Episode 1223 Scott Adams: Joe Biden Says Hunter is the Smartest Person he Knows, and That Shouldn't Worry You a Bit
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The smartest person Joe Biden knows
Harald Schmidt, ethics and health policy expert
Chief Justice Roberts alleged yelling
School choice and suicides
Brainwashing: Accept President Trump's loss
Massive election fraud was GUARANTEED
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
The best time of the day, by far.
And I would like to note that if you've been watching me these many, many days, I've done this at least once a day, every day, including holidays.
And for now, how many years?
Three or four years?
And I would like to say, how many times have I been late?
Not often. Or at least not very late.
And if you'd like to enjoy the simultaneous hip to its maximum potential, I think you know what you need, and it's 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. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
I'm going to say this like a movie trailer.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
Simultaneous sip. Happens now.
Go. Now, I don't take vacations.
Vacations are for quitters.
Now, I do take vacations, but I still usually work in the morning because I can do my work and I can often be done with most of my work for the day by 8 a.m.
Because in days like yesterday, for example, I started work at 1.30 in the morning, which isn't that unusual these days.
And why am I talking about myself?
You didn't come here for that.
You want to hear about the news.
You want to hear a different take on the news.
And I got it for you. So yesterday, I guess, Stephen Colbert interviewed Joe Biden.
Because if you want to send your best news interviewer to interview the possible president-elect, you want to send your comedian.
Now, you might ask yourself, would they send a comedian to interview Joe Biden if they were planning to ask some tough questions?
And the answer is no.
You don't send Stephen Colbert to ask the tough questions.
So that's probably why he took the interview.
But my favorite part is that when asked about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden says, and I quote, it's being used to get to me, blah, blah, blah.
I think it's kind of foul play, meaning just the politics of it.
But it is what it is, and he's a grown man, and he is the smartest man I know.
Are you at all worried that the president-elect, maybe, of the United States believes that the smartest man he knows is Hunter Biden?
Because when he selects his advisors, is he thinking to himself, I've got to get somebody who's as smart as Hunter Biden.
We'll see what we can do.
But I would like to offer you an IQ test.
And it goes like this.
Are you smarter than Hunter Biden?
So if you are, that would make you smarter than the smartest person the President-elect of the United States even knows.
Now I know this is a high bar, because when you talk about Hunter Biden, you are talking about some serious smartness, if we're being honest.
He's very smart.
First of all, he got through law school.
That's pretty good. I don't know if I can do that.
And he did, allegedly, put together a scheme in which he could make millions of dollars without productively working.
Did you do that?
I haven't seen you do that.
Did you put together a global system where you could make millions of dollars without working much?
I don't see you doing that.
That's pretty smart.
Literally. Like, no joke.
It is pretty smart.
Right? I mean, if you take all of the sarcasm out of it, you take all of the snark, the bias, the political side, it's pretty smart.
I mean, in the same way that I am impressed by serial killers who do a good job of building an underground structure to keep their victims, and they do good planning and stuff, they're not all bad.
Yeah, they're serial killers.
I take that criticism.
But they're very productive.
They work hard, they've got a plan, and you can't take that away from them.
Hunter Biden is quite obviously smart.
Literally, he seems smart.
So he's managed to live a life where he can smoke crack, have sex with strippers and prostitutes and all kinds of things and make millions of dollars without working hard.
And frankly, you didn't do any of those things, did you?
Did you? No, you didn't do any of those things.
Pretty smart. Now, of course, he had an advantage.
His father was the vice president.
But still, he took advantage of that opportunity like a smart guy.
So I'm going to give you one IQ test.
If you can answer this question correctly, you would be smarter than the smartest person the president-elect, maybe, even knows.
So are you ready for your test?
Here it goes. Question number one, and there is only one question on this test.
Would you take a video of yourself smoking crack and getting a foot job and put it on your laptop and then take your laptop in for service?
Would you do that? Would you?
Because if you wouldn't do that, you're smarter than the smartest person that the president-elect of the United States may be.
Even knows. So congratulations.
I know most of you failed that test.
I know my audience and most of you said, well, yeah, I'd do that.
Why wouldn't I smoke crack on video and get a foot job, leave it on my laptop and take it in for service?
I'm not even sure what that question means because I've done that three times.
Why wouldn't I do that?
So most of you answer that way.
But if there's anybody out there who said, I got this one.
I got this one.
I think it would increase the odds I would be detected in this behavior.
Should I do that? So I wouldn't do it.
Well, if you're that smart, you are the smartest person that Joe Biden even knows in the whole world.
Except he hasn't met you.
Let's talk about Twitter. They're testing a new feature to...
I think the word was to humanize each other on Twitter.
Now, the idea is that at least they're testing it so you won't see this necessarily.
They're only testing it on a small amount of their users.
But if you're about to tweet at somebody, apparently it will show you a little message to tell you what you have in common With the person you're going to viciously assault on Twitter.
So you call up the reply.
I think this is how it works.
I might have some of the details wrong.
But I think you call up the message where you're going to type in your snarky, evil reply or tweet, and it brings you up a message just telling you something about the other person that you might have in common with them.
Now, what is your impression of that?
Well, I think the parts you have in common are only taken from the known public stuff, stuff that's on Twitter already.
So I don't think there's any privacy issue.
Now, I'm looking at your comments, and I see somebody saying, lame, and people are just laughing at it.
It's silly, not going to make any difference.
You're all wrong.
You're all so wrong.
Sorry. If your opinion of this idea is that it's good, you're kind of dumb.
If your opinion of this idea is that it's bad or lame, you're kind of dumb.
Sorry. If you have an opinion in either direction on this, you're kind of dumb.
The opinion that would be smart, in case you wanted to know, if you'd like to be as smart as Hunter Biden, here's what he would tell you about this.
We don't know if this is a good idea.
That's why you test it.
That's the whole point. They wouldn't test it.
If they knew how it was going to turn out, you don't need to test it.
So if you think you know how it's going to turn out, you don't know how it's going to turn out.
You don't. How could you possibly know how that experiment is going to turn out?
Is it something within the realm of something worth trying?
Absolutely. Absolutely.
There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that if you could make the other person seem more like a human being with something in common, that you wouldn't go as hard at them.
Now, that's not every person every time.
But if they could take, you know, 10% off of the temperature of online conversations without ruining the service at the same time, why not?
Why not test it? Here's the smart answer.
You don't know. It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.
Is it guaranteed to work?
No. Is it more likely to work than not work?
Don't know. I wouldn't even put a percentage on it.
I couldn't tell you if it's 10% likely to work or 90%.
But I can tell you it's perfectly reasonable, science-based hypothesis.
