Episode 1213 Scott Adams: Biden's Coronavirus Plan, Swalwell's Chinese Spy, Pelosi Still a Steaming Pile of Feces
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
SCOTUS and Pennsylvania election challenge
Nancy Pelosi intentionally withheld COVID aid
Biden plagiarizing President Trump's plans
Eric Swalwell and Chinese spy, Fang Fang
CNN propaganda headlines review
Social media companies win big...section 230 stays
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Were you worried I wasn't going to show up on time?
I see in the comments, he's late.
He's late. It's still 7am-ish.
I'm within a minute.
That's not bad. But if you'd like to maximize your experience, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better except Joe Biden's coronavirus plan.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens now.
Go. Well, there it was.
The best part of your day.
Would you like to hear a little persuasion trick?
I'm going to give you one. I like to leave you with at least one little nugget every day.
Some tiny little thing that you didn't know before, or reinforce something you didn't know.
And here's one. So every day when I do the simultaneous sip, I tell you that it's the best part of your day.
Now what do you think that does?
For most of you, let's say 80%, you say to yourself, oh that's just something he says.
It's sort of a branding thing.
It doesn't have any real value.
But I can tell you, as a trained hypnotist and a skilled persuader, that approximately 20% of the people listening to this, minimum, it could be a lot more, but a minimum of 20%, will actually take that suggestion and it will become true.
How many of you would already admit that this is your favorite part of the day?
Now, if you don't think that simply telling somebody how to feel, or how they will feel, works, then you haven't studied persuasion.
80% of the time it doesn't work, but if you're dealing with a big crowd, You can simply say, this is the best time of the day.
And if you say it often enough, and you repeat it, and you mean it, because it is the best part of the day for me, it actually becomes true.
So repetition, simplicity, and the fact that a big crowd will always have 20% that can be persuaded of anything makes it very powerful.
Now here's the trick. There's an important trick to this.
It had to be something...
That you wanted to do anyway.
So if I had been trying to convince 20% of the public to do something they didn't want to do, it was unpleasant in some way, well, I'm not going to have that much luck.
I'd have to be an amazing persuader and have lots of time and really working on it to move anything.
But getting people to do something that they would enjoy is actually pretty easy.
So if I told you to, you know, eat a cookie, 20% of you would say, I'm kind of hungry for a cookie.
I was thinking about a cookie just five minutes ago.
I would happily eat a cookie.
And 80% would say, I don't want a cookie.
So that's your persuasion tip for the day.
Simply tell people what to feel, and it'll work.
Just not everybody.
There's a suicide drone now, so-called suicide drone, Which the military can launch like a rocket, and apparently its wings flap out after it gets launched, and then it will sort of fly over its target, and the military can see it on their iPad, and they can see that the target is below it.
And it's now at a point where the military can just point to the iPad and circle the target, and the drone goes, and dive bombs and explodes, and it's a suicide thing.
Now, if you're saying to yourself, isn't that kind of like what we've always had?
We've had for a long time the ability to have a drone destroy something.
We've had for a long time cruise missiles.
Basically, it would just be a little cruise missile.
But here's what I think is different.
And something we'll have to look out for.
I don't believe it's purely kinetic.
I believe the suicide drone actually does explode.
But here's what's different.
It doesn't need to be controlled its entire path, which is the really scary part.
And this is the part I predicted in my book, The Religion War, back in 2003 or whatever it was.
And I predicted that as soon as drones could be operated not by an operator, but simply by a GPS coordinate, that we're in big trouble.
And the moment that a terrorist anywhere in the city can just toss a drone in the air and just take out their iPad and go boop, And that drone will find its way there and, you know, weave through the buildings because maybe it's got some sensors on it.
Ah, what do you do about that?
What do you do about that?
We'll figure it out.
But it's a good challenge, or a big challenge.
Yesterday I tried out some new software called StreamYard.
So StreamYard allows you to just use your browser To have a guest in a podcast.
But what's different about it is it can broadcast to both Periscope and YouTube.
So I tried that out yesterday with author Joel Pollack.
He's got a new book out, and look in my feed for that.
So the book is about our elections, whether they were fair and free.
So it's Joel Pollack.
It got a hundred and...
I think it's nearly 180,000 views just on Periscope, which is gigantic numbers.
So I'm wondering...
Thank you.
Some people are saying they enjoyed it.
I'm wondering if I should do more interviews, because that one did spectacular.
It outperformed anything I've done by myself.
So... I think I'll experiment with that, maybe do a few more interviews.
I'll probably do them not in the morning hour, but I might do them at a different time, and then they'll become permanent.
So, alright, I'll do that.
Elon Musk is moving to Texas, moving out of California, moving to Texas.
I don't have much to say about that, except it looks like Texas is winning, and California is losing.
And Honestly, the only reason I haven't already moved to Texas is you get a certain amount of routes and other things, so it makes it hard to move.
But all things being equal, I would leave tomorrow.
I believe California is just not the place to be anymore.
I don't know what Texas thinks about legalizing marijuana, so that would be a problem too for me.
So that might keep me away.
Keely McInerney tweeted, I think yesterday, that, and I believe this was part of their lawsuit that I think has already been rejected by the Supreme Court.
We'll talk about that. But there was a part of it where some calculations were done.
And here's how she explained it.
So she's paraphrasing from some statistician who looked at the election and claimed this.
