Episode 1215 Scott Adams: I Reprise My Angry Joe Biden Impersonation and Tell You Why Citizens Should Surround the Capitol
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The Kraken Texas lawsuit
Will SCOTUS guarantee future election fraud?
50 intel people were wrong about Hunter?
COVID lawsuit protection for small businesses
My apology to Joe Biden
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day.
How many times have I told you that and been right?
Every time. Every single time.
This will be no exception.
There might be a little extra cursing, because later I'll be talking about Congress.
And if you can talk about Congress without cursing, well, you're a better person than I am, let me tell you.
But if you'd like to enjoy the simultaneous cursing today, after the sip, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee! And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that's already making you feel better.
Can you feel it? You can, right?
It's building, starting to build up.
You started out feeling pretty good, but already it's a little bit better, isn't it?
Isn't it? Isn't it?
Savor it. When I'm right, I'm right.
Number one. I am giving you an assignment.
I don't always give homework, but today it's a special occasion.
You all have to watch the humorous video by Ryan Long that I have pinned to my Twitter feed.
So I pinned it at the top so you have no excuse.
You can't say the dog lost your homework.
You have to watch this video.
And the only reason you have to watch it is, cursing alert, Everybody, send the children back to bed.
Cursing alert is on.
The reason you have to watch this video, it's the funniest fucking thing you've seen in 2020, and maybe longer.
You know, I thought humor was dead.
I've been saying that for a while in terms of, you know, sort of scripted, intentional humor as opposed to the news.
Well, this is scripted and intentional, and it's frickin' brilliant.
And you have to watch it.
That's your homework. Don't go to the end of the day until you've watched that video, and then you can thank me later because you're going to enjoy it.
Alright. The simulation continues to wink at us.
Would you like another example of the simulation?
Once you start seeing it, you're going to see it everywhere, which either means we do live in the simulation or confirmation bias exists.
It's one of those two things.
But let me give you another example in case you hadn't thought of it.
And this comes from Twitter user Dia.
And she notes that Joe Biden has an interesting name for our time.
What is the thing people say about Joe Biden the most?
Probably if you were going to pick one thing that people talk about Joe Biden the most, it would be that they think he's a short-timer.
The number one thing you think about Biden is he's not going to be in the job long.
Would you agree? Now, some people might say it's one term, Democrats.
And Republicans might say, well, you know, it might be shorter than one term, if you know what I mean.
But what are the odds that a person who you think is going to be here briefly, that's his main characteristic, is that he would be here briefly, and his actual real name is Joe Biden.
What are the odds, really?
Joe? Bye!
Done! If that's not the simulation winking at you, I don't know what it is.
Confirmation bias, maybe.
That's the other possibility.
Let me give you another clue for living in a simulation.
If we live in a simulation, you would have to ask yourself, why?
Why? Who built the simulation?
What would be the point of the simulation?
And I don't know the answer to that, but let's reason through it for a moment.
If we were a simulation, I would speculate that one of the most logical reasons you would do it, there could be a variety of reasons you would do it, but the most common and logical reason to do it would be to place yourself into the game And play it like a video game in which you're trying to achieve goals and go to higher levels.
Now, this is going to freak you out a little bit.
Some of you, anyway. Some of you will get freaked out a little bit when I say this.
Because you're going to start to see it in your environment.
It'll be like I opened a little window.
And it could be confirmation bias.
But when you start seeing it, it's going to be a fun, freaky feeling.
So that's the reason I'm doing it.
And it goes like this.
Have you noticed... That the people who are real people, as opposed to the NPCs, you know there must be some NPCs out there, people who are not real people, they're just programmed.
The real people seem to have problems that fit consistent themes.
Here's what I mean. I can't give you too much detail about my personal life.
You wouldn't want to know anyway. But suffice to say that I find that all of my problems in life Fit these few themes.
In other words, I might have a problem that you've never had in your entire life.
It'll be a very unique kind of a problem that if I told you about it, you'd say, geez, I've never even heard of that.
That's like a problem that literally I don't know one person in the world who has a problem, even in that sort of general category.
But I will have a problem like that one after another, after another, after another.
And each of the cases will be different, but they're the same theme.
Watch when you see that in your own life, that your problems follow a theme.
They're different, but one follows another just like a game, like you're done with this one, the next one pops up right on time.
And it's that same theme.
Watch how often that happens in your life.
Alright, let's talk about the news.
There's a big Texas lawsuit.
Will it be the Kraken?
Well, it is the Kraken in one sense.
It does seem to have a lot of, you know, allegations in it, has lots of evidence, and I believe that's the case in which they have a statistician who calculated the odds of it being a free and fair election in terms of no fraud at one in a quadrillion.
