All Episodes
Oct. 22, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
52:26
Episode 1162 Scott Adams: Biden's Business Partner Speaks, Borat Attacks Rudy, Debate Prep, Iran Interference, Climate Change Solved

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: No foreign policy discussion in debate tonight? TDS reinforced by MSM for four years...what now? The "big guy" was Joe Biden...per business partner Joe Biden lied, lied, lied, lied, lied Iran framed Proud Boys to promote Biden Biodegradable plastic alternative from CO2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*music* Hey everybody!
Come on in!
Come on in. You found the right place.
Of all the places on Earth, nay, in the universe, that you could be, you found the very best place at the right time.
Congratulations to you.
Your instincts are perfect.
And if you'd like to enjoy this even more, I know it's hard to believe, right?
Because you're already enjoying it so much, you're thinking, wait, did you say more?
I could enjoy this more than I already am.
Wait. Wait.
I know it's hard to believe.
But all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or santa canteen jug or 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.
Everything. Except for Rudy Giuliani's shirt.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Let's talk about all the good stuff in the news, because there's lots of it.
And in no particular order, once again, we have some new fake news about U.S. officials being allegedly targeted by A sonic weapon all around the world.
That's right. It's not just a sonic weapon that is attacking our Cuban embassy, allegedly.
It's a sonic weapon that's being used against American officials all over the world.
And take a guess.
Take a guess who is being credited, or at least suspected, of being behind These totally true attacks that although there is no evidence whatsoever that there is such a weapon that's attacking these people, the complete lack of evidence suggests only one person.
That's right. In normal criminal or other kinds of activities, what you would do is you would look for evidence And then you would say, where does this evidence lead us?
And then that would tell you, maybe, if you did it right, that would tell you who was guilty of the crime.
But there's one exception to that.
If you find a crime, or an alleged crime that may or may not exist, such as sonic attacks all over the world, if you find no evidence of a weapon, and you find no evidence of anybody behind the attacks, what does that tell you? Obviously, everybody, everybody.
That's right. If there's no evidence, it's Russia.
I think we've learned that.
We learned it with Biden's laptops.
Because when they looked for evidence of who was behind it, there was none.
What's that tell you?
That's right, Putin.
So if you find a crime with no evidence of who was behind it, that's always Putin.
Because who else is so clever?
That they could have a sonic weapon being employed all over the globe, one person after another.
No evidence.
Only Putin could do that.
Nobody else.
So that's your news of the day.
We also have news at Ghislaine Maxwell's.
Let's pause for a moment to enjoy all the different ways we can pronounce Guilaine Maxwell's first name.
Gizlane, Guilaine, Guilaine, Guilaine, Guilaine, Guilaine.
Any of those are fine.
I'm going to go with Ghislaine because Ghislaine is a little too on the nose, isn't it?
A little too on the nose. All right.
Apparently her extremely personal, as it's being called, Does that make you feel bad?
You should. Because I feel as if I were deposed...
By law enforcement, on my personal sex life, I don't know if I would have 418 pages.
I feel like, depending on how succinctly I were to write my stories, I think my stories are about two and a half pages maximum.
I don't know about you.
How many pages could you get about your personal sex life?
I'm thinking two and a half pages.
But Ghislaine, or Ghislaine, has 418 pages, and I think we can all be impressed by that, because that's some serious activity there.
All right. And here's the question I ask.
I understand that she's being accused of horrible crimes.
As far as I know, she has not been convicted of any horrible crimes.
Am I right? She has not been convicted of any crimes.
But is she not being punished already?
Don't we usually punish people after they're convicted?
Because if you were to release 418 pages of my personal sexual life, well, first of all, I'd be pretty proud about that, I think.
Because, you know, 418 pages.
Pretty impressive.
But how is that right?
You know, don't get lost in the fact that Epstein was a monster, Ghislaine was a monster.
We all agree on that.
We stipulate she's probably a monster.
You know, all indications.
But is it our system that we punish them before they're guilty?
I mean, found guilty in a court of law?
In what way is this okay?
How is it okay to release this private information before she's found guilty?
I get that maybe there's some legal technicality or a public interest, but really?
Really? I feel like there's something terribly wrong with this.
