Episode 1216 Scott Adams: Supreme Court Punts, Vaccines are Here, AOC Needs the Lincoln Project Like a Hole in the Head
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
A Presidential pardon for Lil Wayne
Supreme Court rejected Texas lawsuit
The brilliant Democrat HOAX structure
Our Republic is gone, we now have a "Bullyocracy"
Whiteboard: God App, 1 app to rule them all
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I was playing with my system setup here and accidentally went live.
So there's a reason that nobody's watching this.
And in a moment we're going to go live on Periscope.
Actually, I think I'll go live a little early maybe.
Give them a little bit of a thrill.
Anybody have any questions before we go officially live?
I'm accidentally live.
Alright, let me get my notes here for a moment.
I'm afraid you're going to have to wait.
I'm afraid you're going to have to wait.
Hey, everybody. We will do the simultaneous sip at the usual time.
No getting ahead.
No, no getting ahead.
That will not be allowed.
Now you get to see what I do minutes before I officially go live.
All right, it's actually eight minutes before I'm supposed to be live.
Periscope will have to wait for a minute.
Good morning. Somebody says, are artists typically left-leaning?
That's a good question. I would think so.
I would say most.
I'm not sure. I wouldn't consider myself an artist.
So... Somebody asked me if I'm wearing my PJ pants.
Here's a...
Maybe I shouldn't admit this.
Every one of my periscopes I've done in my pajamas...
Every one of them. So generally what you see me wearing when I'm doing the periscopes is whatever I woke up in.
Usually a t-shirt and pajamas.
It's a kilt. No, just pajamas.
Yeah, I don't even...
When you see the periscopes, I haven't shaved or I haven't even brushed my teeth.
So you get me fresh out of bed.
Um... Simplicity is good, that's right.
I was going to do a micro lesson on simplicity for the locals platform.
No bed hair to worry about?
I tell you, the day that I decided to start cutting my hair short, because I was obviously losing my hair so it was just a better look, it made my life so much easier.
I'm going to tell you something that I'm very proud of.
When I was in college, or maybe high school, I found a steel comb on the ground.
Just somebody had lost it outdoors.
And it was the coolest little comb.
And so I washed it up and I made it my own comb.
And when I was in high school, it seems funny to even think about it, I would carry a comb with me.
Just in case I needed to fix up my hair a little bit during the day, I would always have this little steel comb.
And occasionally I would misplace it, and then I would find it.
And it became sort of a thing over the years that I would lose it, and then I would always find it.
And for maybe, I don't know, 20 or 30 years, I had the same comb that I'd found on the ground as a teenager.
And I still have it.
I never lost it in 40 years.
I can't use the clock, you're right.
So let me tell you what I was doing when I accidentally hit live.
So I wasn't intending to be live streaming until the appointed time when we'll do the simultaneous stuff.
There's a There's a step where you make a profile, not a profile picture, a thumbnail.
And I was just getting ready to make my thumbnail.
And when it went live, I thought I'd hit the button to retake the thumbnail.
So when it went live, I was posing like this.
Because the photo I was going to put as my thumbnail was me giving myself a vaccination.
So is this the live chat or not?
It is. It is.
So you're in the right place.
You made a video of my thumbnails?
Can I look at Andrew Saul's talk?
I don't know who he is. Who is Andrew Saul?
So how many of you are going to get the vaccination once it's available?
What percentage of you will be first?
I'm kind of glad that I'm not automatically going to be first, so I don't have to make the decision.
Aren't you kind of glad that you don't have to make the decision yet?
You can sort of wait a little bit, you know?
See how much it hurts?
What are the odds that Let me ask you this.
I know these are different kinds of vaccinations, so it's not like we've had before.
But what are the odds that the most important vaccination the world has ever had is also the one that hurts the most, and also the only one that takes two vaccinations that I know of?
Like, really, what are the odds that only this one would hurt and you'd eat it twice?
If you were going to create a situation that would guarantee people don't want to take it, it would be that.
That plus the fact that it's new.
We've got three minutes until the real show, so if you have any questions, I shall take them.
Oh, HPV takes three vaccinations.
Okay, well, so I guess there are more...
Hepatitis B is three?
Well, like I said, there are plenty of vaccinations that require multiple...
Oh, shingles takes two?
Yeah, just like I said, there are lots of different vaccinations that take multiple.
I think you can tell I'm behind on my shots.
Very behind. What brand of coffee do I drink?
Starbucks. I'm not a big coffee guy.
I'm going to tell you a little coffee trick.
This might make you feel less good about me.
But my coffee, at least...
Lately, is half hot water and half coffee.
So I actually water down the coffee until it's just a coffee-flavored hot water.
Now you might say to yourself, my god, how can I drink coffee-flavored hot water when I'm used to full-bodied real coffee?
And the answer is you can get used to anything.
You can actually train yourself to like things you don't like.
By the way, did you know that?
One of the things that hypnotists know, and regular people don't, is that you can change your preferences.
That's weird, isn't it?
You can actually change what flavors taste good to you.
I've done it so many times that I can say this with Complete certainty.
I don't need a scientific study because during my life I've set out to intentionally change my flavor preferences and succeeded easily.
So I know it can be done.
I've done it multiple times.
And one of the things that I set out to do...
Was to change my coffee flavor preference from strong coffee, just because I was used to it, to a weak watered down kind of thing because I could get more enjoyment of sipping without too much caffeine.
And so I just add 50% of hot water.
The first time you have coffee that's 50% of hot water, your first reaction is...
