All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 8, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:09:42
Episode 1211 Scott Adams: Why Pelosi is the Worst Person on the Planet - With Extra Cursing, Election Claims, Etc.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody. Come on in.
It's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Best, best part of the day.
And something that you might remember for the rest of your life.
Yeah, maybe not, but it's going to be good anyway.
I can promise you that, especially if you are prepared.
With your copper mug or glass or tank or chalice or stein.
Your canteen jug or flask or vessel.
Of any kind. So long as it holds liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better except Nancy fucking Pelosi.
Join me now. Ah...
Well, I did promise you there would be extra swearing.
That extra swearing will be coming at you really, really hard in a minute.
But first, I wanted to let you know that later today I'm going to record an interview with Joel Pollack, whose new book is just out, and you should get it.
It's called Neither Free Nor Fair.
The 2020 U.S. presidential elections.
So just go to Amazon and Google, neither free nor fair.
Now what's interesting about it is that it's not focused exclusively on these fraud claims.
In fact, it's mostly not about that.
It's about the entire environment and all of the elements that went into making this not really the election that we thought.
I'll record that later today and then make it available on YouTube and You're going to want to hear that because I'm reading it and there are a lot of great nuggets in there that you're really going to enjoy.
So it really pulls it all together.
Alright, let's talk about Nancy Pelosi.
So it looks like there's going to be some minor coronavirus bill.
But the big story here, well the big story is that there are millions of Americans who Who were hoping and should have expected that their government would come through with direct relief packages to get them through the toughest part of this year and the holidays.
Many unemployed and many really struggling.
But instead of that, it appears that there is little ambiguity about the following claim I'm going to make.
Meaning that Even Bernie Sanders seems to agree with this, as do Republicans.
So I don't think what I'm going to say now would be really much in doubt, which is what makes this so bad.
It's one thing if maybe there's some question about whether something has been framed correctly, or maybe you're not taking everything into consideration, and have you considered that there are costs and benefits to every decision that That's not really what's going on here.
It appears that both the left and the right are completely convinced, because Pelosi basically said it herself, that she held up negotiations on this coronavirus bill for months for political reasons, to get past the election, so that Trump would have less chance of getting re-elected.
And Even Bernie Sanders is coming, you know, in his own words, but kind of pretty close to admitting that, saying that she could have gotten a far bigger package.
It didn't include this important part of the direct payments to people.
And I'd like to make the following, you know, put a stake in the ground here.
We can tolerate quite a bit in terms of politics, wouldn't you say?
I mean, the claims and the counterclaims and bad behavior and bad decisions, there are mistakes.
For example, the Democrats would say that President Trump made mistakes in the coronavirus handling.
Now, how do you judge mistakes?
Personally, I think that there are They're exaggerating how much of a mistake he might have made.
But how do you judge a mistake?
Remember I told you at the beginning of the coronavirus situation That most of our leaders would try as hard as they can, they'd listen to the experts, but people were going to make a lot of mistakes because it was a new situation.
Nobody knew exactly what to do.
Some people would do better than others, but it wouldn't be because anybody was evil or had bad intentions or even was incompetent.
Rather, people would be doing different things, and some of them would just work better than others.
Personally, and I told you this ahead of time, I wasn't going to judge people by the mistakes.
So you haven't heard me, I don't think you've heard me, ever criticize Governor Cuomo for the allegations that he put coronavirus people back in old folks' homes and it cost a lot of lives.
I feel like the claim is true, But I personally am not putting that against Governor Cuomo.
Same reason. Same reason I'm not holding any mistakes that Trump did or did not make against him.
Same reason I'm not holding it against Dr.
Fauci, anybody else.
You can say that there were mistakes made.
That's useful. But then to go further and say there's something wrong with those people because they made mistakes in a situation where mistakes were going to happen.
I feel that's too far.
I don't want to go there.
I'd rather just figure out how we can make things better.
But what Pelosi did wasn't a mistake.
Am I right? And I don't think Bernie thinks it was exactly a mistake.
the process for political purposes.
And what ended up as a result of that is she got much less.
She could have had lots more.
In fact, she turned down an offer that was vastly larger because she wanted to stall.
Now, are the Republicans blameless in any of this?
No.
No, I don't think the Republicans in Congress get a pass because they're all part of the team, right?
Team Congress. If you can't get it done, you don't get it done.
It's on you. But I would argue there's something different about just a person in Congress who is part of an effort that didn't get it done and should have.
You know, that's worthy of criticism.
But what Pelosi did...
Was she fucked millions of poor Americans for a political advantage.
She just fucked poor people right in front of you and didn't apologize.
This is the thing that's taking me to a level of anger here that I would not have for politics.
This wasn't politics.
Whatever this was was closer to something like pure evil.
Because it's not as if the entire country wasn't in favor of some kind of, at least by a big majority, some kind of a direct payment to people to keep them alive and healthy for a few more months until we can get some vaccines going.
What Nancy Pelosi did is so much worse than anything that Trump has ever been even accused of.
Even accused of.
Nothing even close.
You could take the worst things that Trump is accused of, subtract out the ones that didn't even happen.
The fine people hoax, take that out of there.
The misinterpretations, you have to take those out of there because they're not real.
They're basically fake news.
Tell me what Trump has ever done that comes even close to To how purely fucking evil this was.