Even if it turns out to be legal.
And again, I'm not defending Ghislaine.
But I wouldn't want that standard applied to anybody else, would you?
All right. Trump has been ramping up his campaign.
He's going to do more events toward the end of the election cycle than ever before.
So he's more energy, more activity.
At the same time that Joe Biden is basically hiding.
He put the lid on.
And so I tweeted, figuratively speaking, figuratively speaking, and this won't be funny to all of you, you have to have a certain background, but it seems that Trump is smoking Biden's lid.
Yeah. At the same time that he's simultaneously eating Biden's lunch.
That's right. He's smoking his lid while eating his lunch.
I'm just proud of that pun, and I thought I'd share it with you.
You don't need to remember it.
All right, so we got the debate tonight.
Big debate. Everybody going to watch the debate?
I'll tell you, Trump has made politics entertaining in a way that we're really, really going to miss whenever he leaves office.
And I hope that, you know, whatever day that is that Trump leaves office, I hope he doesn't leave the public stage.
Because we still need a certain amount of Trumpiness Just to be interested.
I don't know that I could get so interested in court packing and any of this other stuff if Trump wasn't part of the story.
So the debate will be tonight.
The ratings will be huge.
Huge, I say. And of course the big debate is that the Trump campaign wants the questions to include foreign policy.
And apparently that's not going to happen.
There's some disagreement about whether that was ever part of the plan or not.
But can somebody do a fact check on me?
Would that mean that none of the debates involved foreign policy, right?
I don't know what you call the town halls.
But we would have no debate on foreign policy?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but something like 50% of a president's job is foreign policy, right?
Depends how you count it.
But at least half of the job, conceptually, is foreign policy.
How do you not have a debate on that?
How is that not even part of the mix?
Well, I have the answer for you.
Do you know why it's not part of the debate?
Because what you're thinking is, no, no, no, that would be, it would expose Biden to the questions about Hunter's laptop.
That's why. You know, the fix is in.
Well, that might be part of it.
I would certainly think that that's part of the decision.
We do live in a world where bias is so baked into every part of everything that you have to think that's part of the decision.
But here's the more impressive part that you can kind of miss because you're focusing on the laptop story, and it goes like this.
How would you like to be running against an incumbent president who had done so well in foreign affairs that it doesn't need to be part of the debate?
Think about that. Talk about unfrickin' precedented.
Trump did so well, and this is not, I don't think this is an exaggeration, is it?
You know, listen to it and let it settle in, and then you tell me if I'm exaggerating.
I don't think I am. Trump did so well in foreign affairs that it doesn't need to be part of the conversation.
I think that's what's happening right in front of us.
This is like the most incredible endorsement of a sitting president I've ever seen.
You don't need to talk about it.
He took ISIS from...
Honestly, it was one of the biggest things I worried about.
To nothing. He took the threat of China, which is still a big thing, and now I feel like it's at least competently being handled...
In the right way. You don't know how things are going to turn out, but it looks like it's being competently handled in the right way for the first time.
Look at the Middle East.
I mean, it's crazy.
The Middle East has never looked this good.
It's just crazy. Look at our trade deals that have been completed.
The NAFTA replacement deal.
Even the critics say, okay, I've got to admit that's better than NAFTA. Look at the South Korea deal, the Japan trade deal.
I feel like Trump ran the table on foreign affairs.
There's just nothing left to talk about.
The only thing left to talk about is why Biden is so bad at it, and why he's bad at it at the moment, because of the laptop story we'll talk about in a minute.
So... I think they should just cancel the debate.
I think if your debate doesn't want to cover half of the president's job because he did such a good job there's nothing to talk about, maybe you don't need a debate.
But I guess they'll have it.
All right. All the people who have believed that the news for the last four years was real are going to have a real surprise that If Trump wins, and I'm going to tell you that it's looking like that pretty strongly at the moment.
What is going to happen to all these people who were already in Trump derangement syndrome, and then they experienced four years in which their impression of what was happening for those four years, very separate from maybe what your impression was, But their impression was that they watched a disaster unfold, and it's a disaster of unprecedented historical size.
That what Trump did to the country, according to their little bubble view, was so obviously...
Destructive in a gigantic, clear way that there's certainly no way that he could win re-election.
