Episode 1246 Scott Adams: I Tell You Why Trump Should Resign Today, As Well as All of Congress and the Entire News Media
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The one person who will run congress
President Trump's current opportunities
Kimberley Strassel's WSJ article
The best and worst pre-inauguration Presidents
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's time. Yeah, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of the day.
And I feel as though that's been proven beyond a scientific doubt.
And if you'd like to enjoy it to its maximum extent, all the provocation, and there will be some, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a fessel of any kind.
Fill it with what?
Your favorite liquid. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except a capital protest.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens now.
Go! Yeah, that was just what I hoped it would be.
So let's talk about all the things in the news.
I'm keeping count, and so far 73 people today have criticized me for opinions I do not hold.
It's about one per minute, so actually that number has probably climbed since we signed on here.
I heard there was a story about Georgia winning both of the two Senate seats, but nobody seems interested.
Literally the biggest story in the country is that the Senate was going to go Democrat.
And barely talking about it.
It's like the entire political world just turned upside down and all we can care about is whether Trump's going to resign or something.
Suddenly it went from the biggest question in the world to...
Now here's the question.
Do you think that Democrats having control of the Senate will allow them to do the things they want to do?
If you imagined...
That Congress was comprised of competent people with the best interests of the country at heart, you'd think that having a majority would be a pretty good deal.
But if you believe that Congress, no matter who has the majority and what, is a bunch of incompetent people who do not have your interests in mind, then it's not going to really matter, is it?
In theory, they won't be able to do anything useful because it's the same bunch of incompetents as before.
They have a majority, but, you know, on paper, it looks like they could just push through tax increases and all kinds of stuff.
And I'm sure there will be some of that.
I mean, it's not as if they won't make any changes.
But I imagine that we over-imagine how much change they can get away with.
You want to hear the funniest thing?
This is the funniest thing about the Senate being so close, but just barely Democrat.
Just barely.
Do you know what that means?
That means that if I were a Democrat and a Senator, do you know what I would do?
Well, I'm not proud of this, but if I were a Democrat this year, And a senator.
I would go to the Republicans and I'd say, you know, if I switch parties, pretty good deal for you guys, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah. But if I did that, I'd certainly want something in return.
Something pretty darn big.
So that's one way I could go.
I can't imagine that there's not one senator who isn't thinking, you know...
I could be the most powerful person in the world if I just sometimes say I'm not going to vote with my team.
Do you get that? We just turned over the senator to one person.
We just don't know who it is yet.
There will be one Democrat who becomes the famous one for sometimes not going the way the Democrats always go.
That person runs Congress.
We just gave Congress to one person and we don't even know who it is.
Will it be Joe Manchin?
Some people say he's not really the maverick type.
He only votes against his team when other people are doing it.
I'm just saying we just created a system in which it will only take one person to decide to run the entire Congress and they can do it.
They just have to create a reputation of sometimes voting for the other side.
Do you know who would be good to do that?
This is definitely not going to happen, but I'll just put it out there as a thought.
This is just a thought experiment.
There is one member of...
Well, no, you need a senator, so I guess that was a bad example.
What I was going to say is if AOC were a senator instead of a representative...
I could see her being one of the people who would be smart enough to know she could just take over the country.
She just has to show some ability to change sides sometimes.
Now, it would be tough for her because she's more extreme on the left and not a senator.
But in concept, you can see what we just did to ourselves.
The country just funneled all of its power into one person, and we don't know who it is.
We don't even have the name of the person.
I'm hearing Tulsi...
Oh my God. You're right.
You're right. We just handed power to Tulsi Gabbard.
How do you feel about that?
Not too bad.
It could be a lot worse, right?
How would you feel if you knew for sure that just through the strange confluence of events, we'd accidentally given the most power in the country to Tulsi Gabbard?
Because I feel like maybe that just happened, didn't it?
That would be the funniest outcome.
All right. So we got a number of people quitting in the Trump cabinet.
I guess Betsy DeVos and I guess Elaine Chao, McConnell's wife, and a bunch of other people.
Quitting in the Trump administration.
And people on both sides, now they're Republicans, calling for Trump to resign or maybe do the 25th Amendment and take him out for medical reasons or maybe impeach him.
And I tweeted this morning that this would be a good time for Trump to resign.
Do you know how many Twitter users you lose if you tweet?
Today's a good time for Trump to resign.
Well, it's thousands.
It's thousands. So I'm a little lighter on Twitter followers, but I feel bad for the people who don't wait for the second part.
Those of you who have been with me for a while, you know to wait for the second part, right?
Because there's never just a first part.
There's always a second part.