Perfectly smart thing to try.
So trying it and testing it is 100% smart.
So if you want to criticize Twitter, you're going to have to find something else.
Because this is 100% right to test it.
We don't know how it'll go.
That's the point of the test. All right.
So I love that Twitter...
And consistently, I think, has this mindset of, let's just test it.
They tested the reply feature where, for a while, you had to quote tweet where it looked like it, but really you didn't need to.
So they tried that for a while.
People didn't like it, so they got rid of it.
That's perfect.
That's exactly what you want them to be doing.
Alright, there's this story.
There's a guy named Harold Schmidt.
He is an expert in ethics and health policy.
And he's said actually in public that maybe the vaccinations should be given as a priority not to old white people.
Basically not to white people.
So he believes, Harold does, That white people in the United States have had such an enduring and permanent health care advantage that if they also got the vaccination at the same time as everybody else, or worst case, before everybody else, then that would just be making things worse.
And this guy is an ethicist, right?
So he knows what he's talking about.
He's an ethicist in the health policy realm.
He's exactly the expert you'd want to listen to.
And he says maybe we should consider not giving it to white people until last.
You okay with that?
This is so fucked up, I don't even know what to say about it.
And at the same time, he's not wrong.
Right? This is one of those things that you could easily take both sides aggressively.
Let me take his side for a moment.
Well, it's actually a good point.
It's a fairly straightforward good point.
Black people have worse outcomes with the coronavirus, and they've also got hundreds of years of worse outcomes in a variety of ways.
So, wouldn't it be ethical to put them first in line?
This is the trouble with ethics.
The problem is not with the question.
The problem is, what the fuck is ethics?
Ethics is about fairness, wouldn't you say?
Not entirely, but wouldn't you say that fairness is sort of the word that captures what we're talking about in this case?
That it wouldn't be fair to treat one group consistently bad while another group, just sometimes by luck, but also sometimes by design, gets treated better.
How is that fair?
How is that fair?
Here's the problem. Fairness, as I've often said in public, fairness is a concept developed so that idiots can have debates.
Fairness doesn't exist.
Fairness isn't a thing.
Give me a handful of fairness.
Can you put some fairness in a package and send it to me?
No. So it's not a physical thing.
If it exists at all, it's a psychological phenomenon.
Because if you think something is fair, well, you're good.
And if you think it isn't, well, then you're not good.
But it doesn't matter what it is about the thing.
It has nothing to do with the external objective world, if there is even an objective reality.
It's a mental process.
So why do I care What some person whose job description is ethicist says is fair.
Why would you care about somebody else's opinion of fair?
Fair is entirely an internal mental process.
If I have an internal mental process that's different from yours, why are you right and I'm wrong?
What objective standard makes your opinion of what is fair the good one?
Is it because you're a professional ethicist?
Does that make your opinion of what is fair the good opinion?
No, that's stupid.
Because fair isn't a thing.
It was invented so idiots could be part of conversations.
So the idiot can say, I don't think that's fair.
And then they've had something to say.
It doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't mean anything.
There's no real world...
Like, implication of this fairness thing.
It's just something that happens in your brain.
Now, if it happens in your brain and you think something's unfair, you might get a riot in the streets.
So it can cause real-world things.
But it's an internal, just a subjective experience.
And nobody should be telling you what's fair.
Because in the real world, power is pretty much all that matters.
All right? Have you seen all the big group protesting about how short people and ugly people are treated worse in society?
Do you remember all the riots in 2020?
God, it was just one riot after another.
They were burning cities. And it was all the ugly short people.
I consider myself in that category, so I can talk about that.
So I'm short and unpleasant to look at, so these are my people I'm talking about.
But what about the people who are short and ugly?
Their life sucks.
Through no fault of their own.
If you're ugly or short, your life is worse.
That's just a fact.
And if you're male and you're short, it's much worse.
Did gay people, let's say LGBTQ, have they done a good job in improving the lot for the LGBTQ community?
Yeah. Yeah.
How'd they do it? Did they do it by making more fairness?
No. They did it by power.
They organized.
They organized really, really well.
And then they used their power, and then they got more stuff for themselves.
I don't mind anything they got for themselves.
I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-LGBTQ. As much as you can be pro-anything, I'm as pro as you can get.
But it's never about fairness.
It's never about fairness.
It's about getting stuff.
It's about getting stuff.
Now, if somebody else has a lot of stuff, and you've only got a little bit of stuff, you're going to try to get some more stuff.
And you're going to use your power to do it.
And one of the ways you can do that is say, it's not fair.
And organize around that concept, which is just a psychological concept.
Then you've got power.
It's always just power.
Fairness is what idiots use to discuss things.
If you were in a bad situation in society and it just wasn't anybody's fault, it would still be completely smart to organize and say it's not fair, because that's how you get more stuff.
It has nothing to do with fairness.
Anyway, so that's my take on that.
You probably saw a story yesterday that Justice Roberts, Chief Justice, was allegedly...
With capital allegedly on this story, was yelling during some, what would you call it, a meeting or whatever the Supreme Court does when they get together and argue things.
And he was alleged to have used profanity and said that the difference between how the Supreme Court might act toward this election, the 2020, and Versus the way they did act in 2016 is that, quote, there weren't any effin' riots in 2016.
So that's what's...
It's reported that Justice Roberts said that why he would treat this one differently had nothing to do with the law.
So that's the story. The claim is that they could hear him through a wall because he was yelling so loudly and swearing that they know that behind that wall where they were not themselves that he said something that clearly and unambiguously said he would ignore the law and the Constitution Which, of course, his job is to do those things, to obey them or interpret them.
And that, therefore, he had simply admitted that he wasn't going to do the job of the chief justice and that he was just going to play king and just make a decision that he thought was good for the country as opposed to what the Constitution requires.
So that's the story. Do you think that's true?
Do you think that really happened?
Do you think you really said those words and yelled them so loudly with a profanity that you could hear it in another room?
Do you believe that's true?
Don't. Don't believe that's true.
As somebody tweeted, the election wizard, that's his Twitter name, The election Twitter tweeted, I know you want it to be true, but the Chief Justice Roberts story about screaming and cursing is almost certainly fake news.
And then he refers to me and he goes, as Scott M says, it's a little, quote, too much on the nose.
A little too much on the nose, isn't it?
And he goes on to say that Supreme Court clerks hardly ever leak.
So part of it is that the Supreme Court clerks are somewhat famous for not leaking.
And I thought about that and I thought, is there anybody you can trust not to leak?
And the answer is no, you can't really trust anybody not to leak.