And duh. And by the way, the New York Times poll has him down by nine nationally.
Nobody wins if they're down by nine a few weeks before the election.
So not only is it obvious, according to their little bubble reality, that it's the worst disaster of a presidency ever in the history of the world.
And he's way behind in the polls.
What happens if he wins?
Because it looks like he's going to win.
In fact, it really looks like that.
In fact, I'd be pretty surprised if he didn't, honestly.
I mean, I would be genuinely surprised as of today.
Now, of course, anything could change in the next couple weeks, right?
But as of today, I'd be amazed if he lost.
Because in my world, the news has been fake for a full four years, so I don't take any of this seriously.
And in my world, the polls are obviously fake.
Now, not every poll, because the Trafalgar guys were close in 2016.
Probably they're close again.
Rasmussen was close in 2016.
And they have a much more narrow margin for the difference.
Probably enough that the so-called hidden Trump voters will make the difference, I think.
And so my world is complete.
Everything that has happened...
In my perceptions, in my bubble, made perfect sense the whole way.
I saw Trump getting elected because that made sense in my filter of the world.
I saw him doing such a good job that you don't even need to talk about foreign policy during a debate.
I mean, that's just crazy.
Three nominations for Nobel Peace Prize.
You can't do much better than that.
And, you know, before the coronavirus record unemployment.
So those are all the things that I saw.
Now, I didn't see coronavirus coming, but I think I could be forgiven for that.
Most people didn't.
And, you know, I don't think he necessarily hit a home run on coronavirus.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
But everything that I've seen at least makes sense.
You know, I can like some things, I can dislike some things, but there's nothing in any of my experience from 2015, probably through Election Day, That will be inconsistent with observation and my filter on the world.
So I don't really have any way to go crazy.
In fact, even if Trump didn't win, I'd say, oh, I guess the polls were a little closer than I thought.
That's it. My entire worldview could become consistent just by saying, oh, yeah, I thought there were more Trump supporters hidden than there were.
That's it. And I can instantly be compatible with everything I've observed.
But imagine being a TDS Democrat who honestly believes that Trump was like Satan himself, and everybody knows it, and there's no way he can get elected again.
What if he does?
That is a serious mental health problem right there, not to mention civil unrest, which we should expect.
All right. At this point, I have a question for you.
This is a challenge question on coronavirus.
Would you say that this is true, that we still don't know why some countries are relatively more successful than others?
Can we say that with certainty yet?
Do you feel that that's just a safe statement that experts would generally agree with?
Fact check me on this, because I feel like it's safe.
You know, it's not one of these 100% uncertainty, every person's on the same side.
But as a general statement, tell me if the following is true.
Even the experts don't know why some countries are doing better than others on coronavirus.
Is that true? Because even if we say masks work, and the majority of experts do say that, how much do they work?
Do they work 2%?
Do they work 5%?
Because if masks made, let's say, a 50% difference, we'd know that, right?
Wouldn't you agree that if the difference between wearing masks and not wearing masks...
Was 50%, hypothetically.
If it were, we'd all know that.
There wouldn't be any conversation about it, because you would just see it.
You wouldn't need to do a study at all.
You put your masks on, curve goes down every time.
Every country that does it, as soon as they put their masks on, 50% dip.
We'd see that, right?
Now, the scientists do say we are seeing an improvement with masks.
So they say if you really dig into the numbers, you do see it.
But it feels like it's closer to 2% than 50%.
Now, I don't know how close to 2%.
Maybe it's 25%.
I don't know. But it's not 50%.
It's somewhere closer to 2% than 50%.
How about the lockdowns?
The difference in the lockdowns?
Now, the experts are pretty united in saying that the lockdowns make a difference.
That's why they do them.
And they're doing them all over the world, in different places, under different circumstances.
But generally, the experts say lockdowns matter.
But do they matter 50%?
Or do they matter 2%?
Do you know? I don't know.
I have no idea. And nor have I seen any kind of study that would suggest the experts know.
Now, common sense tells you it's got to work a little bit.
The less contact you have with people, how could that not work?
So your common sense says it works, but how much?
2%? 10%?
We don't know. My guess is a lot, but I don't know.