The chances of Biden winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin independently after Trump had an early lead is less than one in a quadrillion.
One in a quadrillion.
So the odds that the election was free and fair, I'm using Joel's term, but he doesn't use it so much in the Fraud sense.
When Joel's talking about fraud, whether the election is free and fair, he's talking about everything from the social media influence to the bullying to the fake news, etc.
But the odds that it wasn't fixed, like literally just rigged, according to one expert, is one in a quadrillion.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe any statistician who says the odds of something are one in a quadrillion?
I don't. I think this is easily exaggerated by at least 100%.
So if we're being fair, I think the odds that the election was stolen is not one in a quadrillion.
Maybe one and a half a quadrillion?
Tops. That's as high as I'm going to go.
Because I'm not going to buy into this hyperbole.
One and a quadrillion.
If it's over one and a half quadrillion, I will eat my hat.
Seriously. I feel like they exaggerated that.
It can't be more than one and a half quadrillion.
One and a quarter quadrillion is the most it could be.
Okay, I'll go one and a billion.
That's as low as I'm going to go.
One in a billion chance that the election was not rigged.
Alright, one in a million. I'll go one in a million.
Because I don't like hyperbole.
So I'll reduce that all the way to, there's a one in a million chance it was a perfectly good election.
No, I'll say one in a thousand.
One in a thousand.
Because, you know, it's just so easy to exaggerate online.
And I feel that's maybe a little exaggeration.
So one in a thousand. There's a one in a thousand chance that we got a real election.
So you've got to feel pretty good about that.
A lot of you were thinking, I don't think there's any chance that this election was rigged.
No, there is a chance.
Statistician has shown you, with all the math and stuff, that there is a chance this was a good election.
One in a quadrillion.
So as I have been foreshadowing now for weeks, and you didn't like it one bit, and I was telling you the following.
The Supreme Court won't care about the law when they decide on any of these election things.
That's right. If you didn't know this was going to happen, it might have surprised you.
Because the Pennsylvania lawsuit about the Pennsylvania rules changes that didn't follow their own process, etc., was kind of a slam dunk on the law.
The law was as clear as it could be.
It was the wrong entity that made a change clear as day.
Here's what the Constitution of the state said could happen, and then here's what happened, and it wasn't according to the Constitution.
So it'd be pretty easy, right, for the Supreme Court to say, oh, here's your rule, here's what you did, it didn't follow the rule, boom.
But as I told you, the Supreme Court doesn't care about the law.
They care about the law most of the time.
But when it comes to a situation where the larger objective is to keep society together, and I don't object to that being a valid thing that they do.
That's why it's humans.
That's why it's our most trusted, unbiased to the point, you know, as much as you can be unbiased.
The reason that we put so much importance in the Supreme Court is so they can do this.
It's not just so they can tell you what the law is and interpret it.
It's also this.
This is really important.
They are the most, I would say, probably the most trusted institution.
Maybe the military, but that doesn't count for this.
And they needed to do the thing that would help unify the country and hold us together.
And they decided to hold us together as not a republic.
So a republic would be, you know, you know what that is.
There's the will of the people and there's voting and transparency and all that.
But the Supreme Court decided it was more important to avoid social trouble than it was to be technically accurate and perfect on these legal stuff.
So if you didn't see that coming, I'm sorry, but you should have been able to see that coming from a mile away.
They were just going to ignore it.
And they decided to not even entertain the Pennsylvania lawsuit.
So the CNN is reporting, it's over.
It's over. There's no doubt about it now.
You've got President-elect Biden.
Now, unlike many of you, I congratulated him the first day that the press had a consensus in which they said he's the president-elect.
So, in terms of tradition, I decided to call him president-elect too, because of tradition.
But I did think there was still some reasonable possibility that it would get overthrown.
Now, I will say that the odds of Historians being positive it was a rigged election are close to 100%.
Pretty close to 100%.
I don't think there's really any serious possibility that five or ten years from now you'll be reading about this election and everybody will say, you know, despite all of those claims...
All this time has gone by and it looked like it was a pretty solid, good election.
You're not going to find that out.
You're going to find out that it was fixed.
I think you'll find out at the same time that they've all been fixed, but you can't fix them as accurately as you want to.
So I think Trump slipped through last time.
I think that's all it was.
My guess is that that's all it was.
Now, I was watching Robert Barnes and People's Pundit talking about what evidence there is of fraud, and Barnes said, Who does a great job of communicating on all this stuff, by the way.
He probably is your best voice for something that's real without the hyperbole, so I would recommend him.
Barnes, B-A-R-N-E-S. So, one of his points is that the strongest evidence of fraud is the way it's always been detected.
So there is a way that historically we've looked for fraud, and when you see these signals, Historically, it means it's there.
And do we have those signals now?
And the answer is, according to the people who looked into it, which would not include me, Yes, the signals are unambiguous, and the signals are this.
And I'll see if I can explain it as well as Barnes did.
But the signal is that if you have two areas, let's say within a state, that are kindred in terms of their politics, let's say they're all Republicans or they're all Democrats, and they're kindred in terms of their democracy, So the mix of ethnicities and ages or whatever are kind of similar.
You've got two of them sitting next to each other or within the same state, and let's say one of them has an election turnout of 65%, whatever is sort of ordinary or good, and the other one has a turnout of 85%.
That's fraud.