How could I possibly drink this?
But you probably had a similar reaction, if any of you had this experience, of going from regular soda, let's say a Coke, to a Diet Coke.
The first time you make the transition, you're like, what is this awful thing?
But then you get used to the new thing, and you can't even imagine drinking the old thing anymore.
It's very easy to rewire your preferences.
So that's a real thing.
Alright, in one minute I'm going to hit Periscope and then, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to be live and I'm going to tell you a great story about George Clooney.
You're going to like it. Alright.
It's go time.
Hold on. Pretend I just started.
You didn't see this.
Nothing happened here.
Forget what you've seen.
Boop. Well, good morning and welcome to the simultaneous sip, the best time of the whole day.
If you've been wondering, in that 24-hour period, which is the best part of it, because, you know, you've got 24 different hours there, which one's the good one?
It's this. It's this one.
Yeah. A lot of people think another time is good, but no.
They're all inferior to this one, and all you need to make it the best of the best time is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
If you hear a motor, it's because I just put my motorized shades down.
Go. Delightful.
I believe it made everything better except the Supreme Court.
Yeah. Supreme Court still needs a little work.
My Photoshop problem is fixed.
And it turns out the fix is that they just took that feature away.
So I just had to learn a whole new way to do it, which was not a big deal.
But the feature that I was trying to make work, they just took it away.
All right, here's my favorite story of the day.
And I present myself, often on these periscopes, as not just a cartoonist.
But as, let's say, someone who can help you filter the bullshit from the reality.
And here's my favorite example.
Now, if you fell for this one, you have only yourself to blame.
I was just watching an interview with George Clooney, and there was a headline I saw that said that George Clooney He cuts his own hair during the pandemic, but also has been doing it for years, using a Flowbee.
Now, if you're a certain age, you know what a Flowbee is.
It's an attachment you put to your own vacuum cleaner, and it sucks your hair up, if you have hair, and then it cuts your hair perfectly because it sucked it up with the vacuum and then it cuts at the right height.
And then you just go to a new place and you vacuum and cut.
It's called the Flowbee.
And so George Clooney is asked about his hair and he says that he uses a Flowbee to cut his hair.
And he describes how he got it years ago and he still cuts his hair every day with the Flowbee.
Now, there's a little bit of context that was left out of the story.
Let me add some context.
George Clooney is literally famous as a prankster.
It's one of his, you know, most famous characteristics.
When he's working on movie sets, he's famous for playing pranks on his co-workers.
Now, George Clooney has a good haircut.
It's such a good haircut that I'm just going to guess.
There might have been a professional haircutter involved.
Now, in a pandemic, Especially if you're a celebrity.
Do you go on camera and say, yes, I violate the pandemic and I just have somebody come over and cut my hair at close quarters?
Do you think he says that?
No. No.
No. He says, I use a FloBee.
And then he tells a detailed story about how he got his FloBee and how he still cuts his hair every day.
And then the credulous reporter said, Is your current haircut from the Flowbee?
And he's like, yeah, yeah, right here.
And I'm watching this frickin' thing, and it's just the funniest damn thing that it became a national story, and it could not be more obviously a prank.
It was one of my best stories of the week.
All right, rapper Lil Wayne is in trouble, you may know.
He faces up to 10 years in federal prisons.
After pleading guilty on federal or illegal gun possession.
Now, it's worse for him, I guess he has a prior felony.
So if you have an illegal gun on top of a prior felony, it doesn't matter if you're trying to commit a crime with it, because that is the crime, just having a gun.
So here's a little legal strategy I would like to suggest to rapper Lil Wayne.
It goes like this. Lil Wayne is one of the people...
Who came out either pro-Trump, I don't remember if he was pro-Trump or just he was okay with Trump, but he got sort of labeled on that side, that unpopular side where he was kind of okay with Trump.
I feel like he should get a pardon because I think you could make the case that anybody who's going to jail in our current environment who also was a supporter of Trump is not going to get a fair trial.
How could anybody get a fair trial in the context of being a Trump supporter in this current time?
Because we're watching Democrats literally and publicly finding a variety of ways in which they say in public we're looking to punish anybody who supported Trump.
We're actually looking to punish them for political opinion.
Now, if I'm President Trump, And I'm thinking, you know, maybe my odds of a second term are pretty low right now.
And I knew that rapper Lil Wayne supported me.
And I knew that his only crime was not an act, there was no actual crime.
In other words, the crime was just having a gun.
There was no intention, no, no allegation he was going to use it for something specific.
So really, there was no victim.
And in the context of nobody who supports the president should expect a fair trial.
Is that a fair statement?
Don't you think it's a completely reasonable statement to say that any notable figure who is notable for supporting Trump, they could not get a fair sentence or a fair trial in the United States in 2020?
Isn't that a fair statement?
I think that's completely fair.
Now, it wouldn't be probably fair, it wouldn't be a strong enough statement to have the court overturn anything or for the court to reverse anything, but it's 100% strong enough for President Trump to pardon him.
It's 100% strong enough for that.
In fact, if you could show me a better reason for a pardon, I've never seen one.
I've never seen one.
I will hold up rapper Lil Wayne, in my opinion, is the strongest case for a pardon, presidential pardon, I've ever seen.
Now, I don't know if his crime is the kind that can be pardoned.
I don't know if it's federal or it's state.
So I don't know how that works. Maybe he can't be pardoned.
But if he can be, I would.