How about leadership differences?
How would you measure that?
Because suppose you said, okay, we don't have enough leadership, and of this leader, some specific leader, is not going hard enough on masks.
Well suppose you were to agree that Trump's treatment of masks Has been insufficiently supportive of masks.
He does support masks, but he's not gung-ho on it.
He's not really pushing it.
And that gives people permission to be a little ambiguous about it themselves.
I would say that's true.
Leadership makes some difference.
But suppose the masks or not masks were only 2% of the difference, and you only got that 2% if mostly everybody complied.
But what happens if 20% of the public doesn't comply?
Well, then you don't get your full 2%.
That's reduced by, let's say, 20%.
But it's 20% of 2%.
Could you tell? Given all the other variables that are involved, you could maybe say, yes, we should have done more on masks or done them sooner or done them differently.
But it's still going to look like, and again, I'm asking for a fact check.
Don't take this as a statement of fact.
I'm no expert on masks.
But the feeling I have, based on my survey of the available information, as unreliable as it is, is that whatever Trump did, Mask-wise, it probably was a 20% difference on a 2% variable.
And to get that difference, what you traded off was we had a little more freedom, perhaps.
People felt a little more free on masks.
Was that worth 20% of 2%?
Well, it depends.
If it's somebody in your family who died, you would think not.
But conceptually, people might think yes.
So if you added together all the effects of the masks or no masks, lockdowns and how they're done, and the leadership differences, I think if you put them all together, it wouldn't really come close to explaining the different countries' behaviors.
And I would say at this point, genetics has to be seen as one of the big variables that we need to discover.
Now somebody on Twitter who, I'm not aware of their credentials, but somebody who looked like they knew what they were talking about, and I'll ask you to fact check this too, says that Swedes and Germans have a genetic similarity that is known to be good for avoiding disease.
Is that real?
So can somebody do me a fact check on this?
There's some specific genetic We have a name for that little gene, whatever it is.
It's got a series of letters and numbers or something.
And that that gene is known to be in Swedes and Germans and gives them better results on things such as viruses.
True or false? Give me a fact check on that.
Because if it turns out that's true...
I feel like we're done here in terms of understanding it.
Now, vitamin D, I think, I've been saying for a while, I think it's a bigger variable than anybody's admitting, and we know some countries supplement, such as Sweden.
So we'll find out about that.
Anyway, I'm going to die on this hill because I'm the Dilbert author, and my entire life Of cartooning, way prior to coronavirus, I've been saying consistently and for 30 years that leaders get credit for things that are just luck, and they get blamed for things which are just bad luck.
And that the leader usually has a lot less to do with the success than we give them credit for.
They tend to be just in the right place at the right time.
Now, there are differences, of course.
Your Steve Jobs, your Bill Gates, yeah, they made a difference.
But your regular CEO, who just got hired, didn't invent anything, didn't innovate, just sort of worked up through the ranks, I don't know if that CEO makes that much difference.
So that's the Dilber view of it.
I've set the Slaughter Meter at 100%, meaning that as of today, if nothing changed, President Trump has a 100% chance of re-election.
But of course, we got over a week.
A lot could change.
So it doesn't mean...
It's not a prediction, the Slaughter Meter isn't.
It's a Snapchat in time.
Snapchat. A snapshot in time.
And... I kind of feel it now.
Do you? Do you feel as though the zeitgeist or the mood of the country, the vibe, the feel, just your gut instinct, does it feel like it changed recently in the last few days?
It feels like two weeks ago was a lifetime ago, and it feels like we're feeling something that looks like people know Trump is going to get re-elected.
Does it feel like that?
Now, I don't know if the Democrats in their bubble are feeling that.
They may still not be feeling it.
But I feel as though that message has even penetrated the Democrats' bubble.
And on some level, they're kind of scared to death.
Whereas I'm seeing that the Republicans are feeling jaunty.
Downright jaunty.
I don't even know what that means.
That's the first time I've ever used that word in public.
Is jaunty like happy?
There's also a gigantic enthusiasm difference where you have the Democrats who want to vote out of this horrid hellscape of a world that's all they can do, they're beaten down, but they can at least vote.
Whereas the Trump supporters are seeing it as an opportunity for the best party ever, which one goes to the polls?