And I have a completely different reaction to somebody who at least tries to hide their evil.
Had she lied about it a little bit better?
Had there been some doubt about her actual motives and intentions?
But there isn't.
There's no doubt.
It's completely transparent evil.
She put it right out there in front of the public.
Well, I'm going to screw millions of Americans, but I think I'll get a little election advantage out of this for my team.
It's maybe one of the worst fucking things I've ever seen in my whole fucking life.
We should not be treating this like a political event.
Indeed, if we were not I'm trying to say this so I won't get banned by social media platforms.
So I'll preface it by saying I, of course, would never be in favor of any kind of violence or breaking the law.
So I'm not suggesting anything.
I don't want anybody to take it that way.
But if you were just to look at what she did right in front of us, right in front of us, What she did should have a law against it.
Apparently it doesn't.
But in terms of the severity of how bad that was, if there were a law, it should be the death penalty.
That's how bad it was.
There's no law against it, so she won't be punished, and of course I don't think anybody should resort to violence for any political stuff.
But in terms of how bad it was, And she just put millions of people into such a bad situation that some of them will die.
She just fucking killed people for political advantage.
That's not too strong.
We know that the professionals are pretty clear and common sense tells you and your experience tells you that the kind of pain people are suffering in this country at the lower end of the economic situation The kind of pain they're going through, and will go through for the next few months, it's life and death pain.
It's not inconvenient.
It's not fucking inconvenient.
It's going to kill people.
People are going to fucking put a gun in their mouth and blow their brains against the drapes because of what you did, Nancy fucking Pelosi.
You killed people for political advantage, and you knew it.
You knew what you were fucking doing.
You absolute monster.
Fucking monster.
This isn't about politics, and let me be as clear as possible.
If Trump had done this, I would be just as fucking mad, and I would think he should be impeached.
And I would be all in on impeaching his fucking orange ass if he did anything like this.
There's nothing he's fucking done that is in this category.
And don't even pretend there is.
There isn't. Nothing.
Worst fucking thing I've ever seen a politician do.
And honestly, the fact that she did it right in our fucking faces?
She's not hiding it?
That does make it worse.
Because this is now just sort of bullying, isn't it?
I mean, maybe technically you wouldn't call it bullying, but what the fuck is it?
It sure isn't being a leader.
Still, it isn't helping.
It's closer to criminal behavior.
It's closer to evil behavior than it is to even politics.
To call this politics isn't a fucking mistake.
This is somebody who should be hounded out of office and should never be able to live among nice people again.
This isn't politics.
All right, have I said enough about that?
So Axios is reporting that China has a network of spies in this country who are working are lesser politicians.
With a long-term view that if they can get some control over mayors and people who are working their way up from lower levels, that someday when those lower-level politicians become more important, let's say in state or national politics, that China will already have a grip on them in some way.
And there was a specific young lady whose name is Christine Fang.
Or, and this is the weird part, Apparently she goes by two names, Christine Fang or Fang Fang.
Her first name Fang and last name Fang.
Now, I keep pointing this out, but it gets funnier and funnier the longer it goes.
If you've got somebody whose last name is Fang, and it turns out that they're trying to eat you alive...
That's funny, right?
Hey, she's trying to eat us alive, and she's being evil, and her last name is Fang.
But what does it mean when both of her names are Fang?
Fang Fang. That's like double simulation there.
That's some shit. So apparently she got close to my representative locally here, Eric Swalwell.
So there's a photo of her at least getting her picture taken.
So Swalwell minimizes it and said it was no big deal.
But the fact that China is doing this makes me wonder if we're doing that too.
Are we doing the same thing to China?
Because let's stop saying we're not at war with China.
We're at war with China.
We're at war with China.
This is just how the war works now.
It's persuasion and dirty tricks and stuff.
So I'm going to just start calling it a war because it's stupid to not call it anything else.
It's World War III. Yeah.
Still waiting to hear from the four people who were, I think it was four or five, the last people in the room in that Georgia...
Situation where the people were allegedly asked to leave.
I'm still waiting for news of direct quotes of who said what in terms of was anybody saying that people should leave.
We don't have that yet.
What's up with that? I know one of the people lawyered up, that probably means the rest did, but are you telling me our news business can't get one of those people to say, oh, what we said was, and the words we chose were, and the reason we did it was, you can't get any of the people who are the most important people in one of the biggest stories in the country, and not one of them has a comment?
We can't find them?
The news can't locate any of those people.
Now, keep in mind, I'm on the side that says that the video we're seeing does not demonstrate fraud.
It demonstrates something that could be fraud, but also could be not fraud.
It tells two stories very clearly, but they're different stories.
And that's true of a lot of video.
The Covington-Kidd case, for example.
Depending on what you see and what you're bringing to it and what your bias is, there are two complete stories told by the video.
One, something really bad happened.
Two, nothing happened at all.
It's both right there in the video.
So given that situation and the relative importance of it to the entire future of the country and the world, where the fuck are those four people?
I mean, seriously.
Where the fuck are those four people?
Now, even if the story is we tried to contact them and they say no or they won't answer their phone, that's still news.
That's still news.
Here's one of the things I'm starting to wonder.
I wonder if you could crowdfund real news to support fake news, to replace fake news.
Because the problem with fake news is, for whatever reason, neither Fox News nor the left or anybody else Seems interesting in talking to the only people who are the important people in this question.