So let me tell you why I think this is a good day for Trump to resign.
Number one, it's Friday.
Friday is a good day to leave a job, a good day to fire somebody, because you just got the weekend right after it.
So Friday is always the best day of the week to do stuff like that, right?
If you're the person doing it, Friday is a good time.
Number two, Trump has never had better negotiating leverage.
Right? How many people want Trump to leave immediately?
Well, you've got all the Democrats.
They want him to leave immediately.
They don't want to mess with impeachment or 25th Amendment if they don't have to.
Immediately. How about Republicans?
There are plenty of Republicans who are saying, um, it's time.
I think even Tucker Carlson said Trump's date of expiration has passed.
So you've got plenty of Republicans who think it's time.
You've got plenty of Democrats who think it's time.
Trump's negotiating position just peaked.
Now, and only now, can he say to a Mike Pence, how about this?
Pardon everybody in my family for everything, including me.
And I'll go early.
Do you see it yet?
He's never been in a better position since realizing that he would probably lose the election.
He's never been in a stronger position.
If he's not talking to Pence about a deal, he's missing, like, the best opportunity to make a deal ever.
Because it's the only time that both sides would say, yeah!
Yeah, get him out of there.
If we have to make a deal, we'll do it.
But get him out of there. That's when I'd do it.
So I'm saying that today is a good day to resign.
Now remember, Trump has already committed to an orderly transfer of power.
It's not like he's going to get something done in the next two weeks.
What's he going to do? Do a trade deal with China?
Probably not. What exactly was he going to do for the country in the next two weeks?
I can't think of anything. But he could create trouble, right?
He can create trouble. Now, maybe he's got some extra pardons, pardon Assange, pardon some other people.
I would do that first, right?
Or you could work that into a Pence deal.
You could even say, Pence, you have to pardon Assange, and then I'll leave right away.
Something like that. So he could still get some stuff done, like pardons, but there's never been a better time to resign.
On top of that, I would say that he has destroyed any chance of a 2024 run.
I don't think that's even slightly practical at this point.
Because Trump has, he took it a little too far.
I think he took it a little too far.
Part of the reason that we've liked him as a president, those who have liked the show so far, is because he takes things a little too far.
That's more of a feature than a flaw.
But you know that taking things a little too far isn't going to work every time.
And this is a pretty strong example of where it didn't work.
Now, if this were the first term...
And Trump had done something of equivalent level to be criticized as his rhetoric about the Capitol and, you know, however much he encouraged that.
We assume some. If he had done this in the first term, people like me would have said, all right, all right, that's bad.
That's not good.
But you'd have to weigh that against the benefit you imagined he could do over the next three years.
You'd say, I don't like that.
But I don't want him to leave because I want those other benefits.
But if you only have two weeks left, what the hell benefits are you going to get?
I'm not expecting any benefits in the next two weeks.
So right now he's just a cost.
Every day that he's in the news, it makes people who have supported him, such as myself, look bad.
So at this point, it's just all downside.
Now, I have great affection for the president.
As you know, I met him personally.
Liked him a lot. If you spend 10 minutes chatting with him, you're probably going to walk away liking him.
He's a real likable human being, and he's got the big personality and everything.
It's all real. I mean, you feel it when you're in the room.
He's quite charismatic.
But there is a time...
When you have to say what's good for you personally, what's good for the country, and sometimes it might be a little different than what's good for your president.
This is that time.
Now, having said that this is a good time for President Trump to resign, and I think that the criticism that he encouraged, the capital protests that went too far and resulted in deaths, we'll talk about that, that's fair.
I think that's a fair criticism.
But again, given that there's only two weeks anyway, it's stronger than it would be if it had been the first term.
It just means a different thing.
But I would take that argument that says the Capitol protest would not have happened unless Trump's rhetoric had been, let's say, supportive of it.
Would you agree that that's true?
Could you say that if Trump had either been against the January 6th thing or simply not made as big a deal about, you know, what he made a big deal about, probably it wouldn't have happened, right?
Do we all agree that that's true?
And therefore, since it wouldn't have happened without his actions, you say, well, he takes responsibility.
But if you take that theory...
Oh, wait for the second part, you complainers.
There's a second part!
But if you take that same theory and say that it wouldn't have happened except for the actions of a person, you should extend that, logically, to anything else that also had to happen, right?
So there had to be an environment in which this could happen.
So you had to have massive...
Incompetence in Congress and in our elected officials to make an election system that wasn't credible.
Wouldn't you say that Congress has full responsibility for making an election system that wasn't credible?
And because of that, if you would remove that variable, there would have been no protest at the Capitol.