If I said to you, Scott, you've got two choices.
One, you can go across town and vote or fill out your ballot or whatever, and you might make some tiny difference in this giant hellscape of a problem.
To which I'd say, well, okay, if I can make a tiny difference...
I guess I want to vote a little bit.
Doesn't sound like it'll make much difference, but, you know, it's a hellscape, and if my vote could help, maybe?
And then compare that to We're going to have an incredible party.
You're not going to want to miss this party.
It's going to be lit.
We're going to be laughing and joking and chanting all night long.
And when Trump wins, it's going to be the laugh and the feel-good vibe.
It's going to feel like 2016 all over again, maybe even better.
Wait till you see the memes of the screaming Democrats.
It's going to be great.
Now, which one of those gets more people to go to the polls?
One of them's a party, and the other one's awake.
Which one gets you off the couch?
It's the party. It's the party.
All right, here's a little sign of the times.
You know, when you wake up and you see that half of the news cycle is just one story after another of an older white man's penis.
So now we've got the Rudy Giuliani story.
We had the The Jeffrey Toobin story.
We've got the Ghislaine Maxwell story, which is really about Jeffrey Epstein's penis.
And it feels to me as if this is one of those election year things.
It's like you turn on the news.
It's like, well, somebody's blaming Russia for something and something, something about an old white man's penis.
Must be election time.
But, you know, I've told you before that elections are won and lost based on fear.
So whoever has a fear of things the way they're going is more likely to vote because they want to get rid of that fear.
But it's starting to make me think that Democrats have a deep-seated fear of older white men's penises.
Because it seems like a lot of these stories come from them.
So just putting that out there.
So here's the big story of the day.
So Joe Biden's ex-business partner has come forward and admitted that the emails are real, that the reference to the, quote, big guy is definitely Hunter Biden, And that the Biden family was all part of the decisions because they were all part of the scheme.
Pretty believable, isn't it?
Now, we live in a world where you can't really trust any news.
So, you know, who is this business partner?
Is he sketchy? Can we believe him?
You know, you have to ask all those questions.
But it feels true, doesn't it?
And that's all that's going to probably matter between now and Election Day, unless...
Unless his credibility takes a bigger hit than I'm expecting, it's going to feel true.
Now, who broke the news?
Let me check.
Who broke that news about Hunter Biden's business partner?
Which American news outlet was all over that?
New York Times?
No. Let's see.
Huffington Post?
Nothing. Nothing.
You know, nope.
A British publication owned by an Australian, Rupert Murdoch.
Yeah, Rupert Murdoch has to break the news because it's basically just locked down from most of the American outlets.
Now, of course, the right-leaning outlets are covering it.
And so, once you know that Joe Biden was the big guy, once you know that the emails are real and that there's a real witness, and here's the funniest part of the story.
The reason that Joe Biden's business partner was willing to come forward and throw the Bidens under the bus was because they screwed him.
He felt like they screwed him, and they were making deals with the Chinese behind his back, and he wasn't part of the money stream.
So note to future schemers, if there's anybody who you're scheming with, you should cut them in on your deals.
If you don't give your business partner a little bit of that sweet, sweet Chinese money, he might turn on you.
And it looks like that's what happened.
And, of course, this is an ex-military guy, so it gives it a little more weight, right?
Lieutenant Tony Bobulinski.
Now, in any kind of a normal world in which things work the way they used to, or things work the way they should, or things work the way you would like them to work, Wouldn't the Biden campaign announce either one of two things?
Either he's withdrawing from the race, right?
Wouldn't you expect that Joe Biden would just drop out of the race?
Because I think he's going to jail.
Well, no, I guess it probably isn't illegal, or at least people that rich tend not to go to jail even if they do things illegal.
But it's so obviously, verifiably sketchy that you can't really have that guy as your president.
That's just not a thing. And if Trump had ever done, or the Trump family, had ever done anything, anything in that universe of badness, I feel like we'd know about it by now.
I mean, it's the most vetted family in the history of families, so we'd kind of know about that.
So given that the reason that Joe Biden was selected to run against Trump, and I think you would agree this is true, the primary reason he was selected is that he seemed like he was the honest guy who could run against Trump, right? It seemed like...
