody said it?
Where is Obama calling for peace, and did it make a difference?
If Obama, let's say retired Obama, if him calling for peace doesn't make any difference to the rioting, why would Trump calling for peace make any difference?
It would make no difference.
It could make it worse.
But here's what he could do.
He could call For all parties to look to science, which would be a very tricky play.
He could say, look, there seems to be some disagreement on the basic situation, meaning that the people who have disagreements about what's happening with these protests and Black Lives Matter, etc., just seem to have legitimate disagreements.
About what the reality is, what causes what, who is responsible for what, what's the best solution for this.
So why don't we just call on science?
Let's see if we can get the best data we can, get everybody to agree.
Are black people being killed by police in some way that is statistically meaningful versus any other group?
And find out.
Let's all get together and really use our science.
What would happen? Well, first of all, they would say no.
They would say, get away from me with your dictator ways or something.
I mean, they would have to say something because it's Trump.
But it would be unassailable.
It would be completely unassailable to say, look, I think our problem is we're not agreeing on the facts.
So let's bring in the science.
Let's bring in the experts.
Let's really have a national conversation.
A national debate on just the facts.
How much of it is institutional racism?
How much is it a training problem?
How much is the behavior of the people who are being stopped?
Let's just put it all out there.
Let's see what the truth is.
If the president did that, it would be unambiguously, let's say, productive, meaning that who would argue against having better information?
You really can't. But where would that lead you?
Well, it would lead you to not protest.
But they would know that, and so they would resist.
So it would put the Democrats in the position of resisting calls for better data and science.
And that would be a good place to be for the president.
All right, here's my filter on the riots and the Breonna Taylor stuff.
You all know the story by now.
The police officers were found not guilty of any kind of murder in terms of her death.
And therefore, there are riots because of that.
Now, here's the central magic trick at play.
Or you can call it an illusion or a magic trick.
I call it a magic trick because there's somebody actually doing it.
In other words, there's somebody perpetrating the trick So that's more of a magic trick than a natural illusion that just happened on its own.
So here's how I see it. Yes, we're going to the whiteboard.
There are two views of reality here.
The protesters are saying there's racism everywhere.
And there's racists and the cops.
And because some of the cops are racist, they're more likely to murder black people in routine stops than they would other groups.
So this is the protester view of the world.
There's racism. There's racist cops.
They're shooting people and there aren't enough people doing something about it.
So therefore, society needs to be really stressed and pushed because it's just not doing anything about this problem.
Here's my view, which is that we are past the point where people make their own decisions.
For politics, people largely are assigned opinions.
So there are almost nobody in the world who just thinks up their own opinion.
They look at their news sources and they adopt those opinions that are assigned to them.
So if you're a Democrat, you're getting some CNN opinions and some NMSNBC opinions.
But what you're not doing, not even close to doing, is making up your own mind.
If you believe that people make up their own mind about politics, you don't understand how minds work, how the news works, or how social media and AI works.
So here's my model of the world.
You've got artificial intelligence in the form of, let's say, the algorithms.
The algorithms are telling us what we're seeing and what's important.
So that's the first thing.
The algorithm decides what you think is important.
You don't decide what you think is important.
You think you do. But you don't.
The algorithm decides that based on what gets you the most excited.
Activists, of course, are goosing this.
So they're pushing wherever they can push.
They're being opportunistic and saying, oh, if people are already mad about this, let's pile on this a little bit.
We can move this a little bit.
It's already moving on its own.
So between the social media and the fake news, and by fake news I mean if you had originally heard the Breonna Taylor story accurately, Let's say the first day that anybody heard the story, it was completely accurate.
Now, in this case, I don't think there were people lying about the story.
I think just we didn't know the story until recently.
But suppose on day one you'd heard it was not a no-knock raid.
So the core of the thing was that it was a no-knock raid, but now we're told by the police and by the, I guess, was the prosecutor, now we're told that there's a witness and it is confirmed that it was a knock raid.
So suppose you'd heard that first.
Oh, they knocked.
And then you heard that the boyfriend is shot at the police first.
And then you heard that the police shot back.
And that there was an innocent person, I think on the other side of a wall, who got killed.
And nothing about this story involves race.
In other words, you could tell the entire story without mentioning the ethnicity of anyone involved, and nobody would know that you had left it out.
Because there wasn't any racial element to the story whatsoever.
So imagine that that had been the news.
Tragic accident.