Later today, maybe, or soon, I'm going to do a lesson on reframing on the Locals platform.
So if you're a subscriber to Locals, Locals.com, where you can follow me for a subscription price, I'm going to teach you a hypnotist lesson.
On reframing. Now, a lot of hypnosis is something you really need to be trained to do, but reframing is something anybody can do just by sort of understanding what it is and a little bit of A-B testing on your own.
But reframing can change you from unhappy to happy.
It can change a good time or a bad time to a good time.
You could change a loss into a victory.
So reframing is one of the most powerful tools you'll ever have in your life.
So that'll be on Locals later for subscribers.
Breaking news! The FDA has authorized Pfizer's vaccine.
I don't know if I want to be first, but I have a lot of respect for those who will.
Now, I wouldn't say that I'm afraid of the vaccinations, but I will say that the longer you go before you get it, the more you might know.
So I would expect I'll get a vaccination.
If you're looking for what are other people doing to help make your decision, what I'm doing is not making up my mind.
Until the last moment I need to, which is when it's available to people like me.
So until it's available to people like me, I'm not going to make a decision.
When it is available, I will look at all the information.
I doubt there will be much more that we've learned since then.
But if there's anything more, I'll incorporate it.
And if there's nothing more, I probably will get the vaccination.
So if you're wondering how people are thinking about it, how they're doing their cost-benefit analysis, I can't separate the benefit to other people.
From the benefit to myself.
Is there some risk that I would have some harm from the vaccination?
Yes, in the sense that anything is a risk.
Sort of in the general universal way that risks exist.
But it is sort of a war situation, isn't it?
You know, the coronavirus is sort of like going to war.
And if you said to me, Scott, do you want to personally protect yourself at the risk of taking this vaccination?
If I were the only person in the world, it would make sense with a pandemic, but imagine if the only thing I had to think about was my own well-being, I might make a different decision.
But if you're in a war, and you're a soldier, and we all are, We've been asked by our general to take a risk that might be a little bit bigger than you wanted to take for yourself.
And the reason you're being asked to take that risk is for the benefit of someone else who might have been infected in your chain of infections if you don't take the vaccination.
So, as an individual, I might make a different decision, but as a soldier, I'm going to almost certainly obey orders.
I mean, I'm going to look at all the information, but my inclination is to obey orders in the context of a war, and I consider this a war.
So, if there's some risk to me, but the point is to win the war, I accept my role as a soldier.
Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln Project, he's one of those main guys, he's reached out to AOC in the most awkward tweet I've ever seen.
So this is what Steve Schmidt tweets at AOC. I would like to officially reach out to AOC on behalf of the Lincoln Project in defense of democracy.
And he says, we disagree on many issues.
And that is okay, in our view.
Oh, that's nice. How about that?
Did you know that the Lincoln Project, apparently they think it's okay to disagree on issues.
Did you know that? That's pretty big of them.
Because a lot of people were thinking that they were completely communist.
But it turns out that they do think it's okay to disagree on issues.
So that's a big step. So thank you, Steve, for telling us that because we didn't know that until he said it.
And he said, we disagree on many issues and that is okay in our view.
By the way, we don't look down on waitresses.
What? We admire them.
We are all the types of guys who always tip at 50% or more.
This is so awkward.
Okay, have you ever heard of the...
The pick-up artist strategy called NEGGING, N-E-G-G-I-N-G. The technique is considered a manipulative, let's say unethical way to manipulate people into sex, specifically women.
And the pick-up artist learned that the way you get women to respond to you and potentially become sexual partners Is with this concept called nagging.
And the idea is that you subtly find a way to tear down their ego, and the theory goes...
I can't say that I've...
I will say that I've never intentionally used this method.
So I don't have a personal experience that it even works.
But a lot of people say it works, and it's part of the body of persuasion.
So I'll talk about it as if it works, but I haven't personally...
I can't tell you that it works from experience.
However, the technique is very clear.
If you say to somebody who is an elected congressperson, and not just an elected congressperson, AOC is one of the most capable political people of our era, right? You know, you say what you will about disagreeing with her, and the Green New Deal is crazy, and blah, blah, blah, blah.
So I know all the criticisms, but it is nonetheless true that she has achieved a tremendous success of getting where she is, and she has a great weight and gravitas.
She's moved the entire party.
All right, so that's who she is.
She's this person who's moved the country with her personal force of will, etc.
And Steve Schmidt decides that in his tweet where he's reaching out to her, he needs to mention that she was recently a waitress.
That's negging, right?
You make it look like you're not doing it for a purpose.
It's just, it's another purpose.
No, I'm We're just saying that we get along with you.
We're not going to insult you. That's all I'm saying.
Oh, did I mention that you were only recently a waitress?
Oh, yeah, that's just part of the story.
There's no reason I'm mentioning it.
It's just because we're good guys.
That's nagging.
Now, I don't know if he was thinking of it intentionally or it just came out exactly like nagging, but he used the word waitresses.
Now, there is some disagreement on using that word.
Waitress is like, I would describe it as the mildest version, just by analogy, of the N-word.
The N-word is something that a person could use about themselves, if they happen to be black, but you wouldn't use it about somebody if you were not talking about yourself, right?
Unless you were black. So, waitress and waiter are like that.
People who work as servers, which is the more generic accepted term at the moment, People who work as servers often call themselves waiters and waitresses.
And when they call themselves that, nothing wrong with it.
You can call yourself anything you want, right?
But when other people use the word waitress, it just wakes up this little part that says, it feels like it's a woman's job.