Suppose you just started funding both witnesses and news.
So suppose you started a crowdfund and you said, look, I'll pay X reward for a whistleblower who has a story of whatever nature.
Or I'll pay $10,000 for one of those four people to just sit for an interview that we can publish unedited.
$10,000 just to tell your story.
Because without that $10,000, apparently, we'll never hear from the four people who We're the only ones who could tell you what they meant and what they said, and the whole case rests on that.
What they meant and what they said, and when they said it, etc.
We should just bypass the entire news business.
And just create some kind of a fund to find out about any story that the news is ignoring.
Because it's going to be ignored on the left and the right in some cases.
So wouldn't you want to say, well, we'll just fund it.
Fund it ourselves. See what happens.
All right. So here's a follow-up on that Havana syndrome.
You know, you saw the early reports that there might have been a, quote, sonic weapon.
That was hurting people within the embassy, and then it happened in a Chinese embassy, too.
So there are two different embassies, or were there three?
Was Canada in on that, too?
But anyway, the latest is a report from the National Academies of Science, engineering and medicine.
And they came up with a report, and they said that, quote, Was, quote, the most plausible mechanism to explain the overseas diplomats and their various debilitating symptoms.
So there you have it.
Do you feel that you got your answer now?
Because it's the most plausible explanation and it came from scientists.
So I guess we're done here, right?
Scientists? It wasn't just one scientist.
It was this National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Pretty important. I'm sure they have excellent scientists.
So we're done here, right?
I guess there's just some kind of weapon that we don't have any direct evidence of, but the only...
No, it was the most plausible mechanism.
Okay, let me clarify this for you.
This is fucking stupid.
This is like really, really stupid.
On day one, I told you that the story was fake and there was no sonic weapon.
Now, some of you have sent me this and said, well, maybe it wasn't a sonic weapon, Scott, but you were surely wrong about it being just some kind of mass hysteria, because now real scientists have looked into this, Scott.
Scott, Scott, Scott.
You and your mass hysteria hypothesis.
I laugh at it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Because actual scientists...
I've now debunked you, you idiot.
Real scientists from an established place have determined that the most plausible mechanism, Scott, Scott, Scott, is some kind of a pulsed radiofrequency energy weapon that has not been directly detected.
Okay, I'm just a cartoonist.
I'm not a scientist who is a member of the Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, but I'm just going to put out a thought.
So you should not certainly put my casual thought in the same category of credibility as, my God, a whole group of scientists in the National Academies of Sciences.
They got some real credibility.
But I'm just going to suggest a thought.
Which one of the scientists at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, which one of them was an expert on mass hysteria?
Do you think they had one?
What do you think? Do you think that any of the engineers who looked into this, or scientists, were any of them sort of also experts in a separate field, Called psychology and mass hysteria.
Because I'm just going to point out that the symptoms which they discovered that were, you know, across these people who had complaints...
Let me tell you the symptoms.
See if you can determine something that these symptoms have in common.
So now you're all going to be detectives, okay?
What do these symptoms all have in common...
There's some people that said that there was a loud noise that they heard, but they didn't all have that experience.
So some had one experience and others didn't.
One of them had a dizziness and vertigo and was up vomiting all night.
But there are others that did not have that vomiting.
But others did have the vertigo, where they would lose their balance a little bit.
They had cognitive difficulties and headaches.
So you've got your headaches, your dizziness, your cognitive difficulties, and at least some people had some pressure they felt at one point, and some people vomited, but there were other things that were not common to all of them.
Okay, do you have it yet?
What would those symptoms lead you to believe that was the most likely mechanism for that.
I'm seeing people saying drugs.
But if people took drugs, well, unless it was slipped to them, I suppose.
Do you think drugs would cause these symptoms?
I'm going to say that maybe.
Maybe drugs.
Could be. Food poisoning, I'm seeing.
Alcohol, chemicals, hangovers.
Let me give you my hypothesis.
Every one of these symptoms is exactly, exactly what you get with a mass hysteria.
Now, that doesn't mean it's a mass hysteria.
I'm just saying that if all of these symptoms could be described by, let's say, a Invisible pulsed radio frequency energy.
And I'm not a scientist, but I'll accept that as true.
That that would explain all of their symptoms.
Maybe drugs would also explain it, but I'm no doctor, so I don't know that.
Maybe. But I'll tell you what would also explain every one of these symptoms.
Mass hysteria. Let me put it this way.
If the symptoms were people had gangrene in their legs and they had to have them amputated, would you say that was a symptom of a mass hysteria?
No. Suppose they had broken bones.
Would you say that's a mass hysteria?
No. No, you wouldn't.
If they had, let's say, an identifiable bacteria, Would you say that was a mass hysteria?
No. An identifiable virus?
No. Identifiable cause that directly caused these.
Let's say they found a stomach virus.
Here's my point.
This is exactly a mass hysteria.
This isn't even like, well, it might be.
This is what they are.
They are exactly this.
If you want a class on how to identify a mass hysteria, here it is.
Now you say to yourself, but how does that explain an unusual number of people with symptoms?
Because these were real symptoms in many cases.
Like, if somebody's vomiting, they're not imagining they're vomiting.
Well, here's the explanation.
How many people work in an embassy?
I don't know the answer to that, by the way.
But how many people do you think work in an embassy?