The police are investigating the officers to find out, you know, was this purely an accident or was there something, you know, bad behavior here?
If you had heard that version first, would there be riots?
No. If you knew that George Floyd had a fatal amount of fentanyl in him, When all that went down, would you feel the same about how he died?
Now, there's still something that legitimate questions can be asked about the police performance.
So did the police handle themselves perfectly right?
I don't know. But did they kill George Floyd?
Well, certainly not intentionally.
And, you know, if you heard the story just Accurately from moment one, you'd have a very different feeling about it.
It would be tragic, you would certainly think there are questions to be asked, but it wouldn't look exactly like murder, and it wouldn't even look racial.
What was the racial element to that?
If you looked at, you can think of a few other examples where there have been riots over something that turned out to be not quite the way it was originally portrayed.
So in my view of the world, you've got the AI, the activists pushing social media, the fake news is literally reporting things that are not true, and these things collectively leave you the impression, which would be a false impression under this worldview, that The false impression that black people are being murdered by the police.
Now here's the problem.
How do these two people have a debate?
What's that look like?
It's impossible.
These people can't have a conversation with these people.
They don't even live in the same reality.
If you believe that this was true, you're not really even going to be able to hear this.
And if you think this is true...
You think these people are just under-informed.
And if you tried to inform them, how would that go?
Somebody's protesting out there, and they've committed a significant part of their life to fixing this problem of the cops murdering black people.
And then you come in and you say, you know, you were just wrong about the whole thing.
You were sort of looking at the situation wrong.
Really, your opinion was assigned to you by algorithms and the news, so you don't have an independent opinion that was actually assigned to you, and all the news was wrong.
So you started with completely wrong facts that pointed in exactly the opposite direction of truth, And that on top of those facts that were completely wrong, you were assigned an opinion, but in your mind you think you came up with it yourself, but you didn't.
You actually were assigned this opinion.
How does that go? How does that conversation go?
Does this person say, whoa, you're blowing my mind now?
I wish I'd known this before, before I wasted all this time protesting the wrong stuff.
No! No, it's not going to go that way.
You can't convince anybody in either of those realities that they're in the wrong reality.
It just doesn't work.
So, we'll see more of that.
So, I was really curious, and if you didn't do this yesterday, boy, did you miss a show.
When I found out the verdict of the Breonna Taylor thing, I immediately turned on CNN. Because if CNN was a legitimate news organization, what would they have reported about the Breonna Taylor situation?
Well, if they were legitimate news, they would have said, gosh, the reporting was wrong about it being no knock, and that's really important.
Did they say that?
Nope. Chris Cuomo actually said that's in question.
So even though the official report is that there was a witness and there was an announcement and knocking, Chris Cuomo says, but there was somebody who reports they didn't hear it.
There was some other witness who said they didn't hear any announcement.
To which I say, if there's somebody who heard it and then somebody who didn't hear it, which one do you think is more reliable?
Because it seems to me that the person who clearly heard it Unless they're lying.
I mean, why would they? I suppose they could.
Yeah, I guess anybody has a reason to lie.
But it's a little more believable that there's a witness who has an affirmative sighting of something happening than it is somebody who didn't hear it.
Because not hearing something is a little bit ordinary.
There are people who don't hear things that happen.
But it's a little weirder to specifically hear something in detail And then have imagined it.
That would be weird. Yeah.
In this case, this isn't quite the seeing the elephant situation.
I know where you're going on this one, but it's a little different than that.
All right. So they would have reported that the central claim is at least, at the very least, it's been credibly questioned.
At the very least. Then they would have said it was a tragic accident that And it had nothing to do with race.
There's no evidence that race was a factor in any way.
And there's no evidence that the police even knew they were shooting in the direction of Breonna Taylor.
I think she was on the other side of a wall or something.
They thought they were returning fire to the boyfriend.
So it was sort of a perfect storm of bad luck that the boyfriend who had the legal handgun...
Thought that the ex-boyfriend who was a drug dealer might have been the one crashing in the door.
So that's the first bad piece of luck.
And the fact that he was there at all.
So, you know, you had a lot of bad luck that created the tragedy.
If CNN had reported that, that it was just, turns out it was just a bad luck tragedy situation, would there be more or less rioting?
I think less.
Because imagine you were a rioter and you turn on the news and you think it's your friendly news source, it's CNN, and they say, oh, it turns out this was just a big mistake.