It seemed like it was the honest guy.
But now we have absolute...
I would say this is very credible.
You know, you can't trust anything absolutely in this day and age.
But it looks pretty credible to me that Joe Biden is criminally...
I would say criminally...
I'll say that with a caveat that it doesn't mean literally criminal.
I don't know about that part.
But in terms of how bad it feels, it's criminally bad, if I could use the word figuratively.
And we know that he's an habitual liar, which was the other thing that he was running against Trump for.
Now, I'm not going to defend Trump's fact-checking.
I'm not suicidal.
That would be crazy.
Yeah, Trump has some fact-checking irregularities, let's say.
Maybe 20,000 of them.
But Biden was running against that.
And now he's demonstrated to have lied about the laptop.
He lied about Trump's calling service people losers and suckers.
That never happened. He lied about the fine people hoax.
He lied about what Trump's going to do with health care.
Basically, he is the most thorough liar...
Since, I don't know, Hillary Clinton?
So does his team see this or not?
Because I feel like they don't see it.
It's still hidden from them.
Because they're not going to read a British publication, for the most part.
They're just going to read CNN and whatever they were reading before, and they just won't know.
And we could actually get to election day with most of the public, most of the Democratic Republic, the Democrats, most of them not knowing the biggest story in the country.
They won't know it. Because that's how thoroughly the news and social media is managed by the gatekeepers.
And that's, it's mind-blowing.
It's even hard, it's hard for me to hold it in my head.
And I've speculated this, that The way we're acting as a country doesn't seem related to what we're observing.
Because I think we're all observing, especially with the Clapper and Brennan stuff trying to say there was Russian disinformation on the laptop.
We're observing with no ambiguity whatsoever, in my opinion.
The leaders and important people who have run our government acting so illegitimately that they should be run off the stage and, if not, jailed in some cases.
And yet, what will happen to these people who are actively trying to overthrow the government, actively running a disinformation campaign against the American people, From the experience of being the heads of intel agencies, is anything worse than that?
If you were to make a list of the worst things anybody could do, I suppose you'd have genocide up at the top.
But somewhere in the top five would be ex-intel heads running a disinformation campaign in their own country.
That's really close to the top of bad behavior.
And what will happen because of it?
And my prediction is nothing.
My prediction is that Brennan and Clapper will just go on with their life.
There'll be no penalty, no nothing.
And it's mind-boggling.
And I try to think to myself, why thinking to myself is the way I do it?
A lot of people think to other people, I guess.
But what I think...
I can't reconcile what we're clearly observing with the complete lack of activity or action to be the response to it.
The response is completely disconnected from the observation now.
And here's the best way I can explain it.
Our brain can't accept what we're seeing, and so we're rejecting it as actually happening.
Your brain can't really process That the ex-heads of Intel are running a disinformation campaign, and it's the second time they've done it, and the Russia collusion thing is completely transparent now, completely discovered to have been an illegal, or at least illegitimate, disinformation campaign in the effort to overthrow the legally elected government of the United States, and what will you do about it tomorrow?
Nothing. What will I do about that?
Nothing. What will the government do about it?
As far as I can tell, nothing.
And what will the public do about it in terms of how it changes their votes?
It won't. It won't even change a vote.
Because the people who didn't like the Democrats still don't like them and vice versa.
So my best guess in terms of the psychology of what's happening is that because the thing we're observing can't exist, it does exist, it absolutely 100% exists, and we're looking right at it, but it can't exist in our minds.
Our mind can't say that that's real even while we're looking at it.
And so, we go on with our lives as if it were not real.
Because we can't reconcile it.
It just can't be part of my mental model because it doesn't fit anywhere.
I think that's what's happening.
That's my best understanding of why we could be observing this and our actions have nothing to do with the observation.
We just can't handle it.
Alright, I guess James Ratcliffe, is that his first name?
But his last name is Ratcliffe.
Let me say this.
If you wanted to have a high public official, let's say the head of Intel, and you wanted to give him a last name that would make you feel that he's telling you the truth, and you can trust this guy, you would not want his last name to be Ratcliffe.
Because I don't like rats, and I don't like cliffs, and I don't like rats standing on cliffs.