Now, how many people work in all of our embassies?
Do you think that at any time in the past year, by coincidence, that any of our other embassies might have a few people who had headaches at the same time?
Has that ever happened?
Of course! Was there anybody who had a stomach flu at the same time somebody else was feeling dizzy?
Probably. Right?
So the most common thing you would expect is that with all of our embassies and all of the number of staff, you would find clusters of people being sick guaranteed.
Guaranteed! All right.
I'm seeing some of you complain that that's too much on this topic.
But if you can't understand how to spot a mass hysteria, you will think stories like this are real, and they're clearly not real.
I will change my mind if somebody produces the gun that was a directed energy beam, then I'll change my mind.
And they'll say, oh, well, I didn't see that coming.
I was wrong. But until you see that, if you're going to put the odds on it, I'd say 50 to 1.
It's a mass hysteria.
You can't rule out the secret weapon that somebody somehow got into China and Cuba.
I mean, maybe.
There's no motive.
There's no upside.
But maybe.
It's just probably 50 to 1 against it.
All right. At CNN, they've got a story that says scientists may have come up with a potential way to make oxygen on Mars.
How cool would that be?
Potential way to make oxygen on Mars.
And you know it's true, because it's right here on CNN. And I read that story, because how cool would it be to be able to make oxygen on Mars?
Because otherwise you have to bring it with you or something, right?
And you read a little bit more of the story, and the The requirement to make this oxygen with this new proposed way would be that there might be a lot of briny liquid under the surface, and they can use a chemical reaction to change the briny water that's under the surface into oxygen.
And I thought, that's great.
Now, what this depends on is something which hasn't yet been discovered.
That below the surface, there would be a sufficient amount of briny liquid.
But we don't know that to be true.
And I thought, I'm no scientist, but I feel like I have a pretty good other idea for generating oxygen on Mars.
So one would be, if there's briny liquid below the surface, which we don't know to be true, that would be their idea.
But mine, I think, is a little simpler.
It goes like this. You would just drill a hole into the surface of Mars, but you'd choose your hole so it drills into a gigantic pocket of oxygen that was trapped under the surface.
And then the oxygen will be released through that hole that you've drilled, and then that will get into the atmosphere, and you will have added oxygen to the atmosphere by just releasing it from inside the interior of the planet.
So that's my idea. Is there anything wrong with that idea?
Because, you know, okay, yeah, you could make one quibble about it.
It would depend a lot...
I'm later discovering that there's a gigantic ball of oxygen trapped beneath the surface of Mars.
Now, we don't know that to be true, but if it is there, I feel like my method would work to drill the hole and release it.
If it turns out that instead of a giant ball of oxygen, it's an undiscovered, unknown, unobserved, gigantic bunch of liquid brine, well then their method might be better.
But it just depends what you find down there.
So that was on CNN. And then CNN talked to somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
And the guy said, it was another expert, he said, why wouldn't you just melt the ice?
Because apparently we do know there's ice on Mars.
And so this guy's like, why don't you just melt the ice?
And then you got water and then turn the water into oxygen.
And I'm thinking, yeah.
Yeah, you could do that, or you could drill a hole and find the briny liquid that may or may not exist.
Do you guys have...
This is just a personal thing right now.
Do you have the problem that software rots?
You put a piece of software on your computer, and you're just using your software.
Doesn't matter what it is.
I'm using my software.
And then one day, it just rots.
It doesn't work anymore.
Now, it might be because your operating system updated, some compatibility.
But I would love to walk into my office someday and sit at my computer and say, I would like my software to work just the way it worked yesterday.
I sure am lucky that I got everything working yesterday.
So let me tell you that the trouble I got into...
I upgraded my operating system to Big Sur, the new one, and I upgraded my Photoshop, because it's a subscription thing, to the newest version.
So now I've got the newest of everything, so I should have no problems, right?
Except that the line tool doesn't work anymore.
I don't know why. So just drawing a line, the most basic thing besides drawing with a brush that I do to make Dilbert, it just doesn't work anymore.
And it stopped working on my other computer with a different operating system.
So I can't draw a line on two different complete computer setups, and I just can't do my job now.
Today I have no idea how I can be a cartoonist because the effort to find a new way to produce is pretty big.
And I don't know if Adobe can fix it because it does seem to be, as far as I can tell, it's just a bug.
It's not me being an idiot.
But I had mentioned this in public and somebody had offered a solution and I tried this solution last week and it worked.
So last week, Somebody on Twitter had offered a solution and it worked.
But when I rebooted, it stopped working, and I couldn't figure out how to do that solution again.
It looked like it didn't even have options for it anymore.
So, how do we live in a world where they...
You know, if somebody sells you this pen, It's never going to rot.
And the company that sold it to me can't make it rot.
They don't have any control after it leaves their little pen factory.
But with software, they can send you the software, and then they can destroy it from a distance.
They can just make it rot.
And then you need a new one.
It's a hell of a situation.
I'm sure you're all in it.
Here's a little fake news I want to debunk for you.
I saw this going around the internet, so in case you saw it, I'll tell you what the fake part is.
There was a tweet going around showing some official in Pennsylvania.
He was announcing a partial count at some point.
He said that they've counted a hundred-some thousand votes at whatever point they had counted them.
And they had adjudicated 94% as many as those.