You should think about the families, the Taylor family.
It's a tragedy. We can't overstate how much of a tragedy it was, but it was just a tragedy.
It was an accident. Maybe we could do better in the future, but it was an accident.
That would make a difference, wouldn't it?
But instead, CNN played it like maybe it was racial.
There's no evidence of that.
Nobody's even offered evidence that there was a racial component to it.
And they still treat it like it is.
That is so antisocial that I can't even wrap my head around it.
I mean, that is guaranteeing that you have...
Riots. So, I would say that the riots...
I'm going to start calling them the fake news riots.
That might be misleading, though.
The fake news is whatever sparks the riot.
Because the riots are almost all sparked by fake news.
CNN, MSNBC, etc.
And I don't think they can escape responsibility for it.
And the citizens believe it's because of police actions...
But that opinion was assigned to them.
It's not their opinion.
I watched Van Jones come on to talk about it on CNN, and I like to use him as my example in a lot of cases, because there are a lot of people you can't quite tell Okay, are you just being a liar because you're a partisan, so you're just lying?
Or do you really believe what you're saying?
Sometimes you can't tell, and that determines how you think about them.
But in the case of Van Jones, my personal opinion is that he's a genuine and fairly transparent.
So even when he's doing something that is nakedly political, He actually will sometimes tell you that.
I mean, recently he made news by saying that he would have complained no matter which way something went, because it's political.
So he's fairly transparent about the fact that some of it's political, but I feel like his actual emotion about things is completely genuine.
And he came on after the Breonna Taylor thing, and You can't read people's minds, but his face displayed genuine pain.
Genuine pain.
You can't act that well.
There's nobody who can do that to their face to show that much pain unless it's real.
Nobody is that good of an actor.
So Van Jones, I'm trying to figure him out, right?
Because you want to understand people who have different opinions if they're reasonable people, and I hold him up as my reasonable person.
So he's the one I want to understand.
Trying to understand Don Lemon is a waste of time, because he's not really trying to present an accurate view of the world.
But I think Van Jones, for the most part, is.
Actually wants to live in the real world with real solutions and stuff.
So I want to understand him.
And I was looking at the pain, and I was trying to understand that.
Because I said to myself, wouldn't he be happy that this was not a case of a racial murder by police?
Shouldn't that be cause for at least a little bit of relief that it wasn't what you thought it was?
But instead, he was actually in just as much pain as if it had been a racial murder.
And he said this directly.
He said, would this have happened if Breonna Taylor was white?
To which I say, why wouldn't it?
What part of it would not have happened if she had been white?
Would they not have gotten the warrant in the first place?
Now, if that's the assertion, that maybe it wouldn't have even happened, there would have been no event, maybe, but I don't see any evidence of that.
Don't the police pursue crimes no matter what your race is?
I thought they were pretty good at that.
It's a crime or it's not a crime.
It's not a crime and what's your race.
I don't think anybody says that, do they?
So I think the event would have happened, and once the police encountered gunfire, once people were firing at the police, once they broke down the door, what exactly would the police have done if a white person was hidden behind a wall?
Would they have said, hold your fire, hold your fire, just let this guy shoot at us, because there might be a white person on the other side of the wall?
Or would they have said, oh, hold on, hold on.
The person who's shooting at us at close range that we think might be a drug dealer, but we don't know.
He's white. It's okay.
It's okay, guys. Yeah, he's shooting at us.
Ow, ow. I got shot in the leg, but don't return to fire.
Do you see? He's a white guy, everybody.
Don't shoot. He's a white guy.
Would that happen?
What... What do you have to do to your brain to imagine that police don't return fire to white people?
Or is the argument they wouldn't have shot as many rounds?
Now let me ask you this.
Given that the guy who had the gun apparently never got...
I don't think he even got shot, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was even wounded.
If the guy who has the gun is still with the gun...
And he's still not subdued because he was alive and he still had his gun.
How many bullets is the right number to shoot in that direction?
Now, one of the cops apparently did something reckless that is its own situation, but his reckless endangerment had to do with neighbors' apartments, not even what was happening in that room.
So, should you stop at, say, four bullets if you're the police, When there's an armed man who just shot at you, who's still alive, still has his gun, and he's still in the room.
He's in the room!
Are you going to stop shooting until you know that guy is subdued?
Is 10 enough?
I mean, I would have shot about 25.
I mean, I don't see any way to understand this situation as a racial situation.