So, It's a very large document, the Texas lawsuit.
Very large. And it has tons and tons of specific allegations that this many dead people voted.
I think this is one, right?
That has lots of detail of what the claims are.
Lots of different claims.
Now, how does CNN describe a lawsuit that's just brimming with With claims and evidence.
Now remember, evidence is not proof, because evidence could turn out not to be good evidence.
But it's still evidence, even if it turns out later to be debunked.
So how does CNN describe a gigantic trove of evidence?
They said it this way.
They said, quote, It's a brief without evidence.
CNN referred to it as a brief that is without evidence.
Now, are they using evidence in a different way than you and I use it?
Because I would think that if a statistician looked at the actual data and concluded there was a 1 in 1 quadrillion chance that it was a good election, I would feel that that's evidence.
Right? Do we not have court cases in which experts testify on the statistical likelihood of a thing happening?
That's evidence, right?
I would think that would be strong evidence.
You know what would be weak evidence?
There's a 1 in 3 chance that there was a crime.
That would be weak evidence.
1 in 10 chance there was a crime?
Or a 1 in 10 chance there wasn't a crime.
I guess you should be saying it that way.
But it's 1 in a quadrillion.
I would say that a 1 in 1 quadrillion chance that something wasn't a crime would be, you know, certainly accompanied with the trove of allegations.
That would be the opposite of no evidence.
But that's CNN for you.
There you go. So, all the smart people say the Texas lawsuit will fail.
And I agree with that.
Do you know why the Texas lawsuit is likely to fail?
It's the doctrine of latches.
Let me explain to you the doctrine of latches.
Now, that's just one of the reasons.
The other reason is that the Supreme Court...
Doesn't like to mess with the state's business.
That's me as a non-lawyer explaining lawyerly things.
So we're a system in which the federal part of the government doesn't like to interfere with the states unless it's some absolute requirement.
So that's probably the biggest reason that it'll get thrown out is just that the system doesn't want that to happen.
Meaning the Supreme Court will say, yeah, I see your point.
I see that you've got this case, but it doesn't matter.
And it doesn't matter for two reasons.
One is that we don't want to get into the state's business.
There are lots of details of what that means, different ways you can say that, but it all means the same thing.
Don't want to get into the state's business.
And then the second thing is that the doctrine of latches, a legal standard, says that what are you going to do?
Because you're asking for too much to reverse it.
Because what they're saying is, well, you waited so long to make this case, and by the way, we don't want to reverse something that's like such a gigantic thing for what might be lesser crimes.
So you don't want to make the fix worse than the crime.
And the Supreme Court might say...
And likely will say, whether they say it out loud, they're going to likely say that changing this result, even if it was completely justified, it would be worse than not changing it.
Now, I didn't know about this legal standard, by which you would say, you know, it's sort of too late, and it's too late to fix it, so we're going to let it go.
And if I'm ever accused of murdering somebody, and let's say I've actually done it, The defense I'm going to use will be something like this.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you kill me and execute me for murdering that person, that person isn't going to come back to life, but the result will be two people dead instead of one because you'll execute me for being a murderer.
I'm going to argue doctrine of latches, and I'm going to say it's a little too late now because if you haven't noticed, My victim is already dead.
If you had tried to stop me prior to murdering, I could see why that would be maybe a productive thing to do.
But he's already dead.
How the hell are you going to fix that?
So I think you should just say it's kind of too late.
Doctrine of latches, bitch.
Too late. Can't come back to life.
And if you kill me, you're just going to make one extra person unhappy.
And then the state is going to have to pay for me And there's going to be appeals.
It gets expensive.
How in the world doesn't that make the world a worse place?
Now, you might argue that you have to have some kind of penalty for crimes, because if you don't have penalty for crimes, doesn't that seem like it would encourage those crimes to happen again?
But no. The Supreme Court, I believe, will rule...
Or believe, at least some part of its decision, is going to rule that, yeah, if you did reverse the election, that would go a long way toward maybe limiting this kind of crime or alleged crime in the future.
But they may decide that it's just not worth it because it would make things worse.
So, there you go.
But I ask you this.
Let's compare the murder example, in which you literally can't bring a person back to life, to the election example, in which reversing the election would be trivial.
Trivial. Reversing the whole election would be absolutely trivial.
It would be one document that says, yeah, we agree, we'll throw out the results in those states, and then the inauguration would be Trump instead of Biden.
It's actually kind of easy.
Nobody's dead. There's actually nothing that can't be reversed somewhat easily.
One piece of paper, justices sign it and say, yeah, those state results don't count.
We're throwing them out. That's it.
And then the government actually doesn't even change.
I would say the most disruptive change would be a new government.