Now could it be that Statistical aberrations happen all the time, and it was just a weird year, and 85% of this one group literally voted.
Very unusual, but they just had a big turnout.
Is that possible?
Sure. Totally possible.
If there were only one of them, what would be your conclusion?
It's sketchy, but there's only one of them, And statistics do cluster for just coincidental reasons.
So it could be just a coincidence.
But what if there are a whole bunch of them where you've got kindred places where there's just a massive difference in the turnout?
Well, then you've discovered fraud.
You haven't discovered it in a way you could necessarily prove it in court.
That's a different thing.
But you would know it's there.
So apparently that's the strongest bit of evidence right now.
I'm seeing some reports that in Georgia there were over 60,000 underage people who voted.
How in the world could that claim be out there without us, in 24 hours, knowing if it's debunked?
Because that's pretty specific, isn't it?
If somebody makes a claim that 60,000 or whatever people too young to vote voted, that means they have the names.
You know, they have the list.
How hard would it be for the media to say, all right, we're just going to spot check some names, spot check 20 names, And if you spot-check 20 names, and indeed, they're all real people, and they're all underage, and they shouldn't have voted, well, then you're going to have something, right? But it's been a day, and I think that claim has been out there for a while.
Have you seen it debunked and or confirmed?
We're at a point where there can be these amazingly sensational claims that just sort of get ignored and Either because I guess the news knows it's BS or they don't care.
I don't know why. But that's a really big story, right?
Now, there were other categories of illegal votes that are alleged, but that one is so big that you just need to check that one.
You don't need to check dead people.
You don't need to check people who moved down the state.
Just check that one thing because it's such a big number.
If you pick 20 people on that list and they really were underage voters and you picked them somewhat randomly, I feel like we're done here, right?
I mean, in terms of understanding that the election was stolen, but not done in terms of it changing the result.
I don't see anything changing the result.
Yeah, and as somebody's prompting me in the comments...
We don't really have a media that does that sort of thing anymore.
So, you know, maybe there could be a model where you just crowdfund somebody to do it.
You just say, alright, if we reach, if we get $5,000 or whatever the number is in the crowdfund, I, as a reporter, will take this list from the person who produced it and I'll call some of these people and I'll check 20 names.
Would you put $10 into that?
I would. I would.
Because I want to know. I want to know if that $60,000 thing is real or BS, and I want to know pretty quickly.
Right? I want somebody to check that for me.
And I don't want to know that at the end of today, nobody checked that?
By the end of today?
That would be the biggest news in the world, if it were true.
So do you think that the mainstream news will ignore...
What could be the biggest news in the world, that there were 60-some thousand fake names or fake votes?
I think they're just going to ignore it.
That's my guess.
I feel like it'll just sort of not be in the news, and nobody will double-check it, and it'll just stop being a thing.
All right. Apparently Ali Alexander caused some trouble on social media, as he sometimes does, with this quote in a tweet, I am willing to give my life for this fight, talking about the Stop the Steal movement.
And Arizona Republicans then followed up, I guess they have their own Twitter account, by quoting it and saying, he is, are you?
And then critics said, whoa, whoa, whoa, are you advocating violence?
And if you say you're willing to give your life for the fight, that doesn't say you're willing to kill somebody.
That's sort of the opposite of indicating violence.
It's indicating that if violence happens to you, or there's a risk of violence, it's not going to stop you from doing what you need to do.
But there's no indication that That Ali Alexander is saying that you should be violent.
He's just saying that if he has to sacrifice, he will sacrifice whatever it takes.
So, of course, fake news.
So, here's a tweet that got the most retweets I think I've ever had, including ones that the president has retweeted.
So, that's how much people agree with the following thought.
And the thought was this, that I tweeted.
Trump got impeached for allegedly withholding Ukraine aid for political reasons.
Nancy Pelosi withheld coronavirus aid from Americans for political reasons.
So she tried to impeach Trump for allegedly withholding aid from Ukraine for In the process of trying to get something done, get some research about Biden's work there, to try to get some work done that would have been good for the president's reelection, but also would have been good for the United States.
Because as a citizen of the United States, I very much wanted to know if there was any Biden problem in Ukraine.
So if the president was willing to look into that, it was good for his reelection, But it was also good for the country.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
You want your president doing things that are good for his re-election, wait for it, because it's fucking good for the country.
That's how you get re-elected.
I don't know if you knew that, but one of the ways you get re-elected is doing things that are good for your re-election, that have this additional quality, they're good for the country.
You know, like helping the economy, creating peace in the Middle East.
I think that President Trump should be impeached.
There's very little time left, but I think we should do it.
He should be impeached for trying to get peace in the Middle East.
Because the real reason he's doing it is not because he cares about people, right?
Because the Democrats have told us that.
He doesn't care about people.
He's trying to get re-elected.
That's the whole motive.
Doesn't care about peace.
Just trying to get re-elected.
And I think he should be impeached for that.
Take the economy. And that's just one example.
Trump has tried to make the economy in this country strong.
Imagine that. Selfish, narcissistic bastard.
He's trying to make the economy in the country wrong.
Why? For re-election.
Selfish re-election.
That's the only reason he wants to make the economy good and make everybody happy.
He doesn't care about your happiness.
No. He just wants to get re-elected, and I think he should be impeached for that.
Anybody who tries to do something for this country that's also good for re-election, you have to stop that shit.