I just don't see anything.
But, is it true that Van Jones, let's say, I want to use the right word here, is it true that he's processing it as a genuine racial event?
I think so, because he looked completely sincere.
So what do you do about that?
What do you do about the fact that it's not just liars and advocates and political people who are claiming this is a racial tragedy?
What do you do when people who are actually sincere, completely well-informed, smart, well-informed, well-intentioned, has all the information, still thinks it's racial?
What do you do with that? What do you do with that?
I don't know. So, but, I think we ought to think about that.
And I think that this, it feels to me like the unstated, there's sort of an unstated thing here, that there's sort of a revenge element.
In other words, I feel as if Some segment of the black population, not all of course, but some segment of the black population just wants something like revenge against white people.
And I don't think it's based on a specific thing.
Rather, it's a collection of grievances that if you add them all up, It gets us to this place.
So, I think we need to call it what it is, which is some kind of revenge-y kind of emotion.
Alright, here's what Biden said.
Now remember, Biden is the adult in the room, right?
So if there's a right thing to say, something that will calm down people's emotions, you'd expect Biden to say it.
Because that's his whole brand.
So let's see what he said about it.
He said, quote, in the wake of her tragic death, we mourned with her mother and family.
Okay, so far so good.
And I would say that Trump should have done that too.
So I would say if you were to compare Biden's statement to To anything Trump did or did not do, Biden so far is winning.
Because giving thought and attention and respect to the family is just always a good thing to do.
So good on Biden for starting that way.
Everybody should do that. If I didn't do that, that was my mistake as well.
Because we always think about the families.
They didn't do anything. Breonna Taylor didn't do anything to deserve getting shot.
But then he goes on, he goes, and we ask ourselves whether justice could be equally applied in America.
What? We ask ourselves whether justice could be equally applied in America.
In other words, even Joe Biden is not willing to say in public that this was a racial event.
Because if he was willing to say it, well, you know he'd say it.
Why would he not say it?
If the entire democratic field thinks this was a racial thing, of course he would say it, if he thought it was true.
But I'm going to give Biden some credit here, and I always think this is useful to do.
It's useful to give credit to an opposition character for anything they do good.
Because it makes you seem more credible that way.
I think it's good that he cared about the empathy for the family first, and I think it's good that he did not say it was a racial murder.
He could have. He could have just gone full Al Sharpton, right?
He could have done that.
And I think that would have been really bad for the country, and he didn't.
And it might have even helped him politically.
It might have actually been a little bit of an advantage.
So I'm going to give Biden credit, because he wasn't willing to tell a direct lie, even one that might have helped him a little bit.
But he did say, we have to ask ourselves whether justice could be equally applied in America, which implies that maybe it didn't happen here.
So Biden is making it racial...
Wallet essentially admitting by not calling it racial that it wasn't.
He found a way to make it racial at the same time he called it basically not racial.
So that was kind of a weasel thing to do.
I would say on net, this was disastrously bad for the country.
So Biden, I think this is net negative because just what he should have said If he had only cared about what's good for America, he would have said, tragic death, we're thinking about the family, but let's not turn this into something.
We have enough real problems.
Let's just deal with this as a tragedy, see if we can come together.
That would have been useful.
But no, he didn't decide not to do that.
There's confirmation now, as I told you, remember I told you that one of the hoaxes about Biden was the hoax that he was reading his answers from a teleprompter, the answers to interview questions, and I told you no, that teleprompter was where there was somebody who was asking a question, you know, a citizen asking a question, and something got cut off on that.
It wasn't It wasn't his answer that got cut off.
It was the question that got cut off.
And sure enough, the fact checkers have confirmed that today.
That's exactly what it was.
So if you did not know that was a hoax from the first moment, adjust your filter.
Because I knew that was a hoax from moment one.
It was just obvious. So adjust your filters.
Here's one. So I said yesterday...
That the Hunter Biden stuff looked like a whole bunch of smoke, but maybe there wouldn't be any fire in the specific sense of something illegal.
Now, there's a whole bunch of stuff that looks swampy.
There's a whole bunch of stuff that looks really, really bad.
Really, really bad.
Like, as bad as something can look.
That's how bad it looks.
So, I think I may have misled you yesterday...
When I was saying that there was a lot of nothing to this recent Hunter Biden story, there were details but they didn't really change what you thought of anything and it didn't look like any of it was necessarily illegal and was not even alleged to be illegal as far as I know.