And I would say that if the Supreme Court decides that this is an unpunishable problem because it's too late, they're guaranteeing it happens again.
So, I think we're gearing up for a gigantic mistake by the Supreme Court, which they would make probably in the interest of keeping things stable, is my guess.
I think that's where it's going to go.
I've told you about the Gelman amnesia idea.
It's the idea this physicist named Gelman or something...
He noted that when he was looking at something in the news on his expertise, physics, he could tell that the story was pretty much always wrong, because it was his expertise, and he could say, ah, that's wrong.
But when he read stories which were not in his expertise, he would read them uncritically, like, ah, that's probably right.
But what are the odds that the only news that's wrong happens to be in your expertise?
So we're seeing another example of this in the news today, and it's a funny one.
So Mike Schellenberger is calling out the New York Times for running apparently a front-page story claiming that the recent fires in California killed, quote, countless ancient redwoods.
So it's a New York Times is the paper of record.
In other words, the most credible news organization on their front page...
Is running this, you know, environmental kind of story about the redwoods being destroyed and the fires.
Except one little problem.
There's this guy named Mike Schellenberger who used to be An activist and knows a lot about redwood forests.
Turns out it was one of his areas of interest.
So he, like the physicist Gail Mann, reads this article in a different way than you and I do, because he reads it as someone who really knows his field.
And it turns out that instead of this being true, what the New York Times says, countless ancient redwoods being destroyed in fires, at the end of his tweet thread, Mike Schellenberger Drops this little microphone.
He says, But every schoolchild who has visited one of California's redwood parks knows from reading the signs at the visitor's center that in front of the trailheads that old-growth redwood forests need fire to survive and thrive.
In other words, the number of old redwoods that probably died in the fire is zero.
Probably zero.
Not only is it probable that zero redwoods died, just as zero redwoods have died in the past, because they're quite hardy against fires, but apparently it's necessary.
Because if you didn't clear out the lower brush, I don't know, maybe the redwoods don't have as much air or whatever they need or light.
So it turns out that redwoods like fires.
Now and then. It's actually good for them.
So if you didn't know, if you were not Mike Schellenberger and you were not personally an expert in this category, you would read this story on the front page of the New York Times and you'd say, ah, all the redwoods in California burned down.
And none of it's true. It's closer to zero.
Now, the lesson you should take from that has nothing to do with redwood trees.
The lesson you should take from that is that That's every story.
It's every story.
I'm not mentioning it because it's a rare standout situation.
I'm mentioning it because it's a clean example of how they all are.
That is the news.
You just saw the news.
That's how it works. It's just completely disconnected from reality and probably will stay that way.
All right. I'd like to congratulate Democrats for an election victory.
And when I say congratulations, I don't mean that they necessarily got more votes.
Maybe they did. Who knows?
But it looks like they pulled off an amazingly complicated and elaborate crime, and maybe one of the best ones I've ever seen.
Now let me give you the context in which I'm congratulating them.
I remember years ago seeing a story in the news about a serial killer.
And when they started explaining how the serial killer had gotten away with it for so long, and I guess he'd built an underground bunker on his property where he had like a, you know, some kind of a I don't know, torture, jail thing that he was keeping his victims.
And I think I was supposed to read this story and be horrified at the crime.
And indeed, it was quite horrible and horrifying.
But I found myself also admiring his work ethic.
And I'm not proud of that.
I mean, I'm not bragging.
I'm not saying, hey, look at me.
I'm admiring a serial killer's work ethic.
All I'm saying... All I'm saying is that he had a good work ethic.
And when I see the Democrats stealing...
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't want to get banned.
When I see the outcome of the election, I say to myself, there was a lot of good work there.
There was a lot of good work.
Think about what it took to keep the mainstream media completely corrupt.
And to have them just sell a propaganda story to the country, that's hard.
It took a lot of the right people pushing the right buttons for the mainstream media to do what it did for so long and to present hoaxes and fake news as real news for years.
That takes a lot of discipline, in a way.
Then look at, you know, Well, really, that's the main thing.
Then look at social media, what social media did to influence the elections.
Then look at the allegations of all the distributed smaller frauds, allegedly, allegedly, that were distributed in a way that even if you found a bunch of them, they wouldn't add up enough for the Supreme Court to overturn an election.
It's brilliant crime.
I call it packetized.
I'd like that to become a thing.
I believe we should create a new phrase, packetized crime.
Packetized meaning they take a big crime and they break it into little bunches and they say, okay, in this precinct, you'll vote with some dead people.
Over here, you'll have some people who weren't old enough to vote.
That's not how they did it, but that's an example of just packetizing it.
Then somebody gets caught...
And they take it to court and they go, yeah, you know, you proved that this is fraud, but it's not big enough.