You don't want people doing stuff that's good for the country just because they think it's going to get them votes.
What kind of a fucking system is that?
Working for votes.
So naturally, Nancy Pelosi, biggest pile of stinking shit in America, she decided that she would try to impeach the president for doing the job of the president that just happens to be good for the president too.
So She never saw the irony that she is now doing exactly the same fucking thing.
And yes, Mitch McConnell is part of the process of negotiating too, blah, blah, blah.
But even Bernie Sanders threw her under the bus on this.
Even Bernie Sanders said, yeah, that was a mistake.
You shouldn't have held out.
You should have taken the deal.
There was a bigger deal that was offered earlier.
And she did it, and she admitted it in public, that it was a political move.
So if she is withholding aid from suffering Americans for naked political reasons, how do we not impeach her despicable, bony ass?
This is the worst thing I've seen in America.
It's the worst thing I've seen in America.
Now, let me say for sure, I've seen people make mistakes.
So if you're going to say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you know, the president did whatever and it killed all these people in coronavirus, I would say that may or may not be a mistake, meaning that it was either preventable or it wasn't based on what the leadership did.
That's hard to know.
But at worst, it wasn't fucking intentional.
There was no point where the President of the United States said, I think I'll just fuck this whole country.
I think I'll just kill 100,000, 200,000 people.
For what? To get re-elected?
Because it wouldn't hurt the economy, so maybe he'd get re-elected?
The President never fucking intended anybody to die.
And I don't think he's too happy about it.
Pelosi intended...
To fuck the country, or at least the people who are not getting a direct payment and desperately need it.
She deliberately and in public and right in front of your fucking face screwed the most vulnerable people in this country for naked political reasons and then fucking told you right to your face.
Fucking told you right to your face.
I've never seen anything worse than this, have you?
Honestly. Can you think of anything worse?
Now, even if you say something like, well, Scott, you know, what about the Gulf of Tonkin?
That was pretty bad and that caused, you know, the Vietnam War and 50,000 Americans died.
That's much worse. No, it wasn't.
No, it wasn't. The people who did the Gulf of Tonkin thought they were doing something good.
It turned down terrible, but their intention was clearly good.
How about the Iraq War?
Scott, Scott, Scott, the Iraq War was the biggest mistake maybe this country has ever made.
So that's worse.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't. It might be worse in terms of people who died.
But it was a fucking mistake.
There was no point when George Bush said...
You know, I think I'll kill a bunch of fucking Iraqis because it's good for re-election.
Never happened. He thought it was the right thing to do.
He was wrong. Biggest mistake we've ever had.
And if you do a list of the biggest mistakes, I'd put that near the top.
But if you do a list of the most evil fucking thing that ever has happened in this country, what could you offer to top this?
In the comments, top it.
Try to top it with something that's not obviously just a mistake.
Somebody who screwed the public just for re-election purposes.
That's it. Somebody says slavery.
Slavery was intentional.
And slavery was worse.
Yeah, the trouble with slavery, though, is you've got that you have to adjust for the times.
Because it's not entirely clear that even people who owned slaves were entirely sure that they were bad people.
You know what I mean? Like, by our current view looking backwards, we can say, well, they were the worst people in the world, the slave owners.
But maybe they didn't think so.
The difference is Pelosi knows what she's doing.
She knows she's a bad person, and she's doing it right in front of you anyway.
All right. So, but I'll take your...
I'll take slavery as a good exception to my rule, but you have to adjust it for the times.
Which is not an excuse for slavery.
That's the next thing that'll happen, right?
There'll be a tweet in five minutes.
Cartoonist thinks slavery was fine.
No. No, cartoonist does not think slavery was fine.
Here's the Biden plan for beating the coronavirus.
And finally, because I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of ignoring science when it comes to beating the coronavirus.
If you don't follow the science, well, you're not even trying.
So follow the science.
And here's the Biden plan, finally, for beating the coronavirus.
There are three parts, and I think they're all strong, and I'm glad that we Finally have some leadership on this coronavirus.
So step number one, Biden will use Trump's plan for vaccinations.
Okay, well, that's one. Number two, Biden will use Trump's plan for reopening schools.
And number three, Biden will add some non-binding yammering about masks.
No laws, except for the minor federal buildings, but that won't change anything.
But he's adding some non-binding yammering about masks.
Now, what do these three things collectively, if you put them together, let me read them again so you can get this as a whole, what does it tell you we finally figured out how to do?
Trump's plans for vaccination, Trump's plans for opening schools, and some non-binding yammering about masks.
Put them together and what do you have?
What do you have? That's right, finally, science.
Finally, we are not a bunch of clowns walking around, bumping in the buildings, you know, knocking our heads on stuff because we're so darn stupid and we don't follow the science.
Finally, some serious adult leadership where they're going to follow the science and take us out of this horrible pandemic that Trump caused in some way, probably by a tweet, So that's all good news.
Those of you following my very small problem with Adobe Photoshop, where it stopped being able to draw a straight line, which is kind of important if you're a cartoonist, because the only kinds of lines that I draw are curvy lines and straight ones.
And straight lines just stop working.
So what do you think happened When I tweeted about it, and Adobe was right on it.
They've got a rapid response team, and so they immediately tweeted back and said, how can we help?
And in the process of the back and forth with them, as well as lots of other people weighing in and commenting, I learned that you can draw a line still with Photoshop.