Buzz Swampy. Here, let me give you a specific example.
So one of the several allegations Is that Hunter's investment company got $3.5 million from the ex-wife of Moscow's mayor.
Now, any mayor of Moscow, duh, is going to be an ally of Putin.
That's a given, right?
Any ex-wife Of an ally of Putin.
Probably an ally of Putin.
She is also, I believe, the richest woman in Russia.
Probably an ally of Putin.
Alright, so someone who I think we could agree, it seems beyond doubt, that she would be an ally of Putin.
And it's reported that she gave Hunter Biden 3.5 million dollars.
But is that exactly what happened?
Or, Did she move $3.5 million into his investment company?
In other words, it's not Hunter Biden's money.
It would be money that he would be investing because he's an investor.
Now again, totally swampy.
I'm not saying any of that's good.
But would it be illegal for an investment company to take an investment from somebody who has legal money?
Because I think all their money is legal, right?
Well, hold on.
If it's an investment, it's money she's putting in, which she would later withdraw.
I believe it's being reported, and I'll need some fact checking on this because I might miss a fact, but I believe that it is reported like he got $3.5 million, like she wrote a check to Hunter Biden.
I don't think that's what happened.
I think she invested $3.5 million, of which, if that's what happened, his investment company would get the 1% or 2% whatever from that, which would be kind of a small deal.
If it had been a payment, that's as swampy as you can get.
That would obviously be a red flag.
But an investment? Now let me ask you this.
If any billionaire Russian invests in your investment company, are you guilty of something?
Let's say you're an investment company.
You just take investments.
You don't care where they come from.
They could come from South America.
They could come from Russia.
And some Russian billionaire Who of course is allied with Putin because I don't think you can be a billionaire and not get poisoned unless you support him.
So some billionaire puts money into your investment fund.
Are you guilty? Are you guilty for a legal free citizen who wants to invest in your business and they put money there?
Somebody says it was wired to his account.
What does his account mean?
If it turned out that she just gave him $3.5 million and it's unexplained, well, that would be as bad as it could be, right?
And do you think that they would allow a digital record, a wire transfer of that big of a bribe?
It seems like a bad bribery method.
If you were going to do something illegal, wouldn't you send some Bitcoin?
Let me ask you this. If it had been a pure bribe, wouldn't they just send Bitcoin?
Anybody who bribes with a wire transfer is not good at bribing, in my opinion, because you've got a digital record there.
All right. Yeah, like donating to the Clinton Foundation.
So while nobody is happy with the situation that...
Russians might be influencing Hunter Biden, etc.
So let me summarize this by saying, probably the way it's being reported is completely misleading.
That doesn't mean he didn't do terrible things.
So can we separate those?
After this is done, since I know how this works, people are going to come to me immediately after this periscope and say, Scott, How can you say Hunter did nothing wrong?
And I'll go, ah, I didn't say that.
I didn't say he did nothing wrong.
I said I don't know.
At least in terms of legally wrong, I don't know.
Swampy? Of course.
Was it inappropriate in my opinion?
Of course. Is it sketchy?
Of course. So don't act like I don't know it's sketchy, okay?
All right. Here's something that somebody said that sounded smart to me.
The president is being criticized again for saying that the COVID, the coronavirus, will just die out.
So he said it in the past.
I think he's renewed saying it that at some point it will just die out.
Now, the experts say, you fool!
It's not just going to die out.
And then somebody said this, the Spanish flu died out.
Right? Why did the Spanish Flu die out?
It wasn't because of herd immunity.
Do you know why the Spanish Flu died out?
And the answer is, nope.
Nobody knows.
So, would you bet against this flu, the coronavirus, would you bet against this just dying out?
Given that the Spanish flu just sort of died out?
No, I don't know. Maybe we know something about the Spanish flu that makes it different?
I don't know. But I wouldn't bet against Trump on saying that it might die out and we might not know why.
It might just die out. It just won't do it as fast as we want it to.
There is a Jerry Nadler video That you'll see on Twitter.
And I'm not going to describe the video.
I'm just going to say that there's something deeply wrong with his health.
And as much as I don't like Jerry Nadler or what he's done to the country...
Whatever is happening on that video with his health is not funny.
It's just not funny.
So I'm not going to retweet that and I'm not going to describe it further.
It's really disturbing.
It's very disturbing, actually.