And that's not quite the vibe of 2020, because obviously it's not just a woman's job.
And so it feels sexist, and it feels old-fashioned.
And so in his reaching out, he used a word which he has used about herself, but he has a little blind spot, which is she can use it about herself.
Using it about yourself, completely appropriate.
Other people using it?
Well, some people will be offended, some will not.
Some people are saying bartender was the right word.
I think it was both, wasn't it?
Usually, if you're a bartender, you're also a server.
In most restaurants, you're going to do a little of both.
All right, so I fact-checked them and said they're called servers by the people who don't look down on them.
That's not entirely true, but it was funny.
And then he adds this part where all the types of guys who tip 50% or more, that is really nothing but showing his penis to her.
That's all that is, right?
Because why did he need to throw the part in about them being big tippers and their guys?
That is nothing but a penis-measuring statement.
It had no applicability.
It was condescending.
It was the most awkward tweet I've ever seen in my life.
Texas GOP Chairman Alan West was talking about the Supreme Court, and he was saying that perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the Constitution.
So Alan West thinks maybe Texas should start a new country of people who actually follow the Constitution.
Now, I don't think that's going anywhere, but there'll probably be more talk about it.
All right, Supreme Court...
Tossed down, or I don't know the proper legal word, but they have rejected, shall we say, the latest lawsuit that was the Texas lawsuit and other states were bonding to...
Yeah, the Texas lawsuit against the other states.
Now, the smart people had warned you that the Supreme Court was not going to go by the Constitution on this one.
Now, they gave a reason that seems...
Vaguely constitutional.
And the reason was that the lawsuit didn't have a standing, Texas didn't have a standing, a legal term which means that it's none of their business.
That's it. So the Supreme Court did not look at the evidence.
They didn't look at the details.
They just said, Texas, why don't you stay out of the business of the other states?
That's it. That was the ruling.
Now if the ruling does not look at any of the evidence presented, none of it, and if the only reason is because it was one state interfering with another, how would, let's say, CNN report that?
Well, I watched Chris Cuomo report the news, and the way he reported it was that it was rejected because there was no evidence of fraud.
Now, isn't that the opposite of what happened?
Because it seems to me it was a gigantic document, the lawsuit, filled with evidence of fraud.
Now, evidence doesn't mean true, but it was a gigantic document of evidence.
Now, it is true that the lawsuit isn't going anywhere, so it seems to be as dead as anything can be, and that part's true.
But it's not dead because there was no evidence of fraud.
It was dead in spite of a gigantic pile of evidence of fraud.
Now, what's going to happen to this video on YouTube?
Well, I think we know. Because the last time I made a statement about evidence of fraud, simply noting that evidence of fraud existed, my video was censored.
Now, when I say censored, a lot of you say, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Censorship is when the government does it.
It's not censorship of a private company that you could use or not use.
You know, they have competitors.
That's not censorship.
You're using the word wrong.
Well, let me make a case for using the word correctly.
The government, we agree, is the one who has the power to censor or not censor.
In this context, that's what the word means.
But because the government knows exactly what the social media companies are doing, And it allows it specifically.
In other words, the government has created a law, a structure of laws, that allow these social media companies to suppress the views of a certain kind of person, with a certain kind of view, in a way that the government knows is happening, they can observe it too, and they have laws that actually support it.
The fact that the social media networks don't have the risk of being sued, but they could if the law did that, means that the government has decided that the social media networks have been delegated the power of censorship by the government.
Now, you could say, Scott, that's not what people intended to do.
The government never made a decision to outsource its censorship to private companies, and they didn't.
Nobody ever had a meeting.
Nobody ever had a conversation.
Nobody signed a document that says, we, the government of the United States, delegate our authority for censorship to these private companies.
That never happened. But it's what happened.
It doesn't really matter if somebody intended it to happen.
Here we are. We are in a situation where the government sees what the social media companies do and says that's legal, and as long as that's blessed by the government and completely legal, I would say that they have delegated their authority of censorship for all practical purposes.
So you could argue that the social media companies are not government censorship, and I would argue that that's technically true, but not true in a real way.
Because if the government wanted the social media companies not to do that, they would simply stop it.
And so anything that the government allows to happen is basically sanctioned, right?
Wouldn't you say it's sanctioned by the government if they allow it and they have the complete ability to stop it?
So I would say it's government censorship.
It's just working through the social media.
It might be completely legal.
But it's still government censorship, in effect.
The fact that social media companies do it doesn't matter.
So I opened a Rumble account.
So if any of my videos get taken down on YouTube, just go over to Rumble and Google my name and your real coffee with Scott Adams and it will pop right up.
Now I've only put one video over there so far.
It's the one that got taken down.
I think this one will get taken down for the same reason.
And if it does, you can just go see it over there.
Alright. I was looking at the, now that it looks like Trump will not have a second term, I was looking at the genius of the hoax system.
Because, you know, they had the fine people hoax, and that would paint Trump as a racist.
They had the drinking bleach hoax that paints him as anti-science.
They had the mocking the disabled guy hoax that makes him look like a bully against everybody.
And then they had the kids in cages hoax, which wasn't exactly a hoax because that actually happened, but the context is all left out.
And I don't mean the context that Obama built the cages.
I mean the context that there was a surge of immigrants and the alternative of just letting the kids go with their abusers, in many cases, was deemed worse.
So the real story of the kids in cages is that nobody was happy about it, but it wasn't as bad as the alternative in that emergency situation.