It's not big enough to change the outcomes, so we don't want to get involved.
It's really, really impressive.
If you were to look at the whole body of work that created this gigantic ball of bullshit that the public is so far chewing on like it's breakfast, I'm actually literally impressed.
There's no, you know, I'm not, this isn't satire.
It's not parody. This is impressive criminal work, like really good stuff.
So there's that.
And I asked this provocative question, and I know that from a legal basis, obviously, I know that this is not a real thing, but I put it out there just to make people think a little bit, right?
Here was my tweet. I said, hypothetically, and hypothetical is important here, hypothetically, if the mainstream media and, here's the interesting part, the 50 past and present Intel professionals who defended Hunter Biden,
so the entire fake news media, plus 50 past and present Intel people, All supported Hunter Biden as completely innocent and that it's probably Russian disinformation.
What do we know now?
Now we know it wasn't Russian disinformation, or if it was, it was also true.
We know that Hunter Biden had a lot going on.
We know that the president, as he gleefully tweeted today, we know the president was right when he was trying to get the Ukrainians to look into things, because it looks like there were some things to look into.
So, at this point, Since we know the media colluded to get Biden elected, I mean, we know that.
And we know that all these intel people...
Are you telling me that there were 50 highly connected intel people who signed this letter?
Are you telling me that none of them and nobody in the mainstream news, nobody, all of these investigative reporters, and nobody in the intel community...
Where, you know, there are leaks everywhere in the world.
And none of these people were aware of all of the problems that Hunter Biden was already in with current investigations.
Now, if you're telling me that that's not organized, I don't know what organized is.
So I ask the question, if the mainstream media and these intel professionals, if they knowingly, and knowingly is the key word, if they knowingly Protected and ongoing criminal enterprise?
Isn't it a RICO case?
So a RICO case, roughly speaking, there's some technical details to it, but a RICO case is an organized, ongoing criminal enterprise.
The allegations against Hunter are not that he did one crime.
I don't know if any of it's true, right?
Allegations are allegations. But if it's true that Hunter Biden had some kind of an ongoing criminal activity, and it's true that the mainstream press and the intel professionals that signed were protecting him, now they may have been protecting him for their own reasons, They may have been protecting him not because they cared about Hunter, but because it would be bad for them if things got out.
But doesn't that still qualify?
Now, I know the answer is no.
It's not really a RICO case.
Scott, Scott, Scott, you're not a lawyer and you don't understand.
This isn't like those other situations.
It's not like the mafia.
But isn't it?
Isn't it? Now, there's nobody getting killed in these specific cases, but the mafia also does extortion and regular crimes, and they do white-collar crimes as well, right?
So, is there really a difference between the mafia?
Let me give you an example.
Does everybody who would be helping the mafia, allegedly, do you think that all of them are part of the mafia?
Or do you think that, for example, the mafia might have, let's say, some police officers who are on the take?
Maybe they own a few judges, right?
So you don't have to be in the mafia to be part of a large criminal enterprise, do you?
You know, can't you be a corrupted judge?
You're not the mafia, but you're part of helping, right?
So I don't see a lot of difference, conceptually.
Obviously, legally, it's not going to be a Rico case, and I know that.
But conceptually, this is organized crime.
Is it not? Looks like it.
All right, looks like the Nobel Peace Prize went to the World Food Program.
The World Food Program.
I'm sure that the World Food Program did a good job.
Because, and you know, they deserve the Peace Prize because when you think of feeding people, you think of peace.
Do you? Or do you think that feeding people is just good by itself?
Maybe feeding people should just stand alone.
Maybe the Nobel Peace Prize should have something to do with peace.
I get it that feeding people helps keep the peace.
I get it that they're connected.
But in that way, isn't everything connected?
Electricity probably helps the peace too.
Do you give the Nobel Peace Prize to electricity?
So, well, I think the World Food Program probably did a great job, and I would like to congratulate them, because I'm sure people looked into it and said, this is terrific.
So, no slight to them.
Great work, people.
I'm glad we have something called a World Food Program.
That sounds like a really, really, really good thing.
But... They gave that prize to them just to fuck Trump, didn't they?
The Nobel Peace Prize just became a...
Well, I guess it's always been political.
But it's so nakedly political when you've got Trump...
I mean, Trump so won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I don't think even his critics would disagree that if you're narrowly looking at, you know, peace...
It was Trump. Alright, I've never seen a cleaner example of somebody who won the prize and didn't win the prize.
I mean, Trump won this times ten.
There's nobody who, I don't think, name, seriously, in all seriousness, with no hyperbole, name one fucking person in the whole fucking world who deserved it more than Trump did this year.
If you look at the Middle East, you look at, you know, if you look at North Korea, you look at, what, Serbia?