But I was trying to think, have I ever heard a story about Supreme Court clerks leaking anything in the Supreme Court?
Have you ever heard that? Well, thank you, Yorkie one.
That's the weirdest compliment I've ever got.
I have a good nose, somebody said.
That's not true, but I do appreciate it.
You mean a good nose in terms of sniffing out bullshit.
So I'm going to judge this one bullshit.
Now, I do believe that the Supreme Court takes into consideration potential unrest based on their opinions.
So I think the assumption is probably so reasonable you don't even need to check it.
Of course they do that. They're humans, so of course they do.
And I would even go further.
And I know you're not going to like this even a little bit, but I'll say it anyway.
That's why you watch this.
You watch it for the times I disagree with you.
You think you watch this for the times I agree with you, but that's an illusion.
The reason you watch this is for when I disagree with you, because that's the only value I actually add.
It just feels like the other stuff feels good, so you think that's why you come here.
And here's the...
What the hell was I going to say? Oh, the point is this.
If the Supreme Court, and let's say Justice Roberts in particular, if they have decided in any particular case to ignore the Constitution and simply make a ruling based on what they think would be good for the country, I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with that. Now, that's not their job.
It's not how they were elected.
It's not how the system was designed.
You could imagine all kinds of problems that that could cause.
Yeah, I'm watching your reaction to it.
People are pretty angry about that.
Let me make my case.
So I'll make my case first, and then you can be angry at me.
And it goes like this.
The best kind of political system that you could ever build...
If you could do it, and it's impossible, you know, it has some problems, but if you could do it, just in a hypothetical sense, the best kind of leader would be a benevolent dictator who is also very qualified and had your best interests in mind.
Does everybody agree with this first statement, that the best political system If you could do it, and you can't do it, but if you could do it, would be a benevolent dictator.
Somebody who was the most qualified person who had really only your interests in mind, and then they just went out and did that job.
Highly qualified, your interests in mind, dictator, so they can get anything done.
But they're not going to do anything evil because they're benevolent.
So you could trust this hypothetical benevolent dictator to be even more ethical than you are That's the whole point of the example.
They're more ethical than you are.
So of course you trust them.
But in the real world, anybody who gets power abuses their power, right?
In the real world, if you gave anybody dictator powers, no matter how they started, they might have started out really benevolent.
But once you get the dictator power, well, you're not going to be so benevolent anymore, right?
Because power corrupts.
And it's the most universal, true statement that's ever been made, that power corrupts.
So you can never have a benevolent dictator, except for week one, maybe.
By week two, they're already corrupt.
I mean, it's going to happen pretty quickly.
But, what if, what if, you could have the benefit of a benevolent dictator without the risk of What if?
What would you say to that?
Now, again, you're going to say it's not possible, but don't get hung up on the not possible part.
Just say what if.
If you could have the benefits of a benevolent dictator with none of the risks that they would become corrupt, because of course they would, what about that system?
Now, of course, it's completely impossible.
It can't be done. But the Supreme Court...
Is a really good proxy for that.
Because the Supreme Court, given that they have positions for life, they can kind of freelance a little bit, can't they?
You don't want them to.
I know your reasons.
I understand them. I completely am empathetic to them.
You don't need to explain why you don't want the Supreme Court to be freelancing.
I get the argument. It's very easy to understand.
And it's a strong argument.
It's not a weak argument. It's a very strong argument.
So anybody who's disagreeing with me, hear this part.
Your argument is very strong.
Very strong. I'm not going to say it's not.
I'm just saying that there's another argument that's also really strong.
And it goes like this.
Sometimes... You need sort of an emergency, break-the-glass situation.
You know, even as well designed as our system has been, it's lasted a few hundred years, and maybe the best system, even with its flaws, as good as it's been, there are going to be those times when maybe you need to break the glass in an emergency.
You want that last bit of control or safety if everything goes wrong.
And we have, either by design or accidentally, I'm not sure, but we have built that system.
That's what the Supreme Court either evolved into or maybe the founders anticipated this.
But because they have their jobs for life, they don't have to follow the Constitution.
They don't have to. Now, if they did it too often, I imagine there's some process for removing them, for whatever.
But if you call your shots, and you only do it when it really, really matters, as I would say it does really matter in this election situation, I'm okay with it.
And here's the part you're really going to hate.
I'm okay with it even if they make the wrong decision.
Because if you have a system, you can judge that the system is good or bad, even if it makes some mistakes, right?
Because it might be better than whatever the alternative is, even with mistakes.
So I would allow that there is certainly risk, a pretty big one, pretty big risk, of having the Supreme Court be able to freelance and get outside of the bounds of interpreting the Constitution.
But they can.
They can. And if they call their shots right...
In other words, if they have been selected properly, if our vetting system has given us an Amy, Coney, Barrett, you name your justice, whoever you want, who have been carefully vetted to be among the best of us.
They've been vetted to be among the best of us, of people.
They aren't just trained in the law.
That's a big part of it, of course.
They aren't just experienced with the right kind of experience.
That's a big part of it, of course.
But they're also good people.
You don't really ask that question directly when you're doing the vetting process, but that's always the biggest implication beyond skill.
So you test them for skill and experience, but you're really looking to see, are these good people?
Are these the people who, if they departed from the constitutional path, you could still get a good outcome, or at least an ethical one, in your opinion, of course it's psychological, or at least one that you think was made by a smart person who has good intentions?
Is the Supreme Court filled with smart people, Who have good intentions about the United States?
Yes. I think so.
I would say that would be true of whether they're liberal-leaning or whether they're right-leaning.
I believe that our Supreme Court vetting process is pretty damn good.
Pretty damn good.
And I think that we got nine justices who I would say with complete confidence...
Every one of them wants what's best for the United States.
Every one of them. Now, do you feel uncomfortable in a system where the things that should have worked and didn't work?
In other words, we wanted to have confidence in our election.
No matter what happened or didn't happen in the election, you've got to have confidence in it.
And so there was a big mistake in the rest of the system.
It's about the biggest mistake you could make, which is ruining the credibility of your own election system.
That's a big, big mistake.
Now, even if you argue that there was no real fraud, which would be dumb, but if you argue that, It's still true, objectively true, that half of the country, or whatever the number is, lost faith in the credibility of the system.
That's a major breakdown in the system.
And we have this safety catch.
Nine reasonable people who we all know, although they may be biased left or right, but we all know, with really high confidence, that those nine people are not assholes.
There's probably not a single asshole on the Supreme Court.
I'll bet there isn't one person on the Supreme Court who thinks, if I do this or that, I can be the dictator.
Because they can't. There's no career path from Supreme Court to dictator or president.