It was also terribly handled in every way.
I think the administration botched the handling of it.
But it was largely a hoax.
And I was looking at the entirety of the hoax structure, and it's kind of genius, because they managed to find a hoax That fit every claim.
So for whatever was the major claim that would bother you psychologically, they attached a hoax to it.
You know, what would be more bothersome than somebody who's a racist?
That's a pretty big issue, right?
So they attach a hoax to it, to find people hoax.
What would be worse than a president who didn't care about science?
That's pretty bad, so they attach the drinking bleach hoax to that to give it, you know, substance.
And then, you know, mocking the disabled guy who wants a bully.
Bullies are really a triggering kind of thing.
And kids in cages, you know, who wants a heartless president?
So the brilliance of the hoax structure is actually sort of breathtaking.
And I almost wonder, when you see how complete it is and how well done it is, you wonder if it was actually strategic.
As opposed to they just turned whatever they could into a hoax and it just worked out that way.
It feels as if somebody almost mapped it out.
Like somebody who was really good at persuasion said, all right, we've got five things that different parts of the public respond to.
Some are going to respond to this kids in cages.
Some to bullying.
Some to mocking disabled.
Some to racism, etc.
And people are triggered by slightly different things, but we've got five of them, or four, or whatever.
And so now we're going to look for, you know, we're going to be on the lookout for which hoax to attach to them.
Because once you attach the hoax, it becomes visual, right?
If I said the president doesn't appreciate science, that's a concept.
But if I say the president suggested drinking bleach, there's a movie, right?
You see it.
You immediately see it.
Likewise, the tiki torch marchers is visual.
The mocking, the disabled guy, that's visual.
So what they did was turn visual your greatest fears.
And the way they turned it visual is adding a hoax to each one.
It's really, really good.
And it's so good That it's either sort of a lucky coincidence, or they just improv their way into a good situation, or there is a gigantic tell here for a pretty deep psychological operation by somebody who knows how to do this stuff.
Because this stuff was done better than I've ever seen it done.
Maybe you don't notice it if it's done really well.
So I guess I wouldn't have noticed it.
But, alright.
Don't we need to change our immigration naturalization test?
I was telling you the other day that there was some controversy over the changes in the test.
So if you want to become a citizen in naturalized immigration, you take a test, and some of the tests are about our form of government.
And one of the questions is, what kind of a form of government are we?
The correct test used to be that we're a republic.
And I think there were a few versions of that, but basically some version of saying we're a republic.
But we're so clearly not a republic now because whatever we are, whatever happened in this election, we don't know.
So we can't even say for sure that there was fraud enough to change it or not, because what protects us from knowing if we had even an election that was credible is the bullying, the violence.
So there's this layer of violence that prevented the witnesses from seeing things.
There's a layer of bullying and, you know, you could say social media violence keeping Republicans from having visibility on what happened and the courts, etc.
So, I don't think that's too strong a statement, and I don't think it's hyperbole to say that we did lose the Republic this year.
Now, we'll probably be fine.
You know, the weird thing about the world is we adapt to change really well.
Things go wrong, we fix it.
So we'll probably fix it.
My guess is that we'll drift back to the reasonable middle.
But at the moment, we're not in any way a Republic.
And it would be weird if somebody missed one too many questions and the one they missed was this one.
It's almost like you'd have a lawsuit.
Imagine, you know, your client was denied citizenship because one question got wrong and it was that one.
And then your lawyer says, Your Honor, my client said this was not a republic and here's the evidence that he's correct.
I don't know. Could you make a lawsuit out of that and become a citizen because you're the only one who knows we're not a republic?
It seems like you would be an extra good citizen because you'd be smarter than the ones who live here.
All right. And then this guy, Bill Pascrell, he's demanding that the...
He's a representative.
Democratic. He's representing...
He says that he wants the House leadership to refuse to seat the 126 Republicans who supported the Texas...
Lawsuit about the election.
Now, this is nothing but collective, well, not collective, but it's just punishment for political opinions and people doing completely legal things.
Can you believe that somebody could say this in public, and we've reached a point where the thought of punishing Republicans for just sort of being Republicans is It's acceptable enough that you can say it in public and not get your ass kicked and not lose your job.
It's now acceptable in all forms of the public to flow ideas for punishing citizens for different opinions.
That's an actual conversation we're having where nobody's embarrassed to be in the conversation.
It's It's really impressive how things can change.
I asked this in a poll.
Do you think there would be grounds for removing Joe Biden after assuming he gets inaugurated?
Would there be grounds to remove him under the 25th Amendment strictly for believing the fine people hoax?
I feel as if that would be a good enough reason.
Because if somebody believes a hoax that can be debunked as easily as just reading the transcript, that's it.
There's no challenge to it.
Here's the transcript. All right, now you can see it was a hoax.
And one-third of the reason he ran for office was on that hoax.
If one-third of the reason that you ran for office was based on a hoax that is transparently obviously not true, Are you mentally capable?
Because to me that seems like proof of a lack of mental capability.
Because if you're an old person, you're more likely to be taken in by hoax, right?
By scams. I feel like that's pretty strong evidence that he's not capable.
Speaking of not being capable, so I guess the New Yorker did a long article on Feinstein, Senator Feinstein, and how she is allegedly losing her mental faculties and her short-term memory.
Now, add that conversation, you know, is Feinstein mentally capable?
Same questions we've had about Pelosi, same questions they've had about Trump, and Same questions about Joe Biden and I've got my own questions about Adam Schiff.