I mean, it's not even close.
He drew down the military and, you know, it's not even close.
There is nobody who's ever deserved a Nobel Peace Prize more than Trump.
Nobody. It's not even close.
Yeah, maybe Jared.
You know, you could make an argument for Jared.
So, here's another way that the simulation is winking at you, in a fun way.
Here's the best thing about 2020.
2020 has been, can we all agree it's been just the worst year?
2020 is a pretty bad year, right?
Pretty bad year.
But there's one thing about 2020 that I'm going to appreciate, and I'd like to call it out.
Because I like to say the glass is half full.
And it's this. You're never going to, in the rest of your life, you will never hear Representative Swalwell say that the allegations against him for the Chinese spy is gaslighting.
That's it. That's a word that Representative Eric Swalwell cannot use in public.
He can never use the phrase gaslighting.
Because you know he wants to.
He wants to say that these allegations against him are gaslighting, but he can't.
He can't, because he's famous for farting.
Now, I don't think he actually farted on camera, but he's famous for the allegation that he farted on camera.
So he can't use the word gaslighting, because if he ever says that word in public again, Social media will go crazy.
He said gaslighting.
He said gaslighting.
You better not light your gas, if you know what I mean.
You're going to blow the back of your pants out.
So there is nothing funnier in terms of the simulation than the fact that Eric Swalwell, specifically him, can never again use the word gaslighting.
It's just perfect.
If Biden gets inaugurated, as I think most people are expecting, no matter what they thought of the actual election, I think people at this point do expect Biden to be inaugurated.
If he does, can we say, will we be able to say, if Biden was inaugurated, that the swamp drained Trump?
Because that's what it looks like, doesn't it?
It looks like Trump tried to drain the swamp, but the swamp drained Trump?
And low-information voters are going to think that that was the will of the people.
If you're a low-information voter, the news, which is part of this criminal enterprise, RICO situation, the news is going to tell you that there was a vote, and that the will of the people was displayed, and that the will of the people picked Big Biden.
But we know that nothing like that happened.
And I'm not even talking about election fraud.
We talked about Joel Pollack's book, which I'll now forget the name of, Neither Fair Nor Free.
It's a tough title to remember.
Joel, you have to work on a title that is easier to remember.
But He makes the case in his new book, which I think is number one in its category, and you should buy.
So just look for Joel Pollack on Amazon.
P-O-L-L-A-K. And he talks about everything from the social media manipulation of search results, to the fake news, just making up news, to that structure.
And once you see the whole structure, if you're a high information voter, you realize that the only thing that didn't matter in this election was the will of the people.
Because the will of the people was simply assigned to them.
The social media and the fake news assign opinions.
If you believe that people just come up with their own opinions, you're stuck in 2015 thinking.
Most of us have learned, at least since 2016, most people now understand that people don't come to their own conclusions, make their own opinions.
That's not a thing. Scientifically, it's not a thing.
So these are assigned opinions by the people in this RICO criminal organization.
All right. You're all waiting for my Joe Biden, angry Joe Biden impersonation?
I think you should be. But before that, let's talk about Congress.
So Congress continues to be worthless, and they continue to not put together the kind of bill that we need.
Let me give Congress some advice.
Congress, here's some advice.
If somebody is offering a larger bill, or somebody has a smaller bill, and maybe they have different things in them, if you can't agree, just pick the larger one.
Pick the larger one.
That will never be the wrong answer.
Just pick the big one. Now, there is this question about the protection for lawsuits, that I guess the Republicans want to have protection against Coronavirus lawsuits.
In other words, protection against somebody saying, I got coronavirus in your company, so I'm going to sue you because you didn't do enough controls to keep me from getting coronavirus.
Now, the Democrats say we can't do that because the people have to have the right to sue, otherwise companies won't do the right thing.
They need that pressure on them.
But here's what people who think that's a good idea don't know.
You don't know what it's like to own a small business.
Let me explain to you what it's fucking like to own a small business.
Now, if I may, I generally don't like to talk on behalf of other people.
But I'm going to make an exception here.
I'm going to speak without being asked to.
I know it's inappropriate. But I'm going to speak on behalf of small business owners.
Now, I don't think you'll mind after you hear me say it, alright?
So this is for the benefit of small business owners, and I speak as one because I've owned a couple of small restaurants.
And let me tell you what you learn if you're a small business owner.
And I say this for all you small business owners.
You will get sued, if you're a small business owner, you will get sued for fucking anything.
Do you know what I got sued for when I owned the business, got sued for when I was a restaurant owner?
Nothing. But we still got sued.
And by nothing, I mean there were no victims.
Nobody even claimed to be a victim.
Can you believe that?
No victims.