So as long as we have them walled off in their little Supreme Court world, they can't get out to the rest of the world, they can't become dictators because we've walled them off.
Under those conditions that they're walled off from ever being corrupted by, you know, dictator power.
They've got their own kind of power.
But I feel safe with that.
I feel safe with that.
So did they make the right decision?
I don't know. I don't know.
I'm not wise enough to know when the Supreme Court is right and when they're wrong.
And I know that. I don't have the capability, the experience...
I don't have what they have.
So I'm not going to second-jud.
I very rarely second-guess what the Supreme Court does.
Usually I don't understand the issue well enough.
But even if I did, what do I have that nine of the smartest Most experienced people who are in this field don't have.
Why would I second-guess them?
So even if they do something wrong, it's the right system.
And that's all my point is.
They could still be wrong, but the system is good.
I like it. Apparently there's a video going around of some nurse getting the COVID vaccination and then doing an interview and passing out in the middle of the interview.
Have any of you seen that? I haven't seen it yet, but I know it exists.
If you see that, assume you're not seeing some reaction to the vaccination.
Because apparently, I'm informed by an actual MD, that it's not that unusual for people in, let's say, a stressful situation where there's also a little bit of, I don't want to say bloodshed, But there's a needle going into your body, and even if you're a healthcare professional, if you're being interviewed, it's the most important issue in the world, especially if you're doing it on camera.
Something got stuck into your body, maybe you're a little worried about it.
So it isn't unusual if you did enough vaccinations.
and interviewed people at the same time for the biggest issue in the world, somebody's going to get some kind of a reaction and pass out.
So your first most likely diagnosis Far more likely, like way, way, way, way more likely, is that it was the stress of the situation or something about the setup that wouldn't affect most people, but if you do it enough, you're going to find somebody who will pass out.
So don't think that that tells you anything about the vaccination.
The Wall Street Journal has a story about a study that says that there's less child suicide when there is also school choice.
So where school choice exists, kid suicides go down.
Do you believe that study?
That where you have school choice, suicides go down.
At least, I don't know.
I would say that this is the sort of study that I would put in the category of, I'm not sure they got the correlation and the causation sorted out quite right.
So, by its nature, It's the kind of study you shouldn't believe, really.
I mean, it might be true, it might not be true, but I wouldn't believe it just because it's in the study.
It's in that category where correlation and causation just get confused so easily.
For example, whatever it is that makes you Choose an alternative school or whatever it is about your community that allowed them to push for and get school choice probably makes you different from the community that couldn't get it in some way.
So it wouldn't surprise me that you'd have a correlation, but I don't know if there's a causation.
Now, I would say if there is a causation, There would be an obvious mechanism for that.
Let me tell you the obvious mechanism for why it should make a difference.
I don't know if it does, but it should.
It goes like this.
How many kids want to kill themselves because of what's happening in their current school?
Most, right?
If I had to guess, there's probably no kid who ever killed themselves who didn't also have a major problem at school with school friends and bullying and all that, right?
Probably. I would guess there's a very, very high correlation between teen suicide and whatever's happening at their school.
Now, let's say that they had a choice.
They could either be in that school Or their parents could say, look, if it's bad, we'll take you somewhere else.
It'll cost extra, but I'll get a second job.
You can go to the other school.
Knowing you have a choice is a completely different psychological existence.
Have you ever experienced this?
I'll give you my example.
When I was working at Pacific Bell before cartooning, I disliked work because it's work, right?
Nobody loves to go to work.
But as soon as I became a famous cartoonist and the cartooning was working, I still had my day job for a number of years, but it took the day job from something unpleasant because I had to be there.
I got to work, right?
If it's not here, it's going to be some other job.
So I got to be here.
It made it completely non-painful the moment I realized I didn't need to be there.
All of my stress at work disappeared.
You know, the person who comes into your cubicle and says something that makes you crazy because they're so stupid or they're so evil or they're so selfish or they're not helpful?
Imagine all of that just turning off.
Because I had the ability to just walk out the door.
Like, literally, I could just stand up and say, well, I'm done.
Just walk out the door and never come back to that job again.
Because I had, you know, the cartooning thing had already taken off at that point.
So I've got to tell you that your psychological, how you accept your experience, the way you filter your life, and is it something that you want to kill yourself over, Or is it something that you can live with?
It makes a big difference if you think it's optional.
A big difference.
If you feel you're trapped, you might take the only path you can see.
And it's, you know, the ultimate path.
If you think you have a choice, every day you wake up and say, ah, I hate these bullies.
I hate my school.
I suppose I could just go over to that other school if it gets too bad.
It changes everything.
So it does make sense.
That school choice would help kids in that way, plus 50 other ways that are also just as obvious.
And let me put it to you this way.
I don't know if this is true, but I'm going to assume it's true, about the suicide being worse.
Regardless of the study, it just makes sense that it would be worse.
And it feels like war now.
Let me put it this way.
The teachers' unions are the reasons, and everybody agrees to this, this is not a controversial statement, the teachers' unions are the reasons we don't have school choice, because they don't want it, they control the Democrats, blah, blah, blah.
At what point do we say, well, this is political.
I don't like it.
I sure wish my kids had some more choice.
That would be sort of a normal political way to look at it, right?
I don't like it.
It should be better this way.
We get better outcomes.
Sort of a political context.
What kind of context is it if they're killing your fucking children?
If the school, if the teachers' unions are knowingly They must know that school choice is good for kids.
If they're knowingly killing kids, is this political anymore?
I don't think so.
It's war. This is war.
If somebody's killing your children, you don't say, well, look how political they were with my children.
No. If they're killing your fucking children, it's not politics.
They have to be destroyed.
The teachers' unions have to be destroyed because they're killing your fucking children.
Don't think this is political.
This is war.
It's power.
It's not about what's right.
It's not about what's fucking fair.
It's war. It's power.
And the reason that they can kill your kids is because they have the power.
Do you know why they have the power?
You fucking gave it to them.
You give it to them.
Not you. Most of you hate the teachers unions.
But you, the public.
You give them the fucking power and then they use it to kill your fucking children.
It's war. It's not politics.
It's war. You're hearing a lot on social media and in the news this question.
Why can't Trump accept defeat?
And of course, if you're a Trump supporter, you've heard it from people too.
Why can't you accept defeat?
Why can't you accept the defeat?
What's wrong with you? Do you know what's wrong with that?
That is propaganda.
That is manipulation.
That is brainwashing. It is, first of all, making you think past the sale, that there was a defeat.
Because that's the whole question, right?
The question is whether there was a defeat.
That's the question.
The question is not, how do you fucking deal with the defeat?