Because none of that's good.
So he needs to change his name to something I can...
I can feel better about Ratcliffe.
Come on! Simulation.
All right, so he says that there's no evidence of Russian disinformation, which, of course, the news on the right turns into there's proof of no Russian disinformation, which is not what happened, because you can't prove something didn't happen.
We can only say there's no evidence of it, which is close to being the same, but it's not the same.
Could it be that the Russians had found a way to do it without being discovered?
Hypothetically, I suppose.
But I believe the Russians were not involved with this laptop.
But we do have news now that Russia and Iran are interfering with the elections.
I don't know what the Russian examples were, but the Iranian example was hilarious.
I think that we give the foreign intelligence groups a little bit too much credit, because I don't have the exact text here, but apparently Iran is being blamed for making up some fake social media posts that blame the Proud Boys for...
I guess the allegation is that the Proud Boys Would be at election places and threatening to beat people up who didn't vote for Trump, and therefore the Proud Boys are part of a massive voter suppression campaign.
Now, of course, none of this is true, and it's been traced back to Iran, but if you were going to make up some kind of a BS story to influence somebody's election, you couldn't do better than that.
Because, first of all, there aren't that many Proud Boys.
Second of all, this doesn't sound even a little bit true.
Thirdly, the Proud Boys don't do anything like that.
The Proud Boys are not an offensive organization.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no matter what you think of the Proud Boys, my understanding of them is that they don't start fights.
They're pretty good at finishing fights, and they seem to enjoy fights, and drinking, and fellowship, and whatever else they're doing.
But... Under no scenario can you see the Proud Boys going somewhere to intimidate somebody into voting differently.
It's sort of ridiculous, because it doesn't make any sense with who they are as an organization.
Even if you don't like them, it doesn't make any sense with who they are.
So I ask myself, are you telling me that Iran can't do a better job than that?
I mean, I'm not going to make myself available to Iran for consulting, but if I did, I'm pretty sure they could have had a better product than that.
That was pretty lame.
Alright, so the Proud Boys will not beat you up if you vote.
I feel like I can say this with some confidence.
The Proud Boys will not beat you up if you vote.
Because you know what the Proud Boys like?
Hold on. This will blow your mind.
And Iran doesn't know this, apparently.
But do you know what the Proud Boys like?
Voting. Yeah.
Yeah, the Proud Boys like voting.
Because they're patriots.
Is there any patriot who doesn't like voting?
Is there a patriot who thinks that we should discourage people from voting?
It's sort of the opposite.
Pretty much the opposite of the Proud Boys.
And it's not my job to defend the Proud Boys, so later when somebody says, oh, that's Scott Adams, he was defending the Proud Boys.
That's just not my job.
I'm just telling you, there's an inconsistency with who they are and with this Iranian thing.
Here's the good news. Climate change has been solved.
Okay, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself a little bit.
But apparently this following story is very real, because I saw the video of the Company that can do this.
They found a way, a company did, called New Light Technologies.
And they found a way to make biodegradable plastic alternatives out of CO2. They can take CO2, I think, out of the air and turn it into plastic straws that are not plastic.
They're made out of the CO2. So they can remove greenhouse gases And at the same time, they can turn it into biodegradable plastic replacements so you don't need the petroleum and it doesn't sit in your ocean and not degrade for thousands of years.
That's like a really big thing.
You know, I've been saying since the beginning that although climate change appears real as far as I can tell, you know, my best guess is that the science of humans influencing climate It's basically real.
I don't know if they have every detail right, and I don't believe predictions over 80 years, ever.
There's no situation where I would believe that.
But I think the basic problem is almost certainly real.
I could be wrong, but that's my current take on it.
But I have been saying that you don't need to worry about the end of the earth or anything like it, because people are really good at adjusting and finding solutions, and we have lots of time.
This is the sort of thing that you could have predicted was coming.
If you read my book, Loser Think...
You see a bunch of other examples in there of companies that are doing similar things.
They're turning CO2 into some kind of product, or they're finding innovative new energy sources.
So I think we're going to solve climate change.
And this might be part of it.
It might be good. Alright, is everybody going to...
Somebody's asking if it's fake.