And I hope he's getting the help he needs.
Joy Reid asked this question.
And it's just a head shaker.
So this is on Twitter. She says, genuine question.
What will be the relationship between the majority of Americans and Trumpists after this long national nightmare ends?
And it will eventually end.
Do people anticipate simply letting bygones be bygones with people who joined the Trump personality cult?
Now that is chilling, isn't it?
Because what it sounds like is that Whenever Trump is out of office, that they plan to retaliate in some way for people who just wanted better judges and lower taxes.
They're actually going to retaliate for political preference.
That is so far over the line.
Does Joy Reid not know that How dangerous it is to say stuff like this?
Here's what she should have said if she wanted to be a positive force.
Positive force would be, you know, in the end we'll always come together because we're America first.
How about that? How about let's come together over our common humanity?
How about that? That'd be good.
But when you put this idea into the public that maybe we shouldn't let bygones be bygones, because that's really the suggestion The suggestion is that anybody who supported this Republican president has to explain it forever.
And that it's a permanent stain on your life.
That is the most un-American thing I've heard in a long time.
So, I think that whoever employs Joy Reid has some explaining to do.
Because this is just clearly a bad influence on America.
And when you put something this corrosive into the public, and you do it intentionally, you're just not a good person.
Here's something that surprised me.
Rasmussen did a poll on whether people believe that the forest fires, let's say the California forest fires and the ones in the West in particular, they asked the public whether they think they're caused by climate change, Or caused by other factors which would include human as well as other natural factors.
What do you think the public thinks about the forest fires?
Do you think that they mostly think it's climate change?
Or mostly bad forest management, maybe bad luck with lightning, that sort of thing?
And the answer is this.
That 38% of women think climate change is what's the primary driver of the fires.
And 44% of men think so.
So 44% of men, but only 38% of women.
I would say that's a significant difference, right?
Which means that women are better at science.
Because in this case, women have, by a fairly healthy majority over men, women are less likely to be duped by the climate change claim.
Interesting, isn't it? And I wonder if this kind of trend will continue to hold over time.
And I wouldn't be surprised, because isn't it true that there are more women in college than men now, right?
I think there are more women who are lawyers than men, or at least in law school now, not practicing.
So should we see...
Eventually, you know, further differences between women's opinions about factual scientific stuff and men's opinions because women will just be better educated.
It looks like that's where it's heading because the women are closer to the truth on this.
Anyway, those details will come out from Rasmussen a little bit later this morning.
Alright. That is just about what I wanted to talk about.
Alright. Just looking at your situation here.
Giant bicycle freeway through the forest.
Exactly. Yeah, I've been calling for this.
So I'll reiterate.
In a perfect world...
Good forest management would put sort of a thick crisscross through the forest, so if part of it burns, it'll only burn up to the firebreak.
And then you use those paths for bike paths.
You could have these amazing California bike paths where you're going through forests and mountains and stuff on your electric and other bikes.
It could be the coolest thing California ever did.
It would be an entire new tourism thing.
It would create a lot of jobs because you've got to clear the forest.
And then you would just have this incredible superhighway of bicycle paths through natural surroundings.
It would be amazing. So, on a different topic, I've been working on, sort of mentally and otherwise, on how to design a perfect small home that's inexpensive.
And you think people have done it, but they haven't.
Because what people have done is they've created, they've taken an expensive house that's really awesome, and then they made it tiny and said, oh, how about a tiny house?
It'll be inexpensive. And And it is inexpensive, but it's also no fun to live in.
So what I've been trying to design for years, you know, on paper and mentally and every other way, is something that's small and inexpensive, more inexpensive than small, but that would be better than an expensive home.
And there's no reason you can't have that if you design it right.
So here's my idea so far.
The foundation would be pylons, That would be adjustable.
So I think the cheapest kind of foundation that you could do would be four pylons that maybe have a lever that you can adjust them so that you get them the right height.
And then I'm imagining that you have ways to connect little units.
So let's say every room is pre-designed so that there is no nailing and no sawing.
And every part of the house can fit into the back of a pickup truck.
Not at the same time, but if you were building your own house, you could go get a pickup truck full, unload it with maybe two people, and just clip it together until you have a home.
So if it doesn't clip together with no sawing, cutting, or nailing, and you can't do it with two people, and you can't fit it in the back of a pickup truck, it's not quite there yet.
But the other thing you would do is have each room sort of designed as a perfect room.