That's not the question.
The question is not how you deal with it.
The question is, did it happen?
And if they're making you even address the question, even respond to it, It's manipulation.
It's brainwashing.
And I don't use that word lightly.
This is literally brainwashing in every possible way.
I don't mean by analogy.
I don't mean it reminds me of brainwashing.
I don't mean it intersects a little bit.
There's a little bit of overlap with brainwashing.
No. This is 100% brainwashing.
And let me, if I haven't made that case strong enough, let me put it this way.
If you had been mugged on the sidewalk, somebody took out a gun and they robbed you, But you got a good look at him, and you call the police later.
And the police come to you and say, what happened?
And you say, I was mugged at gunpoint on the street.
But I got a good look at the guy, and I think there's a security camera over there.
You probably have a good picture of him.
Let's prosecute this guy.
And then the policeman looks at you and he goes, prosecute him?
Why would we do that?
And you say, well, he just mugged me.
That's against the law. We need to make sure that there are not more muggers in the future.
It kind of makes sense that maybe you would try to catch this guy and put him in jail.
And the policeman looks at you right in the eyes and he says, why can't you accept your mugging?
Why can't you accept it?
Why are you fighting this?
Why don't you just accept it?
What's wrong with you? Are you weak?
Are you stupid? Are you hallucinating?
Are you deluded in yourself somehow?
I don't understand why you'd ask me to catch this guy.
It's sort of too late, right?
Whatever you say happened already happened.
I can't go back in time. I'm just a policeman.
I'm not Doctor Who.
I don't have a time machine.
What the hell am I going to do?
It already happened. Just accept it.
That's what you're being asked.
You're being asked to get over the fact that you got mugged.
No! Why should you pursue this in the legal system?
Take it like a man.
Take it like a man. Analogies are good for making a point.
They're not good for persuasion.
All right. Did you hear the story that, I guess this was in one of the legal lawsuits, that some experts calculated that there was a one in a quadrillion chance that the things we saw in the election were by chance.
One in one quadrillion that the election was fair because the things that we observed, the irregularities in it, could not have happened by chance except in a one in a quadrillion Odds.
That was in the news, right?
That's just bullshit.
It's just bullshit.
Here's why you should have known immediately that that wasn't anything real.
And my favorite data analysis person, Andres Bacchus explained it this way.
So he's good at explaining things easily.
He said, someone has already taken on the quadrillion claim, and he points to somebody who was debunking it.
And then he adds his own summary.
So here's the summary that tells you why you shouldn't trust that one in a quadrillion thing.
He says, if we observe unusual election statistics A, B, and C, so there are three things that are observed.
There's irregularity one, Two and three, and they're not related.
Or so you think.
They likely aren't independent of each other.
So that's the key. So forget what I just said.
The point is, they probably are related.
So if you get any one irregularity, there's a really good chance that it means that something is so different that you'll get lots of irregularities.
So the likely two cases are lots of irregularities, Or not too many.
And they're both kind of ordinary.
Now, you start from the position that there's no reason to believe the base assumption that Biden would be expected to perform like Hillary.
Pretty much all of those irregularities seem to come from the, well, what we expected was Biden to do like Hillary.
But what if that one thing, just one assumption, Wasn't true.
And you could easily say it wouldn't be true, because having one term of Trump is different from him never being president, and you don't know if he's even going to get elected, and nobody thinks it's going to happen.
But after you've had four years of Trump, people are going to behave maybe more aggressively than they had before.
Maybe the number of people who go out to vote is way more.
Maybe the Democrats learned that they had to work way harder in specific areas to get out to vote.
So, the one in a quadrillion event could happen two different ways.
One is massive fraud, which would explain all the anomalous things.
The other is Biden and Hillary did not perform the same.
Is it unreasonable to assume that Biden and Hillary wouldn't perform the same?
Because the fact that we had a 2016 election should have taught the Democrats where they have to work harder.
You would expect that the most reasonable thing that would happen is that Biden and Hillary would be disconnected.
Not connected. That's not the most reasonable thing.
Most reasonable assumption.
Could be. But the most reasonable assumption is that they don't have enough in common that you could say that these anomalies are really anything but a broad picture of the whole thing being different than last time.
So, none of this proves or disproves the existence of fraud in the election.
I'm just saying that the one in quadrillion You should have known enough to spot that as being false as soon as you saw it.
And you don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand what Andres is telling you.
And I know this much about statistics.
I'm holding my hands in a very tiny way.
But I do know That we should not treat each of those individual anomalies like they were independent events if there is one thing that might have influenced all of them, and that one thing could either be fraud or the fact that Biden just didn't get the same kind of votes that Hillary did for lots of good reasons.
All right, but that said, that said, there's a big dog that isn't barking, and I tweeted a thread about it this morning, and you can see it.
Here's the big dog that isn't barking.
I've been saying now in public for months the following thing with no pushback.
The no pushback is the dog that's not barking.
Imagine, if you will, somebody who has, let's say, some minor celebrity status, such as myself.
You've probably seen it yourself, that if I say anything that could be taken out of context or could be made to sound stupid, It's a national news story.
Or if not national, it's at least in a lot of publications that are national.
So if I were to say something that was both outrageous and tied to the headlines...
And clearly dumb or false.
You would expect a lot of dogs barking.
Because I create that kind of energy.
You've seen it yourself. I'm not bragging.
I'm telling you that it's observable that when I say things provocative in the news, it becomes headlines in various publications.
You've seen it a lot.
So here's the thing that I've been saying that has no pushback.
Not a single troll, not a single publication, not a single person has pushed back on the following point.
And the following point is...
Who's texting me in the morning?
The following point is this.
That the election system is designed in a way that guarantees massive fraud, so much so that you don't need to observe it to know it's there.
And what I mean by that is that we've seen, even in the process of figuring out where there might have been fraud or there's alleged fraud, it's fairly obvious that our voting system is completely open to a wide variety of attacks that would not necessarily be detected, or if they were detected, an individual event would be too small to change the result, which would keep the courts out of it and keep the result.
So here's the point.
You have a system in which fraud is completely feasible in a whole bunch of ways.
That's fact number one, and nobody would disagree with that.
Having seen all the ways you could cheat, even Democrats at this point will say, yeah, we don't think there was cheating, or we'd like to think there wasn't, but even we can see that it's possible.
Do you think there's any Democrat who believes it isn't possible to hack software What's the biggest headline in the news?
The biggest headline today is that Russia hacked all of our systems, like all the big ones, even government systems, highly protected systems.
Russia not only hacked our national systems, they're still in them.
They're still in them, like right now.
According to our experts, Russia already has functional control of a huge part of America.