I don't think he's got dementia, but there's something wrong with that guy.
And I'm thinking to myself, if one of your main conversations about your leaders is about their level of dementia, you're doing something really wrong.
However you've designed your political system...
Which used to be called a republic and now it's something else, a bullyocracy maybe.
You're really doing it wrong if you're having a lot of conversations about the relative amount of dementia your leaders have.
Keep in mind that we're not even talking about whether they're completely gone or they don't have it.
We're really talking about how much Because Feinstein's a case of it's not so much does she or doesn't she have some mental decline.
It's really about how much.
With Joe Biden, it's not about whether he has mental decline.
It's obvious if you see old videos of him, he's a different person.
But we're really talking about How much?
With Nancy Pelosi, a lot of people seem to admit she's very effective at her job, but it's also pretty clear that she's lost a step.
We just don't know how much.
How is it that we're having honest, legitimate, transparent conversations about the obvious mental decline of our leaders and we're okay with that?
We're actually okay with that.
Shouldn't the, you know, if you were thinking in terms of systems instead of goals, a goal might be to get the topics you want and get your health care and everything.
So you'd have a lot of goals that you want.
But I would think that a systems approach should be we shouldn't be talking about people's dementia.
We should figure out a way that that's not part of our process, and maybe we could get to a better outcome then.
All right, so overall, 36% of voters...
Believe the election was stolen.
36%. So, in a world in which 36% of voters believe the election was stolen, if I, as a YouTube creator, say there are allegations that the election was stolen, in the context of 36% of the people saying it was, and I just simply say there are allegations, my video will be removed, it looks like.
Think about that. I will be censored effectively by the government via the social media platforms that they allow to work this way for simply saying the same thing the poll says.
Because the poll says 36% of people doubt it.
In other words, they allege there was fraud.
Just reporting a poll result could get me taken off the platform.
Think about that.
Just think about the enormity of that.
That just talking about the poll results exactly the way they are, adding no hyperbole, no opinion whatsoever, just talking about the poll results would get me pulled off of a major platform.
I mean, that's so mind-boggling.
That it's unbelievable.
Apparently 77% of Trump voters think he actually won, as do 26% of independents and even 10% of Democrats.
10% of Democrats think the election was stolen.
Do you think they know something?
Maybe. Here's my guess.
People answer polls based a little bit on what they want the outcome to be, right?
So people don't answer this kind of poll honestly.
It's just not something people do.
So if you're a Republican, you probably did answer it honestly, because you got nothing to lose.
If you're a Democrat, and you want the result to stand, you say to yourself, uh, do I admit that I also kind of think it might be stolen?
Or... Do I want to keep the result?
And one of the ways to do that is make sure that the poll looks like people believe it's a legitimate result.
So you can't believe any of the Democrats, except maybe the 10% who went against forum and said they think it's stolen.
If I had to guess, I'll just put a, this is pure speculative, my guess of the number of Democrats who really believe the election was either stolen or really could have been, Closer to 50% would be my guess.
How about you? What would be your guess?
We can't know, right?
We're not mind readers. There's no poll that's dependable on this.
But what would you guess is the percentage of Democrats who privately, won't say it out loud, but privately think it was stolen?
Yeah, I'm looking at your numbers, I'm seeing 30, 50, 20%, 35%, 100, somebody says 100%.
That's a little too cynical.
60%, 47%.
Yeah, I think we're all thinking along the same lines.
That it's not like we don't, you know, as a majority in this country, I feel like the solid majority thinks the election was stolen.
I also think that the majority thinks maybe that's just always the way it is.
Maybe it's always stolen, so they don't care so much.
All right. Would you like some provocative stuff now?
I know you would. I know you would.
And here it comes. Since we have this social media censorship, what do you do about it?
There's, of course, a big limit to what the government could do, because they can do this Section 230 thing, but it doesn't look like Congress is willing to do that, because there are trade-offs.
Section 230 might kill industries, or it might even kill just the competitors.
It could make it worse.
So the Section 230 thing is a possibility, but it doesn't look like a perfect solution.
So if we were to brainstorm a little bit more and say, all right, what would a perfect solution look like?
Well, I would love a solution where the social media networks allowed you to turn off their algorithm, where you could just turn it off, and you could be sure it was turned off.
But I don't know how I would ever be sure it was turned off as a user.
How would you ever know? You would always suspect, right?
It's like, well, I pushed the button, and it says I turned off the algorithm, but I feel as if people aren't seeing my tweets, right?
So people would suspect That that wasn't working.
So even if the social media networks did say, yeah, you can just turn off the algorithm if you want, nobody would believe it, right?
You'd still be like, I don't know, maybe.
So let me teach you a lesson on business models.
So here's a little business strategy lesson that's going to be tied to this topic, which is, could the free market...
Do anything that would change the situation in terms of what I will call government censorship that just happens to be expressed through the social media platforms.
And here's a question that I ask because I don't know why this hasn't already been done.
I've got a really bad glare on there, don't I? Sorry.
YouTubers, I don't think I can fix that little glary.
So it could be that there's some reason that the idea I'm going to talk about There might be some reason it can't be done, but I don't think it's a technical reason, and I don't think it's a legal reason, so I don't know what the reason would be.
And it goes like this.
Why is there no billionaire who just wants to change the landscape?
Why is there no billionaire who doesn't build what I'll call a god app?
Now, the god app would be one in which you could post your content to any of the competing platforms.
Now, this is just a sample of platforms.