So you don't have to guess what is a good room.
You just get the package.
But each room would have two doors.
So if you only could afford one of them, you'd have a front door and a back door.
But if you were going to buy more than one unit, either at the same time or later, The back door would just be the entrance to the next room, which would then have another back door.
So you want modules that you can buy as many of them as you want.
They fit together.
People can assemble them on their own.
They're one story so that you don't have as much risk of multiple stories.
And there you go.
All right. And lots of natural light, right?
If you get the natural light right, and you get the acoustics right, you have a very livable place.
So it seems to me, and by the way, somebody can help me with this, the primary thing that you would need to develop to make these awesome homes that are also small is glass walls, the kind that open and close, inexpensively.
If you could get custom, not custom, but Standardized glass walls that are also the kind that can open up like a Hawaii lanai and make them in quantity so that they're all the same and they're really cheap.
You could have the most awesome little homes with, say, one total glass wall looking out onto something attractive.
All right. Yeah, the trouble with having something like an Airstream or a trailer...
Is that you don't have light.
So you need at least one wall of light with a curtain over it.
Alright, so there you go.
Now the people who say no thanks, you're not really understanding what I'm talking about.
So any one of you who says, I wouldn't live in that house, you're really missing the point.
It's not for you.
It's not for you.
We're not trying to build the super inexpensive home for all of you.
It's for the people who couldn't find a better option.
I could have a double wall in the middle of the house.
Well, there are a million design considerations.
That would be one of them, I guess.
Aerated concrete.
Here's what I wouldn't want to do.
I wouldn't want to do anything you couldn't pull apart with your bare hands.
In other words, I'd want a house that you don't have to chip anything away or scrape anything away or even paint.
So if you're painting, scraping, you know, chiseling to redo anything later, then you did it wrong.
It should be just unassemble and reassemble.
All right. Calling Elon Musk?
Yeah. It does seem like it would be a high-tech thing, not a building.
I believe the building industry will never be able to do this.
I think it's going to have to come from a tech company.
Somebody's talking about the boxable houses.
I think that's the name of them.
So you've seen some that fold up.
They somehow make the house fold up.
It's a very small house. They can put it on the back of a tractor trailer and they can deliver it.
This is exactly not what I'm talking about.
So when you talk about those little, you know, factory-made, unfolding houses, could not be further from what I'm talking about.
So, and unfortunately, everybody's mind goes to those little homes.
They are so poorly designed, it's not even in the universe of what I'm talking about.
If it isn't a cool, great design, it's no good.
Let me give you an example.
I was in a two-bedroom condo in Hawaii.
So space-wise, it was very small.
It was just like a little vacation thing.
But because the entire front wall was a nice view and it opened up to an eye, it didn't seem like a small space.
And in fact, we paid a great deal of money for this small space.
Because the simple addition of a wall with a good view changes entirely the experience from a thing you would never want to be in to a vacation home.
It was literally a vacation destination just because of the glass wall.
That's the only thing about it that was special.
Everything else was completely ordinary and fairly pedestrian.
Pickup tries...
Pickup truck sized would suck.
You are not understanding the pickup truck concept.
The pickup truck doesn't mean you put the whole house in the pickup truck.
It means that you go to the, let's say, lumber yard or whatever, and you get the components, the pieces, and then you drive there and you take each piece and you put it together.
So each piece might be something one person could hold in their hands.
Anything foldable is a problem.
I wouldn't do anything foldable. Interchangeable parts?
Yeah, and the other thing you'd want is that all of your interior and exterior walls could be changed easily with facades.
So imagine, if you will, you had brick facades.
So they're thin, but from the outside it looks like a brick.
And they just clip to the front of your home or to the inside walls.
And then if you say, I'm tired of a brick wall, you just take them off and replace them with some other kind of design.
Yeah, everyone wants to pretend your ideas have already been done.
That's one of the things I always deal with.
People will always say, that's being done, and then they'll describe something that's not even close.
In fact, they'll describe the thing I said, I want to not do this, I want to not do X, so whatever I'm doing, don't do X, that's the thing I don't want to do.
And then somebody will say, people are already doing X. They'll say, no, no, I know people are already doing X, that's not what I want.
I want to do something that's not X. But Scott, there's already X. No!
No! You know what I mean.
Alright, that's all for now.
If anybody has a source for a cheap window maker, and I think maybe a 3D printer might be the solution, let me know.