Or if it's not Russia, somebody.
So, do you think there's any Democrat in the world who believes our election software could not have been hacked?
No, there's not.
No. You might find somebody who's willing to say that to you, but they're not going to be honest about it.
There is nobody.
Democrat or Republican or Independent who believes that the election couldn't have been stolen.
There definitely are people who think it wasn't stolen.
But there's nobody who believes it was hard.
Right? Given the level of difficulty it would take for Russia to take over all those other systems, this wouldn't be that hard.
And you don't have to do the software.
That's just the easiest one for everybody to agree on.
If you see all the other holes in how they could have gamed the system, as long as there weren't witnesses, they could do all kinds of things with ballots.
Allegedly, we haven't proved it.
But here's my point.
I analogized it to dropping ice cream on a hot sidewalk.
If you drop ice cream on a hot sidewalk in the summer, you don't need to stay to know that it melted.
You don't have to watch it.
You don't need to take a picture.
You don't need to leave a time-elapsed video.
You know that because of the situation, there's only one way it could go.
Ice cream will melt on a hot sidewalk.
That's it. This is one of those cases where the entire country knows that the...
God fucking damn it.
Will you stop texting me in the middle of Periscope?
Because you know I'm doing it right now.
Where are the Democrats saying, Scott, if there's a system that could easily be corrupted and the upside potential for doing it is gigantic, it didn't happen.
Nobody, not a single Democrat, not one, not an article, not a story, not a fucking tweet, is telling me that my statement is even a little bit incorrect.
Krebs didn't say that either.
Nobody is pushing back on the fact that it could have been corrupted and that the stakes for doing it were sky high, and therefore...
Like ice cream melting on the sidewalk.
Don't ask me for proof.
Don't ask me for proof.
It's guaranteed.
Just like the ice cream on the software.
It can't not be fraud.
The weird thing would be if there were no fraud.
No massive fraud.
You could even put massive in here and it's still the same.
It has to be massive fraud.
It has to be.
There's no other possibility.
There really isn't.
And nobody pushes back on that point.
Instead, they say, well, it's not proven in court.
Right, it's not proven in court.
Because they packetized it so well that courts don't want to look at it because they're only looking at a packet.
One packet wouldn't change the election, so they don't care.
It's a perfect system for a crime.
All right, so I would say that we could guarantee at this point that that means something, the fact there's no pushback on it.
So the news, as I said, is that Russia got into our systems through the solar winds hack and other hacks, now they're saying.
And they have, like, functional control of just all kinds of our systems.
Here's my question to you.
How do we know it's the Russians?
Do you believe...
That we have the capability to know who is doing the hacks.
Because I don't. I don't believe that.
Now, I think that this is me speculating, so this is not based on inside knowledge or anything, but it seems to me that the only way you could be semi-confident that you knew what country had done it is if the hack was so sophisticated it had to be a country, and it had to be a country that was a nemesis, It had to be a country that was really, really good at this, and it had to be a country that you know would do it and is trying to do it.
So I feel like the way that we know it's Russia is sort of a process of elimination.
Do you feel comfortable with that?
Would you feel comfortable knowing it was Russia when the evidence for it is not direct, but rather the evidence is, well, who else would it be?
Could you really tell the difference between a Chinese hack and a Russian hack?
And here's to complicate it a little extra.
Let's say you were a Russian hacker, a Russian citizen, and you had the ability to do such sophisticated things.
Wouldn't China try to hire you?
Wouldn't Iran try to hire you?
Who's going to pay you more, Russia or China?
Right? If you have those skills, are you going to sell it to your own country?
Because they'll probably pay you, you know, whatever is your salary for that kind of a job.
But suppose you were to try to sell that skill to China.
You still sit exactly where you sit in Russia.
You've got your little Russia computer and your Russia, you know, your IP address and everything.
You're a Russian. You're a Russian in Russia, hacking into the United States.
But who's paying you? If you took your pay from Russia, you were underpaid, right?
Wouldn't you be underpaid?
Because you know, if China could buy that service, they would pay 10 times as much, because it'd be worth it easily.
Of course, of course they'd pay for it.
It's an open market for expertise.
So... Every time you hear that we know it's Russia, you should put a little skeptical note in your head to say, maybe.
I mean, maybe we know.
I don't know. And what if our government knows, but the way they know is in a way that they can't explain it to us?
In other words, they know from secret means that they can't tell us.
What would you do as a citizen?
As a citizen, would you say, well, our intelligence agencies are quite reliable, so if they say it's true, I'm going to believe it.
I hope you wouldn't.
I hope you wouldn't believe our own intelligence agencies on anything.
Because we don't live in that world anymore.
If we ever did. I don't know if we ever did.
But you certainly should not trust your own country's intelligence services.
We know that. That's not speculation.
We just live through a whole bunch of examples where it's obvious we can't trust them.
It's obvious. Anyway.
So, I asked a question about hydroxychloroquine, which I like to bring up every now and then.
And the reason I bring it up, at this point anyway, is less to do with treating coronavirus and more to do with understanding how our own minds process information.
Because I'd like to know if anything that I've thought over these many months about hydroxychloroquine and its effectiveness, I would like to know if I were right or if I had been way off.
Now, just to reiterate, My evolution of whatever I thought about hydroxychloroquine went from, hey, lots of doctors are saying it works, we can't be sure, but the risk management looks good because the risk part is so low, we should at least try it until we know for sure.
As time went by, I told you I'm lowering my estimates of how likely it is that hydroxychloroquine works because it would be obvious after a while.
So the claim is that it basically snuffs out the virus if you give it to people early.
And it seemed to me obvious that the longer you wait, the more likely you would know if that claim is true because there would be people trying it, right?
And they would have a good result.
And so I asked, where's that good result?
You know, by now, by now you would have seen it, right?
It would be obvious. There would be some country would say, well, all right, I know you guys are skeptics, I know the World Health Organization was a little negative on it, but we, little Estonia, I'm just going to pick a random country, but we in Estonia, we think it's worth a try.
So we're going to do it like crazy.
And then you look at the map after a month, and in one month, Estonia goes to zero deaths.
Now, that didn't happen.
There's no evidence that Estonia did anything like that, or anybody else that I know of.
But, by now?
Are you telling me that by now, there wouldn't be one country?
Or even a county.
You don't even have to be a country.
It could be one county. They said, look, we're just going to do hydroxychloroquine to everybody.
Everybody gets it. And our deaths just went to zero.
Really? Wouldn't it be really, really obvious by now?
All right, now I'm seeing in the comments, people are saying, it is true, Africa.
Africa, India, Mozambique, those are some names I heard.