You know, I would have thought it was fake, or at least I would have been less believing of it, if I had not seen the video where there's a very big factory that looks like a big industrial processing plant.
So it looks like somebody put tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into building it.
So I got a feeling that somebody saw something that was convincing, because they put many millions of dollars into building that thing.
What's the name of the company?
I don't think that they have any stock.
I would imagine that they're private.
But in the story, it's called New Light Technologies.
And New Light is one word.
New Light Technologies. And the product they're calling air carbon, all one word, air carbon.
So who knows?
We might see a thousand stories like this and maybe 990 of them are not real in the end.
But I feel like this one might be.
Looking at some of your questions, somebody's asking me, didn't you predict Biden would pick Kamala because she has a personal connection?
Yes. I did.
Now, given the Biden laptop story, and given that the partner has confirmed it, and I think that's going to hold.
Sometimes you have to wait 48 hours because everything you hear about a new story turns out to be false, and two days later it's obvious.
But I don't think we're going to find out that this Biden partner is lying.
Because it would be a weird lie, wouldn't it?
You know, anybody could lie for any reason.
But the way the partner responded to the story and his reason for coming forward and his details, that reads true to me.
Just completely true.
So I'm expecting that story to hold.
And... Doesn't that take Biden out of contention, wouldn't you say?
It kind of makes it as if Kamala is the one running for president.
And at this point, here's what I would expect.
If Joe Biden got elected, they would have to start impeachment proceedings on Inauguration Day, wouldn't they?
Now, just do a fact check with me.
If the facts hold up, That the Biden business partner is telling the right story, and if his version is true, that the entire Biden family is basically a criminal organization, using Hunter as the rainmaker to get funds that would benefit all of them,
if that's true, and it certainly looks like it's true, and if Biden somehow got elected anyway, wouldn't you have to start impeachment on Inauguration Day?
Right? Is that an exaggeration?
Now, depending on who's in charge of Congress, your odds of succeeding in impeachment may be close to zero.
But I'm wondering if even the Democrats wouldn't impeach him at this point.
Imagine you're a Democrat, and you get a Biden-Harris ticket, and they win.
Imagine they win. Could happen.
Anything could happen. I'm still predicting Trump will win easily.
But imagine they win.
What's the first thing you're going to need to do?
You're going to need to impeach your own guy so you can get Kamala in the top spot, because that's what you wanted anyway.
And if Joe Biden makes it easy to remove him, and of course, he might just say, my health is failing.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize my health would fail on the day I got inaugurated, but there it is.
I'm stepping aside.
So he probably wouldn't get impeached.
He would probably get talked into saying that his health isn't so good and maybe it's time to go and Kamala is a good replacement.
So let me ask you this.
A few days before election, what do you think of my prediction that Kamala would be the candidate?
Right? Because even when Kamala got picked as vice president, and you said to yourself, okay, Scott, I get your argument that Joe is declining mentally, so maybe she's really the real candidate.
And everybody sort of agreed with that, the entire press.
I think even the Democrats agreed with that case.
But now with the laptop story...
That really makes Biden completely non-viable regardless of his health.
So it feels to me like Kamala Harris is the candidate because I don't imagine any scenario in which Biden could not be impeached upon inauguration or resign so he doesn't have to get impeached.
I do think it's too close to election for them to change the ticket.
If they did, it would be an amazing thing.
I don't even know if it's possible.
I suppose I could just say it verbally and say, hey, everybody, you're really voting for Kamala.
Just treat it like she's the candidate.
I suppose I could just say that, and that would be good enough.
People would get the message.
But I don't think they'll physically change the tickets too close to the end.
But maybe?
Maybe Biden wins?
And they impeach him on the first day.
Alright. I'm looking at one of my critics.
Somebody says, Jesus, you weren't right and get over it for frick's sake.
How can you say I'm not right when anybody voting for Biden believes they're voting for Kamala?
Now, it's not technically right.
But it's about as right as you can be while being technically wrong.
I don't know how you can be more right, but still technically wrong, than this example.
Alright, that's all for now.
I will talk to you.
Somebody says that I believe in QAnon.
No, idiot. I'm the opposite of the person who believes in QAnon.
You'd have to be pretty ignorant to think that about me.
Export Selection