So the way people interpreted that was, wait a minute, are you saying you adjudicated 94% of all the things you counted, meaning that almost every vote you counted was sketchy?
And you had to actually look at it and like, I'm not even sure if this is a real vote.
94% of them?
Now that was the fake news that went around.
And what happened was there was a word left out that you can just see.
It's not me guessing.
I'm just looking at it and saying, oh, sometimes they left the word out.
And the word was counted.
So they had done a partial count.
There were lots more to count, maybe millions more, but they had done just a partial count.
And at the same time they had done the partial count, separately, some people were working on adjudicating.
The adjudicators were working pretty fast and did over 100,000 of them.
The ones that had been counted, as in run through the counter, that had just started and they hadn't ramped up too far.
So those numbers were about similar, just by coincidence.
So it's just a coincidence that Of the timing that those numbers were kind of similar, but certainly nobody was suggesting that most of the ballots were sketchy and had to be adjudicated.
But in terms of the election integrity, some interesting things are happening.
There's the Mike Kelly case.
I guess we don't know if the Supreme Court is going to take it yet, but if they do, it could be trouble.
It could be trouble for...
The Pennsylvania vote.
So here's the claim, if you're not following this.
So, let's see.
The claim is that the Commonwealth changed the voting process without going through the proper procedure as described by their own laws.
Therefore, if the procedure was adjusted to add mail-in balloting, if the procedure changed, But it was not changed in the correct way.
You got a problem.
You had an illegal election because it was done in a way that the law does not support.
Now, what do you think will happen if the Supreme Court sees that Pennsylvania did what Pennsylvania wanted to do?
They wanted to make that change.
It was for the intention of, you know, having more votes during coronavirus.
That would be their claim anyway.
And The system ran.
Maybe there was some fraud, but not enough to overcome the election, at least in terms of proven fraud in court.
And so what would the Supreme Court say about this?
Would the Supreme Court say, the Supreme Court is only about the rules, we're not here to make up the law, It's pretty clear.
We're reading the law.
There it is. There's the Pennsylvania law.
And then here is you violating the law.
It's as clear as day.
There's not even going to be an argument whether the law was violated, I think.
I don't believe that there's even a counter-argument to that, is there?
But the Supreme Court, like other courts, can kind of decide whatever they want.
And I've got a feeling...
I've got a feeling that the Supreme Court is going to say, yeah, but we don't want to disenfranchise any voters.
So I feel like the Supreme Court is going to ignore the law in their ruling, which they can do.
They can just make up a reason for it and say, well, yeah, technically that was against the law, but given the emergency situation and given that it was clearly intended for the benefit of people and we're not going to disenfranchise people over a technical infraction.
That's kind of how I think it'll go.
What do you think? I don't see it succeeding.
Now, Ted Cruz will be arguing it, Which I think gives it a far better chance of succeeding than somebody less capable.
As you know, well, I hope you know, Ted Cruz has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court.
He used to be Solicitor General of Texas.
So he's deeply experienced in exactly this stuff.
And he's one of the best people you could ever imagine for doing this stuff.
So... At least it will be a really good contest.
It won't be like these things that are getting thrown at the lower courts.
This is going to be a fun contest, but if I had to predict, I would predict that the Supreme Court would ignore the Constitution and would ignore the law and just say, eh, it's just not a big enough deal.
I think we're going to keep it the way it is.
I think. Related to that, the state of Texas has filed a lawsuit that kind of dovetails with this one, but goes further, and apparently Texas can challenge the elections in other states, which is interesting.
Did you know that? That Texas can challenge the elections in other states.
So they're challenging some of the swing states, saying that the...
And one of their arguments is that...
There was unequal protection, meaning that within a state, not Texas, but they're challenging other states, that within those states that there were different rules applied even within the state.
So if you as a voter in one of these states, which would be Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, if you were in one of those states and you were in, let's say, a county or a precinct that handled things differently...
Maybe it was to your disadvantage.
So you don't have the same rights as somebody in a neighboring county, in your own state?
How big a deal is that?
I feel like that's not really much of a case, honestly.
And don't worry about my opinion, because my opinion is not going to influence the outcome.
I feel as if the courts would once again say, yeah, we see your point, Texas.
Yeah, you've proven it factually.
Yeah, it's important to have equal protection.
And yes, you've proven that it didn't occur.
But I think they're going to say it's too small of an infraction.
I think they're going to say, yeah, it was imperfect, but every election is imperfect.
And by the way, you can't make it equal for everybody all the time.
Somebody says, you're wrong, Scott.
I could be wrong. Certainly I wouldn't listen to my opinion on the Supreme Court, but I wanted to put that down as my prediction, because it's good for you to compare my predictions to reality.
And I also think, wouldn't even a perfect election, if you did everything right, wouldn't it still be incredibly unequal?
Because is it fair to somebody who doesn't read well?
Is it fair to somebody who only watches CNN and therefore doesn't see the news?
Is it fair to somebody who's smart versus somebody who's not smart enough to understand the issues?
I feel as if you can't get equal protection.
So I think the court would say, yeah, it's too small.
All right. I found a new way to reply to strawman arguments.
You know, the strawman argument is where I'll say something like, I believe, in my opinion, the sky is blue.
And then my critic will come in and say, Scott says the sky is orange.
Stupid idiot. He should check his sources.
Now that would be a straw man, because I never said the sky was orange.
In fact, I said very different.