India, Africa.
Now, what do all those countries have in common besides alleged hydroxychloroquine use?
Well, they're hot.
Do you expect the same death rate in a country that's hot all the time?
No.
So you would expect, all things being equal, that Africa would have fewer infections because there's more outdoor living, more sunlight, more heat, And all the things we know for sure tamp down the thing.
So that's the first thing.
The second thing is, and as you're pointing out, that in those places where it's hotter, there's also a malaria risk, so it's more likely that people are on hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin or something for that.
What percentage of Africans do you think are on hydroxychloroquine?
Just off the top of your head, the entire continent of Africa, what percentage of them are taking hydroxychloroquine preventively?
I don't know the answer to that, but I doubt it's 20%.
Do you think it's more than 20%?
I'm looking at your percentages going by.
I'm seeing 1%, 2%.
Somebody had a higher percentage.
I don't know what the percentage is, but there's no way it's enough.
To show the difference we have.
Now, the other thing that these countries that allegedly are doing better on the coronavirus is that they happen to have poor record-keeping.
They also have poor hospitals, meaning that people might be dying at home and not record it.
In India, one of the big problems is that if you die at home, it just sort of doesn't get into the database.
So there could be lots of old people dying at home, In India, they just don't get recorded.
And that might be part of the story.
Africa as well. So, as we were talking about this, it occurred to me that one of the things we've learned about the coronavirus that we did not know in the spring is that it doesn't transmit that easily over surfaces.
Meaning the stuff you touch with your bare hands.
It can, probably, I assume.
But that doesn't seem to be the big risk.
What we know now is that surfaces...
I mean, if you go to the grocery store, the clerks don't wear gloves anymore, right?
People kind of stopped worrying as much about surfaces.
You know, you should do what you can to clean your surfaces, of course, just to be careful.
But we do know now it's an aerosol air problem primarily, right?
And if it's an air problem primarily, what is it about these African and Indian and Mozambique types of places?
Well, I would argue that they don't have a lot of air conditioning.
Now, even though they're hot places, you'd expect the businesses have air conditioning.
But does the public? Does the public have a lot of air conditioning in these countries?
I would think that they would have a low percentage of it.
Maybe that's why they're doing well.
So I ask the question, is it air conditioning that is really the primary spreader of the disease?
I feel as if we now know enough that it's almost certain, isn't it?
We hear about spending...
You have to spend intense time with somebody, you know, 15 minutes in close contact and such.
So that would be the one other thing that I would be curious about.
But I wonder if we wouldn't find that most infections are from circulated air.
Now, I tweeted, and people are...
Are fact checking me like crazy on this.
I tweeted that someday some entrepreneur will find a way to affix a far UV light to air conditioning so that the air that goes through the air conditioning at least gets cleaned on its way through.
Many people said to me, my air conditioning already has that.
And they said, it's already a product.
You already can buy a UV light.
It's already a thing. And you can put it in your AC. To which I say, no you can't.
No you can't. I don't have to do any research to know that's not true.
A lot of people say it's true.
I'm going to do no research.
Watch me right in front of you.
No research. With no research, I'm going to tell you that all the people who have it, these are people who say, I have it.
I could go take the bulb out and show it to you.
It's still not true.
Because you've confused UV light with far UV light.
That's what happened there.
So everybody says, that's already a thing.
I've already got it.
You have UV light.
You don't have far UV light.
And that's probably the difference.
So yes, it's So my guess is that somebody will make a sort of an attachment that will go to any HVAC system.
You'll be able to insert it somewhere.
Maybe it will recirculate the air within itself long enough to clean it all before it releases it to the rest of the system.
Something like that. But it would be far UV light, not UV light, which would be less effective.
And I guess there are UV light systems.
So, there's that.
There was another hoax I was going to debunk.
Oh, here's the hoax I was going to debunk.
A lot of people are arguing that restaurants do not contribute much to infections.
And therefore, it is a bad policy to close restaurants because you're killing all these jobs and And economic opportunities, but it's not doing much of anything in terms of slowing the spread of the virus.
Do you see any problem with that?
Let me give you some statistics.
These are like approximate statistics, so these are not real ones.
But it's something like more than half of the infections happen within your own home because other people are coming in and out of your home.
So if it's true, And these are just really rough.
If it's true that, let's say, half of your infections come from homes, but only 1%, let's say, is that somewhere in the range?
I think it's somewhere in that range. Let's say only 1% of your infections seem to be tied to restaurants.
Does that tell you that restaurants are safe?
Go. Those of you who are good at analysis and statistics Somebody says yes.
1% of the risk is in restaurants.
50% is in homes.
Are restaurants, therefore, relatively safe?
I'm seeing no's.
Why would you say no?
How could you compare 1% to 50%?
How could you possibly make that case?
So you're seeing in the comments some people saying yes and some people saying no.
If you're saying yes, do you wonder what the people saying no are thinking?
Let me tell you what the people saying no are thinking.
And thank you user Satrapo for saying what I was going to say next.
You spend 95% of your time in your home.
You spend 1% of your time in a restaurant.
Do you get it yet? You can't get the virus At places you're not.
You can only get the virus in places you are.
So if you're only in the restaurant 1% of the time, and you're at home 95% of the time, and the restaurant has about exactly the amount of risk you'd expect for the little amount of time you spend there, is the restaurant safer than your house?
No. No, it's not safer.
It's not safer at all. It's just a preference.
You know, if you wanted to have restaurants open with the extra risks, yeah, that might make a reasonable decision.
But if you're looking at those two statistics and you're saying, well, 1% is a lot less than 50%, therefore, that's the safe one.
No, you're just looking at it wrong.
You're just not accounting for the amount of time you spend in those two places.
Now, some of you are having an experience right now, aren't you?
By the way, I'm using a persuasion trick.
I'll tell you what it is in a moment.
But some of you are having a reaction right now because you believe that fucking 1% thing compared to the, whatever, 50 or 60% in the house.
You believed it.
Why? Because of the news.
The news told you, hey, it's 1% in restaurants, or social media told you it's 1% in restaurants, and 50% of homes or restaurants are safe.
And you just found out that that was fucking stupid.
It was stupid.
Because you spend all your time at home, not in a restaurant.
How do you feel now?
Think about that experience as it's happening to you.
And you realize how abused you were by your news sources.
I mean, this is such bad news reporting.
Or even, you know, truth understanding.
It's shocking. It's just shocking that that statistic could be out there unchallenged until I just did it, right?
Have you heard anybody else tell you what I just told you?
Anybody? Has anybody said, no, the 1% doesn't tell you anything because you don't spend much time there.