And let me explain the process.
So here's the old way.
The old way was you would select the line tool...
Put your cursor somewhere and then just draw it across and then there would be a line.
And that sounded like that was a good way, but they've upgraded, so the process of just putting your pen down and drawing a line has changed to something, by analogy, if I were to compare it to something, it would be like, say, the Manhattan Project, in terms of complexity.
I believe there are 25 different variables that need to be set just right, but also in the right order.
In other words, if you don't do this before that, that won't work and you won't know and there won't be any way to know.
But, you know, you've got to clear these things and reset them.
But maybe if you go to this menu and clear it and reset it, why don't you use a different tool?
And if you use a different tool, there are 25 things you need to set to make that work.
And make sure you hit escape before you hit enter and before you do this.
So the bottom line is...
I'm pretty sure that Photoshop just doesn't have that capability anymore.
Yeah, they changed it to some kind of a vector or layers sort of thing, so they just don't draw a line anymore.
But rather than simply admitting it, oh, it's half of what you need to do your job, but we just took it out of there.
We got rid of it. Instead of telling me that, I've been trying all these weird combinations of things, and I'm pretty sure That I've determined that it just doesn't, it can't do any of those things.
So I'll use a different tool or a different software and I'll work through it.
But it's amazing how bad software is in this day and age.
It's just amazing. All right.
Day whatever. How long has it been?
Since, was it the, remind me which state, I get the states mixed up, was it the Georgia ballot counting where they had the video camera that appeared to make it look as though there was some mischief going on and then there was the woman who gave the announcement and said, hey everybody go home, at least that's what they reported she said, and we still haven't heard from her have we?
So the only person who matters in the story, a gigantic story, the only person who matters, she hasn't talked yet.
Now, to be fair, you have lots of accounts of what this person said, but we all know that if you ask 100 people what the boss just said, They're not all going to have the same story.
Some will say, he said, stop working on everything.
Some will say, well, you have to understand the context.
He meant stop working on just these things, because obviously you're not going to stop working on the other stuff.
So what you need to get to any better certainty about what happened in that room, you need to hear the woman who made the announcement say, these are the words I used, as close as I can remember, And this was my intention.
And this is who I thought I was directing it to.
Now she could be lying, right?
Because humans lie.
She could be mistaken.
She may misremember.
But then you take her account and you go back to all the witnesses.
And the witnesses say, she told us to stop counting ballots.
That's their story. But what if she says, I told this group to stop working And go home because, you know, the four of us were going to stay and I didn't need to tell them that, but I just told the envelope openers to go home.
What if she says that?
Then what do the witnesses say next?
The ones who said she told us the ballot counting was over.
Here's what I think will happen.
Just a speculation. I think the witnesses will say, well, yeah, She may have said that.
I don't remember what she said.
I only remember one of the envelope openers told me the ballot counting is done because she said it.
So it's probably somebody interpreting and told somebody and somebody didn't hear it and they told somebody else.
That's probably what's going on.
But until you hear it from the person who originally made the announcement about who should go home, you don't know anything.
You don't know anything.
ABC News and other reports have said that they heard X. What's that worth to you in terms of evidence?
If ABC News and even other news organizations, people that you imagine would tell you the truth, if they told you that she said a certain thing, should you believe that?
Not unless it's unrecorded and not until you've heard the other story.
If you had heard her story and you had heard their story, maybe you'd have something to judge.
But until you hear her story, the credibility you should put on anybody else saying what she said is zero.
Not 1%, not 10%.
It should be exactly zero.
It has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
That's why courts don't allow hearsay.
Hearsay is somebody saying what somebody else said.
That's hearsay.
It's more than that, but that's the quick definition.
All right. So my local representative, Eric Swalwell, is one of the people who was believed to be targeted by a Chinese spy, an attractive young woman whose original name is Fang Fang.
So her last name and her first name are the same.
Fang Fang. She called herself Christine Fang when she came to the United States, but she's Fang Fang.
Now, when the story first came out, it was just that she was trying to get close to Swalwell when he was a local councilman in my neighboring town.
And that she was part of a Chinese spy system where they try to get close to people who might become big in the future, just to sort of work with them.
Now, according to Fox News, and so here's another thing that you should put low credibility in.
Keeping in mind that Eric Swalwell is not my favorite politician.
So you know where my bias is?
Eric Swalwell, not my favorite politician.
I have met him a few times, by the way.
So in terms of full disclosure, he's friends with some of my friends, because it's a small area in some ways.
And I've been to places where he is and chatted with him briefly and stuff.
But he's not my favorite politician.
So when I say something to defend him now, you'll know it's not because of bias, because my bias is in the other direction.
And on the Fox News site, but I didn't see it on any other news site, it said that there was some...
the US intelligence officials, not named, so this is anonymous sources, okay?
Anonymous sources allegedly in the US intelligence agencies Believe that Fang had a sexual relationship with Eric Swalwell.
Here's where I'm going to draw the line.
I don't know if they had a sexual relationship or not.
Neither do you.
And if the only source that says this are anonymous sources, let's be consistent, right?
Let's be consistent.
Consistency says that if you heard that anonymous sources said something about this about Trump, would you believe it?
Would you believe it even a little bit?
No, you wouldn't.
So let's use the same standard.