Nobody even claimed to be disadvantaged.
And I still fucking got sued because there was some technicality that allowed it to be possible.
More than once.
If you are a small business owner, you know what the fucking assholes in Congress don't know because they haven't had a fucking job where they had to meet a payroll.
If you're a small business owner, you're number one fucking risk.
Number one. It's getting sued illegitimately.
It's your number one fucking risk.
You should not even be in business if you can't have this kind of protection.
Democrats are not having some principle disagreement.
They're not trying to protect the system and protect the people so that the businesses will do the right thing.
Nothing like that is happening.
Democrats who are holding this up are fucking uninformed.
Every fucking small business owner will tell you what I'm telling you right now.
If you don't have that protection, the odds of you getting sued by somebody who can simply make a case.
They're going to say, the server came over and their mask fell down while they were talking to me.
And I got COVID. I walked in and there should have been more barriers.
I didn't see anybody disinfecting things between customers.
You see where I'm going? Do you know which businesses are going to get sued?
Every fucking business.
Every one of them. They're all going to get sued.
This is just a payday for fucking lawyers.
And do you know why the lawyers get a fucking payday?
Because they're part of this criminal fucking organization that made this result.
This, what you're watching, is a fucking crime happening right in front of you.
The trial lawyers, I guess, that would be my best guess, are trying to do this for whatever their own reason is.
They obviously have enough control over Congress to stop the whole fucking country from eating.
There are people suffering in unbelievable fucking ways right now.
And it's because there's some number of Democrats who are fucking stupid.
They don't know that the biggest risk is this.
These illegitimate lawsuits for a small business.
If you've never been in a small business, don't fucking vote!
Right? If you haven't actually run a small business and you're in Congress, Don't fucking vote on this.
You haven't earned it.
You haven't earned it.
You don't know what you're doing.
You're not capable. You're not competent.
You're fucking uninformed.
Let somebody who's owned a small fucking business set you straight.
It's a big deal.
And if you want to give a bonus to your fucking lawyer friends who helped you steal the goddamn...
Sorry, you don't like it when I use that word.
To steal the fucking election...
This is what you do. So here's my solution for it.
The problem with Congress, the way it's organized, is that they don't have any incentive to do a good job, do they?
Congress as a whole has no incentive to do a good job because every one of those fucking assholes is going to get re-elected, something like 99%, right?
If you were not going to lose your job, no matter whether you did your job or not, would you do your job?
No! That's socialism.
Congress is teaching you how socialism works.
Socialism has a problem.
It disincentivizes people.
Your motivation to work is less because you don't get to keep much of what you work for, right?
Congress is modeling that behavior.
They have no motivation to do the fucking job of the people.
None. They can just go to their fucking happy Christmas and leave you to fucking starve.
And it doesn't matter to them.
They'll still get re-elected.
So here's my suggestion.
If this sounds like a humorous suggestion, it's not.
You might laugh at it, but what follows is a serious suggestion.
We should stop paying them, but not legislatively.
This is the key part of the system.
Somebody has the job of processing the payroll, right?
There's somebody's job it is to push the buttons and do whatever needs to be done, That a payroll check or a payroll deposit, probably, direct deposit, is produced, and it goes into the bank accounts of people in Congress.
It's just a job, right?
The people doing those jobs should do them poorly.
In other words, they should not decide anything.
They should not decide whether Congress gets a check, because it's not their decision, right?
The people who process the payroll are not in charge of whether there should be a payroll.
They simply are the ones who make it happen.
And what I'm suggesting is they should work slower.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe they should accidentally push a button that stops payroll going just to Congress, not to anybody else, just to Congress.
And when somebody asks them to fix it, They should say yes.
They should say yes.
Then take their time.
Just take their time. And if somebody says, hey, why haven't you fixed this yet?
We're not getting our paychecks.
Then the people in the payroll, and I'm not talking about anybody in charge, I'm talking about the employees, individual employees.
Now, of course, you need your boss to be on board, right?
Because you don't want to get fired.
But the individual employees should say, yes, yes, we'll go fix that.
We're on it.
We're all over that.
We're going to go fix that.
I got busy. Well, it wasn't my fault.
I had a sick day. I was going to fix that in one minute.
But I might have a little coronavirus.
I had to stay home.
Couldn't fix it. So, in all seriousness, since I know the small business owners have too much to do, and they don't have the funds to do this, frankly, what we should do is If we were a functioning society, we should surround the Capitol, physically surround it, and not let anybody out until they pass the bill.
I don't think Congress should get to go home.
I don't think they should get to go home.
My first choice, but it's less practical, it's hard to do, would be to physically blockade the Capitol, And just say, here's the deal.
You're not going home until you do something that's the work of the people, because you don't have any motivation right now to do your fucking job.