No. Why the hell am I telling you this?
Right? I'm not even good at statistics.
I'm not even a little bit good at statistics.
And this is obvious even to me.
So that's the kind of world you're living in where this level of bullshit is just ubiquitous and common.
Somebody says, Brambly Spam says, I heard me say it.
Now, let me ask you this.
For those of you who did immediately realize that statistic was bullshit, were you as shameless as I am to say it in public?
Because even if you said to yourself, uh, you're just sitting at home and you hear that, you're like, I don't think that 1% means anything because you only spend 1% of your time in the restaurant.
Did you say to yourself, next, I think I'll shout this out loud?
I think I'll go to Twitter and I'll tweet my thought that the 1% must be nonsense?
Because it would be hard to do.
Because there were so many smart people saying that was a meaningful thing that I think you would sit there and say, yeah, I don't know about that, but I don't think I'm going to be the one to say it out loud.
Some of you say you did say it out loud.
You're the brave ones. So this is when I've told you that having no sense of embarrassment or shame is a superpower.
And that over the years, I've managed to work my way into basically a situation where I just don't get embarrassed anymore.
Maybe it's possible.
But I don't remember the last time it happened.
So I can simply do things that you can't do.
Because I'm not afraid of the blowback.
I don't have a worry about being embarrassed.
It really is a superpower.
And if you can work on that, you should.
All right. Somebody referred to that as FU, social power.
Maybe. Might be a good way to look at it.
Yeah, it's not just about money, although that's part of it.
The ability to be financially secure does allow me to be more honest.
That is true. But beyond that, I also have a lack of embarrassment that helps me.
Alright, that's all for now. I'll talk to you later.
Alright. Those of you on YouTube, I'm still with you for a moment.
And see if you have any questions.
I just absolutely...
Have you ever read God, Emperor of Doom?
I did not. I read some of the Doom books.
I don't remember that one. What about Jimmy Dore on M4? I don't know.
I haven't been following Jimmy Dore, so I don't know what he's saying that you wanted an opinion on.
Why am I motivated by tax evasion?
What a dumbass question.
Is there anybody who wants to pay extra?
Will we hear you play drums again?
You know, I've got my man cave set up now with my drums.
I've got a real good situation.
And I realize that you can't learn something until your learning environment is just right.
It's really hard to learn something if you haven't optimized your learning environment.
So I only recently did that.
Put my drums where I knew I would use them and I would have a screen that I could take lessons from and everything else.
So maybe if I get a lot better than I am.
I've never made a goal of playing in front of other people.
I was more interested in the process of learning and just keeping my brain active and finding out some more stuff.
It wasn't about music, per se.
What do you think about the Pentagon's ceasing cooperation with the Biden team?
I don't know that that's real.
We've got a lot of drummers on here.
Well, you wouldn't love to hear me drum because it's just not good.
Is it too late for our democracy?
We don't have a democracy.
Yeah, it's never too late to fix it, but we don't have a democracy or a republic at this point.
What is behind the Q idiocy?
The Q thing is...
It's really kind of interesting from a psychological perspective.
Number one, the Q thing is probably disinformation, meaning that there are probably professionals who are behind it, maybe not every drop, but behind setting it up.
So there's the information I have...
Is that professionals who know how to create a psychological phenomenon in the public created a psychological phenomenon in the public.
So some say, and the people saying this would be well qualified to say this, that Q is artificially created by outside sources, and the people who believe it believe they came to their own opinions on things, but they actually were manipulated into believing it.
And once you start believing it, It's easier to keep doing it than it is to change, because then you'd have to admit you'd done something maybe irrational.
So it's getting it going that's the hard part.
Once it's going, it's sort of a fusion engine.
It just feeds itself.
No, not many cue things turned out to be true, except some by coincidence.
If Biden takes office, will he put Obama on the Supreme Court?
I don't think so. I don't think Obama will ever be on the Supreme Court because I think that would be a demotion.
I think if you're an ex-president, being on the Supreme Court is just like a job.
I just don't see any ex-president ever wanting to be on the Supreme Court.
Not even close.
Please fill your shelves.
Do my shelves bother you by their emptiness?
I actually took everything out of them because I didn't want it to be busy.
I've been trying to think how I can clean up my background a little bit.
Q is a good bedtime story.
Somebody says Howard Taft was on the Supreme Court.
Well, you know, being president in the old days, this is weird to say, but being president in the old days wasn't that big a deal.
I know that sounds weird to say, but I just don't think being president was as big a deal back in Taft's day.
It's now more of a superstar job, you know, You know, Taft was no Obama.
Taft was no Trump.
CNN will keep tubing.
He pulled it off, somebody says.
He pulled it off. Should Trump pardon his family?
You know, it's bad form, but why not?
I would. I would pardon his...
I would. You know, I think Trump could do what other people can't do because of the way he's been treated.
The way he's been treated would certainly allow him a complete justification for prematurely pardoning everybody from, you know, Jared to Ivanka to Don Jr.
to anybody else. I would be okay with that.
Yeah. I would be completely okay with that.
I think he's earned it by putting up with the abuse that he's put up with, as have the family.
You know, I don't think that we fully appreciate the sacrifice that the Trump family made for this.
Now, we observe that they enjoyed, it looks like they enjoyed the whole ride, you know, Don Jr.
in particular. I think he just loved the whole fight, basically.
He loves a good fight. As did I. I enjoyed the fight.
And I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Trump family that is enormous.
Melania, Ivanka, they didn't want this.
They did not sign up for this, but they sure performed.
And I think they really...
They showed the...
You could argue...
That Melania, and I would say Ivanka, too, for sure.
Don Jr., you could throw in there.
I feel as if they're the real patriots here, because they did not ask for the job.
They were not the ones who benefit from the job.
Probably their reputations will suffer more than they could get a benefit.
But they stepped up.
They saw a situation in which they could be patriots, But it would require a pure sacrifice.
Now, some of you might say that's true of Trump as well, but I think he's a separate case.
Because I think Trump wanted the job, and, you know, that's just different.
The rest of them are just the purest form of patriots.
Even if you disagree with everything they've done and said.
If you're a Democrat, you don't like what they've done.
Still, still, they're the purest patriots that we've observed.
Because they had nothing to gain.
Basically nothing to gain.
I mean, you could argue they were helping the boss, and that's real.
But it feels like, you know, we've had lots of presidents and their families didn't get involved in the same ways.
And I just feel that that has to be recognized as probably just the purest form of patriotism that this country produces.
And thank you. So this is my personal thank you.
To Ivanka, Melania, Jared Kushner, the family, Don Jr., Eric, Lara, and all of them.