It could be 20 different platforms.
You've got a couple of competitors for every different thing.
Now, I don't know if it's also possible that it works both ways.
Could your god app also read all the content that other people are posting, and could you reply via just the one app, no matter what platform?
Now, let me tell you what the interface would be if I were designing this.
The way I'd design it is if you start...
That instead of thinking where you're going to post something first, the only thing you think of first is what content you want to post.
So you start your post, and maybe there's a video or there's a picture, and you add the video, and then you see all of the services that could handle that content light up, which tells you that it can handle that content.
If, let's say, you type something too long, and Twitter might go dark, But it might also have an adjustment where it can add a thread option so that Twitter can also handle longer content.
But maybe it warns you that it's not ideal, right?
So in other words, you start with your content and then the system tells you where it can go.
And then, if you don't like the format the way it'll show, you just shake your phone and it gives you some more suggestions of how to organize your content.
You know, different formatting, etc.
And then just publish.
Now, here's the part that's not obvious about this.
Yeah, somebody says that Hootsuite already does this, but it doesn't.
All right, Hootsuite is just for scheduling your posts.
What it doesn't do is allow you to write one post, I think, that can be posted everywhere, but that also you could read the replies to it in your app.
Hootsuite doesn't do that. So what we do know from Hootsuite is Is that it is possible to have one app that can post to different places, but it's not quite the idea that I'm expressing.
Now, if you did this right, what this does is inverts the power structure.
Because right now, I want to be on YouTube because it's good for me, but YouTube doesn't care that much.
So YouTube has all the power because I need them But they don't really need me specifically.
They need people.
But they don't need me so much.
So right now I don't have any power.
But if I were using the God app, I wouldn't care if YouTube banned me or not.
It wouldn't make any difference.
Because I'd have so many platforms, I'd just put it out there and people looking for me would look at another platform.
So this would actually invert the power.
So the power would end up with the platforms, or actually the user, not the platforms.
So the power would go to the user, and it would reverse the structure.
Now, this is similar to, if you're familiar in the restaurant business, there's an app called OpenTable.
OpenTable was an app that allowed any restaurant to use the service And let people book their reservations online back when that was a novel thing to do.
When I owned a restaurant back in those days, I resisted open table And I tried to talk other restaurant owners into resisting them because restaurant owners are not very sophisticated.
And OpenTable was really for the independents.
It wasn't for the chain restaurants for the most part.
It is now. But the independents were clearly going to be taken out of business by OpenTable.
Because if OpenTable succeeded...
It would become the way that people made reservations.
And then OpenTable decided what you saw.
In other words, OpenTable could say, well, I went on to make a reservation for one restaurant, but it decided to promote another one.
Because OpenTable might have had a deal with them, for example.
So you don't want anybody to put you in between the service that you want and the customer.
You don't want the middle person to get in the way because they can start sucking up all the margins.
It was obvious to me that once OpenTable became indispensable instead of just a useful app, as soon as it became indispensable, then they could start raising their prices until your margin as an independent restaurant owner would be shrunk to zero.
So it was obvious in the long run that OpenTable would destroy independent restaurants.
Likewise, If you put in your middle app between the user and the services, you would take the power away from them to some extent because you would add competition that doesn't exist.
So right now, if you say to me, hey, it's too hard to compete with these big services.
If you're a little service, you can't compete.
But the God app would make competing easier because there would be no extra friction putting something on Rumble if you're also going to put it on YouTube.
Once you remove the friction, you give the power back to the user and you take it away from the platforms.
Why did I ever want to run a restaurant, somebody said.
Well, it wasn't because I think restaurants are a good business.
It was because my job as a cartoonist was lonely and I had no human contact.
And so I wanted to have a business in the local community that would be, number one, good for the community, create some jobs, etc.
But I would have a place to go and I could do something more interesting and I had a partner who did the business part, and I was sort of a financial person and an advisor.
So I didn't do it to make money.
I did it as an experience, and it was an amazing experience.
But of course, restaurants are not really what you want to do to make money.
Let's see. Human contact.
Have you had the experience yet of watching a movie or television show, and when you see the characters get too close to each other, you go, ooh, because they're not socially distancing?
I have trouble watching movies now where characters without masks get close to each other, because the whole time I'm thinking, you better not do that.
Oh, you can do that. It's a movie.
Has anybody had that yet?
Yeah, I'm seeing it in the comments.
Yes, I have. It's starting to look weird to see people close together, isn't it?
And that is really messed up.
The fact that it ever became normal to look abnormal, the two characters without masks are close to each other?
That's pretty bad.
The comments are lighting up with people saying, "Oh yeah, but we have some news as well." Somebody says they're always screaming at the TV when they see somebody not socially distancing in a fictional story.
Somebody says this has never been about a pathogen.
Well, let me say this.
It is completely about the pathogen.
There is no great reset.
This is not part of a grand conspiracy to take away your rights.
None of that's true.
Right? So if there are any QAnon people who think the pandemic was fake and it was all part of a major scheme, I'm here to tell you I've got a pretty good track record of spotting bullshit.
And I can tell you with complete certainty that whatever the pandemic was, I'm not sure we know all the details of its origin, etc., but whatever it was, it wasn't part of any plan.
There was nobody who had a plan, unless it was one crazy person who released it.
That might be true. But there's no big organization with a pandemic, take over the world plan.
And I'm seeing in the comments, wrong!
Sorry, Scott. Want to bet?
Let me put it in this terms.