I said the sky is blue.
But people rarely argue with me about what I've actually claimed.
It's actually pretty rare. People always argue with me About some weird hallucination that they've made up in their own head that they think is my opinion, and how dumb is that?
So I was dealing with one of those people today, and I came up with a witty rejoinder that I'd like to recommend to you.
Feel free to borrow this and use it online.
So after somebody misrepresents your opinion, you can say this.
I don't think you could find my point if it were stapled to your balls.
And then kind of leave it there.
I wouldn't do a follow-up on that.
You couldn't find my point if it were stapled to your balls.
Doesn't work as well if your critic is female, but most critics are male, so it should work most of the time.
Feel free to use that.
I ran a Twitter poll, which, as you know, are not scientific, but they can be fun.
And I said, which of these three groups is responsible for the most Systemic racism, so emphasis on the systemic part, in 2020.
So which of these groups is most responsible for systemic racism in 2020?
And I listed these three groups, the KKK, neo-Nazis, and teachers unions.
Now, of course, my followers tend to skew right.
Two percent of them said the KKK, 3.4% of them said neo-Nazis are responsible for the most systemic racism.
And 95% of the respondents said the teachers' unions.
Now, I think we're at a point where at least the people on the right understand how bad the teachers' unions are for society and civilization.
That's a pretty big number.
Now, again, it's not scientific or even close to it, but I feel as if even Democrats might come to the same conclusion.
I don't know how many Democrats answered this, probably not many, but I'm not sure they would disagree with it too much if they understood the issue.
If they understood the issue as the teachers' unions deny the opportunity for competition with schools...
And if you don't have free choice and competition among schools, the bad schools will stay bad because they have no competition.
They can just stay bad.
So black people living in places where there are bad schools are absolutely the victims of systemic racism because the system is not allowing them to have the same kind of opportunities as other people.
So that's systemic racism.
Now, is that a legacy from slavery?
I'd say yes. I'd say yes.
I mean, you could say lots of other variables, but I think that's fair to say that the teachers' unions are systemic racism, and the biggest part.
I would say that they're not just fitting into the category.
They're most of the category.
I'd say... 80% of systemic racism is directly the teachers' unions, even if it plays out in other ways.
And the point is that if the teachers' unions were not there, and if you had free choice, you would eventually get to the point through competition where everybody would have a better school opportunity.
And I'll tell you, if you're black in America and you've got a great education, There's still racism.
It's one of those things that you can't completely get away with.
But you're going to have a damn good life.
If you're black in America with a strong education, you're not going to suffer economically.
I mean, all other things being equal.
So at least it won't hurt you as much, the racism, if your economic situation is doing well.
But L.A. County District Attorney George Gascon has issued some rules to end civilization as we know it.
Does that sound like an exaggeration?
Could a district attorney in L.A. end civilization with a rule change?
Well, I think he is.
Here's the rule change.
They're not going to prosecute the following crimes.
Trespassing? Disturbing the peace, driving without a license, prostitution, and resisting arrest.
It's that last one that's the big problem.
I don't mind if they go easy on prostitution, driving without a license.
Maybe those just should be fines or something, whatever.
But trespassing seems like a pretty big one.
I mean, if somebody just walks through your open door, if you forget to lock your door, can somebody just come into your house and just hang out in your house for a while?
I don't know, that seems like a problem.
But resisting arrest is the end of civilization.
And once I heard that you could resist arrest in L.A., I thought, I could make a lot more money as a criminal in L.A. because I would just resist arrest.
And how long could I resist arrest And get away with it.
If you're not going to prosecute it, it's like, stop.
You're under arrest. Nice try.
That's 2019 talking.
Watch me go. Bye!
Big bag of jewels. I just stole these jewels from that house over there.
Yeah, I know I'm under arrest.
Bye! Hey, do you know any other houses that I could rob?
Because I'd like to fill up my bag.
It's only half filled with jewels.
I'll be over there.
I'll be robbing the other mansion.
I know you'll be waiting for me out front.
I'll see you out front when I'm done.
Stuff and stuff in my bag.
Two bags full of jewels and iPods and stuff.
And all the police are waiting for me on the lawn.
They got the guns out. Stop!
You're under arrest!
I'd be like, I know!
I'm under arrest!
Watch this. And they say, stop, or we'll...
We can't shoot you.
Stop, or we'll keep yelling at you.
And I'll say, I know.
I know. This is the greatest country in the world.
With my bag of jewels.
So... I feel as if staying where I am in Northern California and continuing to be a cartoonist is kind of a sucker's play.
Because I'm working all day to get money.
I mean, it's a good job, sure, but I still have to work.
I would rather just go into people's houses and businesses and just take what I want.
Because that's the new model, according to the district DA in LA. Alright, so we've got that.
The CEO of Goya Foods, who, as you know, at one point, AOC called for a boycott of his products.
And apparently what happens when AOC calls for a boycott of your products is that sales go way up.
The Conservatives band together.
I bought some. I've never bought this product in my life, but I went out and bought some just because AOC said to boycott it.
And they said our sales jumped, so we named AOC the Employee of the Month.
Let me say that again. The CEO of Goya Foods, who has visited with presidents, Democrat, and Republican.
He's just sort of a person that people like to talk to, I guess.
He must be kind of awesome.
He talked to President Trump.
He's talked to Obama and other presidents.