So let's surround the Capitol and give them some motivation to do their fucking job.
That's all. Now, I don't think that's going to happen, right?
Because you need a certain kind of organization to make that happen.
If Soros isn't funding it or the Chinese, it probably doesn't happen, right?
So I don't think that's going to happen.
So I'm calling upon the people who are in charge of payroll.
And I don't know if the Trump administration could whisper in their ear and just say, we'd like everyone else to get a paycheck, just not Congress.
And it's not going to be a decision, right?
That's the important part. It's not a decision to withhold their pay.
We're just a little bit inefficient.
And by the way, there's some precedent for this.
I got this idea when I worked at a bank.
My first job at a college was a bank teller.
And as a bank teller, you're given a bunch of rules.
And they say, if you don't follow all of these rules, you will be fired.
Now, the problem was that if you followed all the rules, you literally couldn't do your job.
I don't mean it would be hard to do your job.
You actually couldn't. You wouldn't be able to handle enough customers in the whole day because you would be obsessed with meeting the requirements and it would be like, okay, you can't do this transaction.
You have to get two signatures from a supervisor or whatever.
So we would occasionally, as tellers, we would get reprimanded for doing something that was not specifically right.
Now, it didn't cost any money.
Nobody got in trouble. But it wasn't technically what you should have been doing.
You just cut some corners to do the job of, you know, serving the customer.
What did the employees do when the supervisor would come down on them for skipping some not-too-important step?
I'll tell you what we did.
We started following their fucking rules.
And do you know what happened?
The line snaked all the way out the door and around halfway around the block.
Because when we started following the rules and doing the job as it was described, you couldn't do the job.
And so as tellers, we'd say, got it.
We got it. We don't want to be yelled at.
We don't want to be fired. We're going to follow every one of your rules.
And then the management would just fucking panic.
And we would watch them running around.
They'd all be like talking to each other like, what the fuck's happening?
Why is not even a single customer getting waited on?
And why did the line go all the way out the door and around the block?
Why are all the customers complaining?
Because nobody can get any service.
Do you know why? Because we followed your fucking rules.
That's why. We went on strike by doing our job.
So, there is precedent for employees being, let's say, less efficient than they possibly could be for a greater purpose.
So I call on the payroll organizers, but only if your bosses are willing to not fire you for it, to be way less efficient, way less efficient, just for those congressional checks.
Completely serious. In case anybody thinks this is a joke, there's no joke here.
They should not be getting a paycheck.
I apologize to Joe Biden, and I don't often do this, but I've said some things about Joe Biden, and I would like to apologize.
And again, I'm not joking.
It's going to sound like I'm joking, but I'm not.
I called him an asshole for using the fine people hoax to get elected.
And the reason I called him an asshole is that it paints the president as a racist, which paints his supporters as Racist supporters at the very least.
And I thought that was a really, really asshole thing to do.
But we have some...
There was an interview that he just did that was fascinating.
Because now that he believes he's been elected, he doesn't need to lie anymore, right?
Or at least he doesn't need to tell the same kind of lies.
And in his interview, he described why he ran for office.
And remember, he's already won, according to him.
And he said that he had three reasons.
And his number one reason was the fine people thing that he doesn't know is a hoax.
And here's why I'm apologizing.
I thought he knew.
So I'm guilty of the thing that I talk the most about.
Which is mind reading.
So mind reading is you think you know what somebody's thinking or their motivation for why they're doing something.
I actually gave him the benefit of a doubt.
I thought he knew he was lying, so therefore I thought that was the most asshole-ish thing I've seen in a long time.
But when you hear him talking about it with such sincerity, after getting elected, It would be one thing before election, because then it's transactional, right?
He's just doing it for effect.
He knows he's lying.
It's typical for politicians to lie intentionally.
I thought it was just that.
He actually doesn't know it's a hoax.
It's actually a brain problem.
This is pretty pathetic.
But I apologize.
Because I called him an asshole, and that very clearly now, at least in my opinion, that wasn't what was going on.
He actually thought it was real.
Now, I tweeted about this, of course, and one of the things that's sort of a regular habit that I like doing is when I tweet that the fine people thing is a hoax, At this point, most Republicans are trained to know it's a hoax because they've seen the full transcript.
But most Democrats still think it's real.
And so the Democrats will sort of trickle into the Twitter feed and say, what do you mean it's a hoax?
What do you mean it's a hoax?
And then what happens is people have been following me for a while and they even have copies of the transcript at this point.
So my followers, you know, filter in and just, they work on the Democrat like a speed bag.
It's like, here's the transcript.
Well, that's not what I heard.
Here's the video. Well, and they just sort of pummel.
The person who still believes in the hoax.