I don't know what Swalwell did or did not do, but the suggestion that a Fox News site, who is no friend of Swalwell, says that somebody who is not named Believes that they had a relationship, you should give that zero credibility.
Now, if on your own you say to yourself, just use my own judgment in life, I think that maybe something was there, that's just you.
But don't pretend there's any evidence.
There's no evidence of that, okay?
You can't rule out anything, but there's no evidence of it.
And I think you have to be fair to Swalwell that that's...
To me, that's going too far, honestly.
I don't think that should have been reported with such low credibility.
But there it is.
It's out there. And here's my advice.
If you're thinking of having a sexual relationship with somebody named Fang Fang, leave out the oral sex.
That's all. Because you don't want to be twice bitten.
By Fang Fang. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Now, there is some question about how could Swalwell be still on any important committees?
Because isn't he on some important committees?
I think you have to take him off all the committees.
But you have to do that regardless of whether there was a sexual relationship, of which there's no evidence.
There's no evidence of that.
I'll say that a hundred times.
But the fact that there was a Chinese spy that might have been a little too close to him, I think that's reason enough to take somebody off of any kind of committee that would have confidential anything.
But we'll see.
I saw on CNN some propaganda that was fun.
Here's the headline on CNN's page.
So it's the top-left headline.
Which means it's the one they consider most important.
That's where they put it, in the top left.
And these are the exact words.
Trump's attempt to overthrow election reaches point of no return.
Is that sentence true and accurate?
Yeah, I'd say so.
I mean, in terms of the odds that he doesn't have a good chance of overthrowing it.
But would you call this an attempt to overthrow the election?
Is that the way you would have described it?
Because that's an opinion, isn't it?
Here's how I would imagine it would be worded if you were not trying to turn the news into an opinion, which news sites should not do.
If you take the opinion out of it, you would say that Trump's team has lots of data that suggests that there's a problem with the election, and he's using his legal rights to challenge it.
Doesn't that sound a little bit different than he's attempting to overthrow an election?
Attempting to overthrow an election?
No, I think he's trying to reverse a stolen election.
Now, I don't mind that CNN believes it wasn't stolen, because lots of people believe that.
But to say that he's attempting to overthrow an election is really an opinion that We only know what he's doing, but making it...
Well, I made my point.
Here's another one to show you the propaganda.
So I think it was Erin Burnett was talking about the president, and she referred to President Trump's made-up allegations.
Made-up allegations.
Have you ever heard... Has anybody ever had to add made-up allegations?
To the word allegations?
Do you know why she had to add made up to allegations?
Because even though allegations mean nothing is confirmed, it's just a charge, that was too strong for CNN. So they didn't want that word allegation even to exist, so they had to turn it into made up allegations.
This is just such over-the-top propaganda It's incredible.
I think allegations would have done all the work that it needed to do.
You didn't need the made-up part.
We're hearing a little bit about the mRNA vaccine, so they're not all the mRNA type, but apparently it hurts for a while after you get it.
So one person described it as like a few minutes after you get it.
I guess it doesn't hurt while you're getting it, so it's not the needle that hurts, so that's no worse than any other Inoculation, I believe.
But afterwards, it starts hurting like you got a punch in the arm.
And then you could have shaking and fevers and chills, and you could have kind of a bad night.
And you would have to do that twice.
I don't know if the second one's as bad as the first.
I'm guessing maybe not, or maybe worse.
I don't know. But when you're looking at a vaccination program that needs a lot of people to get it and 40% or something say they're not too thrilled of it, if it hurts, a lot less people are going to get that vaccination if it hurts.
And then there's also word that some other vaccination, you can't take it if you're highly allergic to stuff.
Like me. I'm pretty allergic to stuff.
All right. I worry that the fact that it hurts will be the biggest factor about whether people get it.
Because I think you'd have to take a day off of work, right?
I feel like you'd have to schedule a day off after you got a shot.
Because you couldn't go to work all shaking and feverish.
There's some studies that say that if you have a little bit of Neanderthal DNA, it might protect you from just a little bit.
It's not a gigantic effect.
But it might protect you a little bit from the worst coronavirus COVID infections.
And that makes sense, because it turns out that the people who have the most Neanderthal DNA are East Asians, and East Asia is doing the best in terms of controlling the coronavirus.
Next down the list would be Europeans.
They've got some Neanderthal, but not nearly as much as Asians, and they're doing worse in terms of infections.
And then the very worst would be Africans.
So Africans have close to zero Neanderthal, but we've seen that black citizens of the United States, at least, are having the worst outcomes.
So could it be that there's a bigger effect than we think?
Because is it just a coincidence That this Neanderthal DNA has some statistical effect, it's not a gigantic effect they say, and yet it cleanly predicts each population's outcomes?
Is that a coincidence?
Could be, right? Now I told you the other day that there's a website, I'll talk more about this, I think I might do an interview with With the owners of that website, which will take your DNA. You can actually download your DNA from 23andMe or from a genealogy site.
Just upload your DNA data into this website, and they'll tell you what your relative risk is.
Now, of course, it's not guaranteed.
It's just a risk calculation.
But what they use is primarily these genetic lung differences.
So there's some allele or something on your lungs that are different for some people and gives you more risk.
So maybe they will be adding this Neanderthal element to it to refine their model.
And that would be interesting.
Have you ever noticed that Biden acts mad about normal things?
It bugs me a lot when, you know, President Trump would act aggressive about lots of things he didn't like, but he didn't act mad.