But because he talked to Trump, AOC called for a boycott, and conservatives rallied around him, and his sales went up so much That they named AOC Employee of the Month.
Slow clap.
Anybody?
Will you join me in a slow clap for the CEO of Goya Foods, whose name I didn't write down, but he's awesome.
Good job.
I feel as if this is a model for the future to kill all these boycotts.
Can't we do this every time?
Can't we have a list of who they're boycotting so we can go out and go buy their product?
I'll do it. I'll buy every product that gets boycotted by AOC. Period.
I don't even need it. You know, I got a lot of extra cash.
I didn't need these Goya, whatever, beans.
I bought those.
I'll buy some Goya beans if it happens again.
All right, my last story, terribly important.
Apple Computer has come out with a new product, over-the-ear AirPods, I guess I call them.
So they're wireless over-the-ear headphones.
Just in time for Christmas, and what do you think they priced them at?
How much would you pay for Apple over-the-ear headphones?
How about $549 before tax?
$549 before tax.
And here's the reason I brought this up.
I hate you, Apple Computer, in a good way.
I'm kidding when I say this.
I hate you.
And here's why I hate you.
I don't want this product, but you made me want it.
Stop that.
What kind of stupid magic is this?
I don't need this.
It's not a product I need.
It's not one I want. I really love the regular earbud things.
I'm hooked on these. These are one of the best products ever made.
I mean, these are seriously, seriously good American product-making right there.
But I don't really need an over-the-ear kind, but They inspire it, Apple, in their marketing, they inspire an irrational product lust that you can just feel.
Right? You can just feel it.
And I know I'm going to resist this product as long as possible, but dammit, I want one.
I want it. I've never even seen them in person.
I have no use for it.
Seems way overpriced.
But why did they make me want this thing?
How did they do that? How did they make you want something you don't want?
You know, here's a little thing which you might not know about.
So those of you who waited, you get this little Easter egg here.
Did you know that when Eisenhower was president, he quite wisely realized that the military protection of the country was very related to the economy?
And in the 50s, people had learned to be not very consumerish.
Some of them had gone through the Depression.
They'd lived through a war with rationing.
And it really wasn't a big deal to keep up with the neighbors and buy gadgets and products and stuff.
And it was Eisenhower who said, we need to become a country that consumes a lot because that will drive our economy.
That'll make us a strong country and will make our defense better.
So Eisenhower was a pretty smart guy.
Dude, as it turns out, with whatever advisors.
And he realized that he had to change the psychology of the country from, I don't need that.
I already have an old one.
Why would I need a new whatever?
If I have an old whatever and it's working just fine.
If it ain't broken, don't replace it.
And he changed that to a psychology of lust.
Now, Eisenhower didn't do it himself.
He hired experts in the, let's say, the advertising and persuasion field to make the citizens think they had to have this stuff.
So this lust I was talking about for these Apple headphones is sort of the historical legacy of a country that's been programmed to want things it doesn't need.
So our whole psychology has, yeah, Bernays, that's the name of Edward Bernays, if you're going to look it up.
Bernays, B-E-R-N-A-Y-S, I think is the spelling.
So look him up. So he was the guy who figured out how to manipulate humans, making commercials, make us want things, until we became a massive consumer country.
And that worked.
Totally worked. We became a consumer country.
We became the strongest country in the world.
And we were brainwashed into that.
So watching that process, you realize that the psychology of the public is probably the most critical part of the engine.
And he got the psychology right, and that lasted for a long time.
What we're watching now, in politics and in the country, Is the destruction of our psychological engine.
The thing that we all agreed on, even if it was irrational, we agreed on it.
We agreed, we want to buy stuff for Christmas.
It's irrational, mostly.
But as long as we agree with it, it becomes a psychological structure.
And that's sort of falling apart now.
But will it be replaced with something worse?
Or will it be replaced with something better?
My guess is that because we have sufficient freedom and market competition and lots of brilliant people, that it's far more likely that whether you want to call it a great reset, I don't buy into that framing, But certainly there are going to be a lot of changes.
We will be going through a period of phenomenal change.
And I feel as though we're up to it.
I feel like we're up to the challenge.
I feel as if, like any good company, and if you're not familiar with business strategy, this isn't so obvious, But if you're a company that makes a product and it works really well, you still have to make a product that kills your old product because somebody else will.
So you have to be constantly eating your own products and destroying yourself as the process of growth, right?
You have to destroy to rebuild.
And we're going to go through the most massive psychological destruction Maybe in our history.
So when Eisenhower built this thing, which is this consumer economy, it wasn't replacing much of anything.
It was replacing people not caring.
But now we've got a thing.
Once it's created, now it exists.
You have to destroy that thing to make space for whatever is a new thing.
I believe that we are smart enough to do that well in a thousand different ways.
Invention, A-B testing, rapid communication.
I think we have all the tools and the skills and the ability that maybe it's time to just push the flush handle on the old way of thinking, on a lot of stuff, and just make a lot of our old assumptions go away, even basic stuff.
I've said that the consumer impulse and the free market is unsustainable at this point.
We need to have some kind of a separate life for people who just are not going to be on that train, who still need to buy food, still need to raise kids, still need to have a life.
There needs to be something that isn't as expensive.
As the normal way we do it, maybe as an alternate thing, etc.