If you're watching me right now, it's because you've seen me get things right.
Probably.
By now I would say that you wouldn't be watching this if you hadn't seen me consistently be right about a lot of stuff.
Now, am I wrong about things too?
Yeah.
Wrong about Trump getting reelected.
Did not see the, let's say, alleged shenanigans.
Did not predict that.
At least predict that it would make a difference.
So I'm going to put this in context.
There are some things I say where I'm 80% confident.
There are things I say when I'm 20% confident.
This is one of the few things that on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm a 10.
Meaning that there isn't the slightest chance that the whole pandemic is part of some scheme or plan or reset or anything.
So on a scale of 1 to 10, There's nothing I've talked about that I've been right about, and I've been right about a lot.
There's nothing I've talked about that is more certain than that that's not real.
I'm at the maximum amount of certainty.
Now nothing's 100%, right?
So I suppose you could be wrong, and ghosts exist, and aliens built the pyramids.
I mean, anything's possible.
But I have the highest level of certainty that the QAnon stuff is not real.
Somebody says, you're watching because you're hypnotized.
Well, you are. You know, that difference between what is formally hypnotized and what is just influence and what just is part of the texture of people influencing each other is a little murky.
But you're always influenced by anything you spend time around.
So, certainly true.
Somebody says, it's a great excuse for tyranny, curfews, random restrictions.
Let me ask you this.
By who?
Who is the person behind the need for tyranny and control?
Now, I think it's just a lot of individuals who are making individual decisions for lots of different reasons.
That's all it is. A bunch of individuals making individual decisions.
There has never been a meeting where anybody got together and said, I think we can use this to control people.
That's never happened.
Bill Gates was mentioning it for years because it was an obvious risk that was guaranteed to happen.
And he was right.
You hope. Now, do you think there's any chance I could talk the Great Reset people out of their belief?
Probably not. It's a pretty hardened belief.
They all sing the same song, Scott.
Well, it's definitely true that Democrats want power and sing the same song, etc.
But no, there is no global conspiracy theory.
To create power by releasing the pandemic.
I guarantee you that's not real.
Scientists are taking advantage.
Well, it's definitely real that people take advantage of situations.
That's different than an intentional plot.
How does a curfew prevent virus spread easily?
Why would you even ask? Somebody's asking, how does a curfew prevent virus spread?
How is that not obvious? It seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?
I'm not even going to answer that.
If you can't figure that one out on yourself, phone a friend.
Now, the latest information that I saw, maybe you saw the same, is that the risk of getting coronavirus from touching something Is now really, really, really small.
Is that your understanding as well?
And it seems obvious, because if you could get coronavirus by touching common surfaces, I feel like we'd all have it by now.
I mean, I don't put on gloves to use the ATM, do you?
Who puts on gloves to use the ATM? I don't put on gloves to open the door, although I do use my elbow as much as possible.
I must have touched a hundred thousand things That 100,000 people have touched.
And if you can get it from touching stuff in public, I would have coronavirus for sure.
So, you know, science has now confirmed, this is my understanding anyway, so I don't think I'm wrong about this, but science has confirmed that the odds of getting it from a surface is really, really small.
So that's good news.
How can you guarantee...
Guarantee what? That it's not a great reset?
Naive fool, somebody says to me.
You naive fool.
Scott is bought and paid for.
I wish somebody had.
Probably the single value that I have to you, probably one value that's above the others, is that you can pretty well depend on me not being bought off.
It's sort of the one thing you can be sure of.
I can be right or I can be wrong, but you can be sure I'm not bought off because it's the advantage of being already rich.
How much would somebody have to pay me To lie in public.
I've never priced it, but what would you think?
What would be an amount of money I would take to lie in public?
A million dollars?
I wouldn't take a million dollars to lie in public.
Because I've got a few million dollars, right?
So I didn't really need another one.
It wouldn't change my life.
What would be the amount that somebody would pay me to lie in public?
Would I lie for a billion dollars?
Well, nobody's going to offer that.
It wouldn't matter. You can imagine that I would say yes to that, but nobody's going to offer a billion dollars.
I don't know of any way to get paid for anything I do.
If you do, let me know. Maybe there's some money I'm not making.
But if there were any way to be paid off for what I do, I'm not aware of it.
Nobody's ever offered. By the way, nobody's ever offered.
Just in case you're wondering, if you consider as much as I talk in public about politics...
And apparently it's having some impact.
Nobody has ever offered to pay me.
Not even an offer.
So I didn't even know how does it happen.
Does George Soros need an appointment?
If I wanted Soros to bribe me, do I make an appointment?
How do you do that? $10,000 per lie, somebody says, is the going rate.
yeah I don't think I would do that um you know it's funny that uh I block certain keywords on Twitter, so I don't have to see certain kinds of trolls.
But I haven't blocked the same keywords on YouTube.
So only on YouTube there's a whole certain kind of troll that I stopped seeing for a while.
Alright, that's all I've got for now.
Somebody asked me how's the e-bike.
The e-bike's great. You should get one.
And I will talk to you later.
And you YouTube people?
Thanks for hanging out with me.
Sorry I started this a little bit early.
Do I block and mask keywords?
I do on Twitter, and I think I have that function here on YouTube.
I haven't used it as much.
All right. Oh, the nasal surgery.
Unfortunately, the nasal surgery will not be successful on me.
So I went through that whole surgery only to learn that I have a certain kind of situation in which they're likely to come back.
So at the moment, it's better than it was, but it'll just come back.