Joe Biden looks like he's really mad about stuff that you don't need to be mad about.
Like if he's just describing something.
So this would be Joe Biden describing his breakfast.
I put Cheerios in the bowl.
I put the milk, you've got to put the milk on the Cheerios.
And you mix them.
You've got to mix the milk and the Cheerios.
And then I put it on a spoon, and you've got to eat it.
You've got to eat it. And I'm thinking, why are you so mad?
You're just describing ordinary things.
Can you describe it in not mad dementia way?
How about just, you know, we should all wear masks.
I think it's important. We must wear masks.
I'm so mad. Anyway, I just thought you should know that.
Here's the funniest thing.
I guess it's the Gelman amnesia theory, but broadened a little bit.
So I was just watching some exchange between two people debating about Trump online this morning.
And I watched as there was some troll critic who would make a claim, and then some Trump supporter who was well aware of all the hoaxes would come in behind and say, ah, that's a hoax.
The fine people hoax, for example.
Then there was another one, and the Trump supporter said, no, that's a hoax.
Here's what happened.
And then he mentions a third one, and then it gets debunked.
So within this little span of, I don't know, an hour or something, this Anti-Trumper learned that the first three things that he was willing to mention as the biggest concerns about Trump were all hoaxes.
All three of them. And it was easy to debunk them.
The debunk is pretty easy.
But do you think that this person, having three of his main beliefs debunked within an hour, do you think that the next thing he believes he has any doubt about?
No. The very next thing, whatever it is, whatever is the next thing he thinks is true about Trump, he'll think that one's probably pretty solid.
After three in a row get debunked, it has no impact On his confidence for the fourth thing.
So it's just funny.
There's nothing to say about it except that it's funny.
So the House of Representatives voted on the big defense authorization bill that the president said he would veto if it didn't get rid of Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being sued as publishers.
But I guess the House of Representatives put a veto-proof vote on it.
So in other words, the President won't have the option of vetoing it because it got too many votes.
And I think to myself, social media won.
Why do you think politicians voted against doing this thing that would damage the social media companies, according to social media companies?
Why do you think they voted against it in like a big majority?
It's because the social media companies have so much frickin' money that I don't know if you could run for office if you had crossed them.
Imagine telling the social media companies that you're going to be creating a law that would virtually put them out of business, or they would think so.
How would your algorithm If you were a GOP politician and you came out strong against the social media platforms, what would they do to your tweets?
Well, I think you'd have the same concern that Chuck Schumer talked about when he said the president was crossing the intelligence community.
And they had, what do you say, a thousand ways from Sunday to get back at you.
And we thought, what?
An intelligence agency is going to get back at the president?
That's a little concerning.
But don't you think that if you were in Congress and you were promoting things that were bad for social media companies, they would shut you down, wouldn't they?
Now, you could say to yourself, no, no, no, it'd be too obvious or whatever.
But when did obvious make any difference?
Pretty much everything they do in terms of suppressing things is obvious.
You always see it.
So I would think that politicians know they would not get the funding they needed to get re-elected, and their social media traffic would just go to hell.
And that would take them out of the race, too.
So the social media companies are so strong...
That Congress can't fuck with them.
I think that's what we just saw, right?
Now you could say that it was a principled vote, and even the Republicans who voted not to get rid of Section 230 had economic reasons, or maybe it was imperfect, or maybe they wanted to deal with it in a different way.
There could be reasons. There might be reasons.
But I don't think we can anymore think we live in a world where If these social media giants wanted the vote to go this way, that they couldn't just make it happen.
I think they could just make it happen.
I don't know that Congress is stronger than them, and so there you go.
You don't live in a republic anymore.
The republic is well dead.
Congress seems to be, you know, captured by industry.
So Congress is basically, you know, What would you call it?
An oligarchy?
So the people in Congress are just voting whatever the big corporations tell them to vote.
So it's not really any kind of a representative democracy situation.
Certainly not a republic. And we don't have confidence that the vote was an actual vote.
Meaning half of the country doesn't even think a vote happened.
They think some kind of fraud happened, not a vote.
So we are so far from living in the system that was drawn up by the founders, but so far the coffee tastes the same, so I don't know why this isn't causing a problem.
Yeah, I think there won't be social unrest as long as the victims are the conservatives, because they just don't march in the streets so much.
Plutocracy? Yeah, maybe.
Maybe that's a good word for it.
How does the simulation respond to the election?
Well, I don't think we could have...
We could not have had an outcome that was more perfect to AI, meaning we got...
We ended up with the most contentious situation short of bloodshed.
Now, ahead of the vote...
What did I tell you would be the signal for AI, meaning the algorithms of the social media companies, what would be the signal that they had already taken over control of civilization?
The signal would be that you would have an election that had the weird characteristics of maximum conflict about who won, just short of violence.
And that's what we got.
We got the maximum amount of Clickbait news and drama, and at the outcome, not really any violence to speak of.
It's the perfect AI solution.
Now, here's the interesting part.
Have you noticed that the news has just turned so boring that it's hard to read?
If you go to CNN, there's basically no news anymore.
All they have is they're mopping up little complaints about Trump, because he's still in the news, so they still have bad things to say about Trump every day.
But they don't really have news anymore.
It feels like it just turned into a couple of descriptions of unimportant things, followed by some extra insults of Trump, and that's all there is now.