So I would say the future probably is going to be a UBI. I think Yang was way ahead of the curve on that.
I think there will be UBI. I don't know if there will be restaurants in the future.
Think about the fact that restaurants are such a big part of the experience of at least people who have a certain amount of income.
And that restaurants closed and you didn't really die, right?
It turns out that going to restaurants is this sort of weird artificial business that built up and became massive, but we didn't really need it.
We liked it. Didn't really need it.
I would not be surprised if restaurants just go away.
Now, one of the reasons I got out of the restaurant business, besides the fact that it wasn't making money, was that it didn't look like it ever could make money.
The restaurant business, when I exited it, looked like a business that couldn't be a business in the future.
There might be a few mega chains, like cheesecake factories or whatever, but it was obvious that the independent restaurant business didn't have any future.
It couldn't possibly work.
And I think there's a really big red pill out there that I didn't want to be the first one to tell you about, but I feel like it's about time.
The restaurant business is not good for the economy.
I don't think it's that good for the economy.
Now that's an exaggeration.
So anything that creates economic activity is probably good.
But restaurants tend to barely survive.
It's your low-income jobs, and they're barely making a profit.
Most of them are cheating on their taxes.
They're supported by some other entity.
If you look in my town, the most successful restaurant, and probably one of the few that will survive this pandemic, it's only because he owns the real estate.
So the guy who owns the restaurant...
He's lucky enough to own the building it's in so he doesn't have to pay rent to an evil landlord.
He's owned it a long time.
It's probably paid off. So the restaurants that can succeed in the future will be special cases, like that one, where he just happens to own the building, so his cost structure is different than everybody else's.
But short of that, the days where you can be an independent operator Rent a space, don't own the building, put in your restaurant and make a lot of money.
It just doesn't exist. And I would argue that the restaurant industry was going to be gone in maybe 10 to 20 years, and this accelerated it.
This is something that Naval Ravikant said before I heard anybody else say it, that the pandemic would simply accelerate things that were going to happen anyway.
So if you're looking at how can we rescue the restaurant business, you know, having been in the business, I have the maximum empathy for everybody involved, especially the employees.
But the truth is, I don't know that it can be rescued.
The truth is, I think the future is no restaurants of the independent kind.
I imagine the restaurant of the future that would work if it were independent would look like this.
It would be living space above a workspace.
So the restaurant owner could live upstairs with the family.
And downstairs would be a robot, basically a robot restaurant.
So robots could make soup and salads pretty easily because it's just, you know, chopping and adding stuff.
Pretty soon, robots will be able to make a sandwich.
Some can already do that.
Cook a steak, etc.
Better than a human. So I would imagine that there will be robot-serving restaurants, and it's just not a business that will ever look the same 10 years from now.
So that's all I've got for now, and I will talk to you.
Later. Alright, you YouTubers.
Sorry I made you hungry.
Is there any reason that a robot can't make soup?
Doesn't it seem to you that the most obvious thing that you do is make a soup restaurant that just has robots in the back, not the kind that walk around, but fixed robots that are doing nothing but cleaning and chopping things and combining them into a liquid, just dropping stuff into a...
Into a liquid? It feels like this would just be the most obvious first robot restaurant would be soup and maybe salad because that's just chopping.
That's what I think. You have to get rid of the employees or you're not going to be able to make a business out of it in the future.
Somebody says, do I think that directed energy weapons are likely to exist?
Oh yeah, yeah. I think they're likely to exist.
That is true. Voting machines experts.
Okay. What about the...
I'm seeing a lot of comments.
I don't really even understand the comments, so I don't know how to respond to them for the most part.
Yeah, China fentanyl.
I can't believe we let that go.
If I were president, I would say, look, here's the deal.
I'm just going to close all of the embassies.
We're not even going to have a conversation with you, China, until you get rid of your top fentanyl dealer whose name we gave you.
It's not like you don't know where he is.
It's not as if you don't know his name.
It's not as if you can't pick him up.
It's not as if you don't know exactly what he's doing, because he's doing it You know, with the approval of the Chinese government, of course.
As long as you let that guy be free, we should not have any relationship with China.
We should just cut relations.
That should not be a negotiation.
I think you've seen Trump do this in some cases, and it's a good technique.
If you say that everything is a negotiation, people will treat it that way.
So if you say to China, all right, we've got a lot of problems...
Let's negotiate these all.
We've got the fentanyl thing and the trade deals and the IP and stuff.
If you do that, that's just the wrong approach.
What you should say is, we've got a bunch of things to negotiate, but we're not even going to talk to you until you fix, stop killing us with fentanyl.
You can't negotiate with somebody who's actively killing you Meaning your people.
You don't negotiate with them.
In a war, maybe you'd have to, because that's your only choice.
But not in this situation.
You don't negotiate with people who are killing you by the tens of thousands.
That's crazy. And by the way, let me be as clear as possible.
Trump failed on the Chinese fentanyl topic as hard as you can fail.
He completely failed on that.
And I'm not happy about that.
So I would say that would be in the top three Trump failures during his term is the fentanyl thing.
I don't think Biden will do any better, of course.
But that's a major, that's a really big failure.
Because I think Trump could have taken care of that At least by killing that guy.
I think we should have killed him in-country using whatever we could.
Just drop a drone on him.
Whatever. We should have killed him.
But that was my opinion, and that's all for now.
▲
Export Selection