And I feel as if it's like one person at a time is being converted, you know, and red-pilled about how badly they've been lied to.
So I do that for fun.
It's fun to watch.
All right, I would like to give you my impersonation of Joe Biden at holiday dinner.
Let's say Christmas dinner.
My impression of Joe Biden.
And it's based on the fact that I saw a tweet this morning from...
Quark Toro, who tweeted at me and said, ever since you said, why does Joe Biden always sound angry, that's all I hear.
How many of you only hear Joe Biden sounding angry now after I pointed out that he always sounds angry?
Well, I give you now my impression of Joe Biden at holiday dinner.
And it looks like this. Look!
Here's the deal.
Pass the salt. That is good gravy.
Come on, folks! Three things.
Turkey. Stuffing.
Yams! People forget the yams!
That's malarkey.
Don't forget the yams! Don't forget the yams!
In a Biden-Harris administration, no one will forget the yams!
Unless I die before Christmas, in which case it'll be Harris administration.
I don't even know why I brought that up.
Just forget I brought that up.
Nothing about me dying.
Pass the salt. Because science.
Real science. Yams.
Real science. This is the best turkey I've ever had.
And that is my impression of angry Joe Biden having a delightful holiday dinner.
And God bless Tiny Tim.
Thank you. All right, I'm pretty sure that's...
Oh, and then, of course, Time magazine named Biden and Harris person of the year, even though there's two of them.
Which is the way they do it.
They always say person of the year, even if it's not a person.
But is there any reason that Time magazine would pick Biden and Harris as person of the year, as opposed to Trump or Fauci or someone else?
Is there any reason other?
Than just trying to bug Trump.
Time Magazine turned into like revenge porn.
That's all it is. Time Person of the Year went from one of the most prestigious, you know, things that could happen in a person's life to literally revenge porn.
Its only purpose is to make Trump unhappy.
That's it. No other reason.
Talk about making yourself irrelevant.
There you go. Alright, I hope you enjoyed today's episode of Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's only going to get better every day.
So, if you'd like to see a little extra, especially my micro-lessons, as I call them, small lessons on things that will help you be more effective, build your talent stack without much trouble, two minutes to have a new skill.
And those happen on the Locals platform, so for subscribers only, they'll see all of my stuff that you don't see anywhere else.
It's called Locals.com.
That's my commercial for the day, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Bye for now. And YouTube?
Yes, I'm staying around for another minute.
See what you got to ask me.
Scott, were you fooled by this stolen election hoax?
Here's my take on it, if you haven't heard it.
If you have a situation where crime can happen, and there's a gigantic incentive to do it, not even a regular incentive, but a gigantic incentive to do it, and it can happen, how often does it happen?
Every time. 100%.
So I don't need any evidence to know that an election was stolen.
It should be stolen every time.
And in fact, if you think any prior election didn't have a ton of fraud, I don't know if you're quite ready for the adult table, if you know what I mean.
All of our elections have had massive fraud.
It is almost certain that the reason Trump got elected in the first place, I would say this is speculative, right?
I can't prove this. But speculatively, it seems highly likely that they underestimated, because the polls were so wrong, that the cheaters underestimated how much they needed to cheat.
I feel as if that's all that happened in 2016, and that he probably won by even more than we know.
Can't prove that, so I won't make a claim as a statement of fact.
I'll just say it seems highly likely.
Now, if there's anybody here who believes that there's a situation with massive incentive to do something illegal and complete opportunity to do it without much chance of getting caught, if you think that that situation does not guarantee fraud, Where have you been living?
Because you should join the real world where fraud happens every time.
Every time. Not 90% of the time.
Not even 99% of the time.
If you wait long enough, it's every time.
And there aren't many things you can say.
There are very few things you can say are true every time.
I like to use the example of dropping ice cream on a hot sidewalk in the summer.
If you leave it there, there are not sometimes it doesn't melt.
You get that, right? It's not like there's a probability it'll melt.
That's one of those cases where you can know in advance without even witnessing it, it melted.
You don't even have to watch.
Same with the election.
If you can cheat, and there's an insane motivation to do it, because Orange Hiller, of course it happened.
You don't need to witness it.
It's just like the ice cream on the sidewalk.
It has to happen. It'll happen every time.
Alright. So, I hope I beat that horse to death.
Oh, some of you are agreeing with me.
That's good. Not in Alaska, somebody says.
Is 2020 the golden age?
Well, you know what?
The weird thing about 2020 is that, and I'll give you the glass half-full version of it, 2020 is just a horrible year.
It's hard to Oh, I'm so sorry.
Somebody just lost a niece to fentanyl.
As you know, I can feel that pain.
So that goes right through me, especially in the holidays.