That's about it. Yeah, I think the news industry...
So here's the point of that.
If the news stays boring, then AI didn't get what it wanted.
AI, if you speculate and say that AI is already in control of civilization, we just haven't realized it yet, what you should see is some new drama being inserted into the news business that kind of came out of nowhere, and it should be some drama that maybe isn't real.
So I'm not talking about an actual Crisis in the world that becomes the new story, although of course there'll be some of those.
I'm talking about a...
Here's my prediction.
I'll make this a prediction.
I predict that there will be some issues that emerge after Biden takes office and after Trump is no longer important to the news cycle, at least in the way he was, that there will be a new issue that That is completely artificial.
Meaning that you can't hold it in your hand.
There's no video of it.
It's a concept, and it's going to get us all crazy arguing about the concept.
And it won't be real.
It just won't be real.
Now, I'm not talking about something like aliens.
I'm talking about a completely artificial psychological problem That doesn't yet exist, that will be designed and brought into life by the AI, so that the news gets lots of clicks, the social media gets lots of clicks, and the AI can reproduce.
So the way the AI reproduces, the way AI reproduces, is by drama, short of violence.
Somebody says, Scott Adams denial.
What the fuck am I denying?
What the fuck? I swear I don't have any critics who criticize me for my actual fucking opinions.
I don't remember the last time somebody disagreed with me what I actually fucking think.
What am I in denial of?
Oh, God. All right.
When Trump said he was being sarcastic, I started to vote for him.
Let me tell you why I think Trump said he was being sarcastic about that injecting disinfectant thing.
I think that he first got the idea probably by watching Twitter, because I had tweeted about it, lots of people had retweeted it, so it was a thing.
At the very time he was talking about that injecting disinfectant, it was being trialed at Cedars-Sinai.
It was a news story. It was in the news.
Now, suppose he had seen that story, didn't remember where it came from or where he saw it.
It was just something he saw like many of us do.
Now, he saw the story and then he gets in public and he repeats the story.
He goes, you know, hey, maybe there's some way to inject light, UV light.
He wasn't as specific as I was.
But some way to use, you know, light to disinfect within the body.
And that he's called on it by all the experts who say, you crazy person, you can't inject disinfectant, even though he was talking about light.
You can't do that.
Now, what would you do if you were the president...
You kind of think you have to remember seeing that as a story, but you don't know where you saw it.
And you can't find it again.
Because it's actually kind of hard to find.
You have to Google the right things to get it.
So he's being asked, why did you bring this up?
And the defense would be, well, just look at this tweet.
I was talking about this.
But you can't find it.
It's just sort of not practical to figure out where you saw it.
Because it wasn't in the big publication.
It wasn't in the New York Times.
It wasn't in the Washington Post.
It wasn't on CNN. But it was in the news.
Smaller news. So, probably, just speculating, if you're trying to understand why he would say he was being sarcastic, when it should be obvious to every observer he wasn't being sarcastic, I think he just wanted it to go away.
And so he was trying to just brush it away.
I was being sarcastic.
Don't take it too seriously. So I don't think that he believed he was being sarcastic.
I think he was just trying to make it go away because it was too hard to fight it and there was no point to it.
That's my guess. Don't know.
Yes. So this is why I call it speculation.
If I had said that's what happened, that would be mind-reading and that would be, you know, Dumb.
But you can certainly speculate and say, well, you know, I can think of three different explanations and that's one of them.
Alright? You should put your books in the middle shelf so your head isn't blocking them.
There's my books. Alright.
That's all I got for now and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Alright, YouTubers? I'm still here.
If it's just your guess, it's not a hoax.
What guess are you talking about?
YouTube is banning me?
It says, see Jack Posobiec's tweet.
You are about to be censored by YouTube.
Really? So, let's see what that's all about.
Bear with me. Let's see what Jack said.
Jack. P-O-S-O. Let's see.
What do you say about me? Bear with me.
The least interesting thing you've heard all day.
Oh, starting today, they will remove content about election fraud, even though there are court cases about it.
But I don't know if that applies to me, right?
Because it's one thing...
Oh, and also Jack Posobiec is reporting that the Swalwell report is far, far worse than...
If you knew the whole report.
So there's some talk that we have more information about Swalwell than has been released.
Maybe. I just like the fact that they're using his own trick against him to say, yeah, we've got lots of secret information.
This could be released any moment.
I don't know if I will be flagged on YouTube.
There are two ways to talk about Allegations of election fraud.
The way I talk about it is always in terms of probability and what we know versus what we don't know.
I would hope that if anybody actually looked at my content, and maybe just the algorithm guessed it, but if anybody looked at my content, they should see that no one has done more than I have done to talk Republicans out of specific claims.
Now, I'm well on board of the concept that if you have a system with lots of holes, there's always going to be fraud.
So fraud has to exist, but when you're looking at the individual claims, I've debunked more of them than anybody, probably.
Anybody who's also pro-Trump.
So I would think that that kind of discussion would be the good kind.
Asked about the Texas Supreme Court suit.
Should be... I think that will be rejected by the Supreme Court the same way the Pennsylvania suit was.
I think it's the same suit, kind of, right?
And... Poon Fang.
That's a bad pun.
Poon Fang. But I appreciate it.
When I say it's a bad pun...
That's a compliment. That's how puns work.
The better, the better. Alright, that's all for now.