So using the same standard, I think this would be an appropriate time for Trump to resign.
Largely because of his encouraging of the protests that went too far.
But Congress, I think, also should resign.
Every one of them.
All of them. And if there's anybody in Congress who is not actively working on fixing the election system for the next time, well, they should resign.
Because they're just going to cause the same problem again.
If people are resigning today because of what got...
What was caused this week by their actions, they should just resign right away, because 2024 they're already causing another revolt by not fixing the problem, not even addressing it.
So I would say every member of Congress, all Republicans and all Democrats, who are not actively working on fixing it for next time, that every one of them needs to resign.
And I don't think there's any question about that, is there?
Would anybody question that?
Now, of course, you want your person to stay so your party has more members.
I get that.
But as a general statement, when you say that any member of Congress, the Senate, the House, if they're not actively working on pushing for better election credibility, they have to resign.
I mean, they really have to resign because they're both responsible for the problems this year and But they're already creating the same problem for next year.
You can't even blame Trump for that.
Right? Trump won't be here.
But Congress will be here, and they're already creating the same problem for the next time by not working to fix it.
So yeah, they all have to quit.
They all have to resign if we're being consistent.
Now, also contributing to the situation yesterday was the fake news.
If we had real news where you could depend on it and you could rely on it, The real news would have said, here's the situation with the vote, and let's say that they said it was a credible election, because they did.
What if the fake news had been a credible institution for the last several years?
How would you feel if the news that you trusted said, yeah, I know it looks like Trump lost, and I know you're looking at all these indicators, but trust us, we looked into it.
Trump actually lost.
Fair and square. What if a legitimate news organization told you that, and you said, ah, these guys are usually honest, they're usually right.
It looks like it was stolen, but I guess it wasn't.
What would be the result?
Well, obviously there would not have been a protest at the Capitol.
So everybody who works in the fake news industry, anybody who pushed the Russia collusion hoax, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, and even this hoax.
So this week we're watching the press push a new hoax.
The hoax is that this was a coup attempt.
The fake news, I think the Atlantic has something about this, the fake news, even right now, is telling you that that was a coup attempt.
Now, I'm no expert coup plotter, but let me tell you how plotting a coup never looks.
Here's how it never looks in the planning phase.
Hey, you want to overtake the government?
Good idea. I'm in.
How do you want to do it?
Well, we're going to need resources.
Yeah, if you're going to plan a coup to take over the country, you're going to need some resources.
What are you going to bring? Well, I'm going to bring Viking horns, and I heard there's a guy who's got some twist ties.
Should we bring anything else, like perhaps deadly weapons?
Don't see why. Well, one reason would be you're planning a coup against the most advanced military power in the history of the solar system.
What do you think it would take to get that done?
That's going to take 10, 11 twist ties.
Some people would say that would take 20, 30 twist ties.
Well, I don't think so.
That's just over-planning.
I think a small bunch of twist ties, if, you know, not by themselves.
Obviously, you're not going to take over a country with one handful of twist ties.
I don't want to leave you with that impression.
You would also need a guy who has Viking horns.
And importantly, make sure that nobody brings a deadly weapon and brandishes it.
You don't want that. So your news, if you can even fucking call them that, is reporting that this was a coup attempt with a handful of twist ties and a guy with Viking horns.
Those were the only weapons. Now, if we had an honest, dependable news organization, along with social media that would support it with, you know, not, let's say, not filtering the wrong people and not promoting the wrong stories, etc., I don't feel like the Capitol protest would have happened.
So I'm calling for the resignation today of all the CEOs of the social media platforms, because they're clearly complicit, If you took out the effect of social media, would there have been protests?
Of course not. Of course not.
You'd have to have that element for these protests to happen.
And that element would have to be not honest for this to happen.
And there you go.
So certainly the president should resign.
And by the way, I mean that seriously.
He should actually resign.
Both for his own good, if he can work out the best deal Because of the situation.
But also for the good of the country.
We don't have any extra benefit to get from him, and he is our servant.
We elected him to do stuff for us.
When he's done doing stuff for us, because there's nothing he can do in the next few days, It's just going to be causing trouble.
So now's the time.
And it doesn't matter if you've been a supporter of him or how much you love him, how much you think you should still be president.
It doesn't matter if you think the election was stolen or not stolen.
It's just time. It's just time, right?
Things have ends. We're there.
So you should definitely resign, but all the members of Congress should resign, and certainly any member of Congress who didn't speak out against the BLM and Antifa riots all summer, including this week, Portland's again under siege with nearly nightly riots.
Now, anybody in Congress who didn't speak out about that Including today, because it's still happening.
Well, they have to resign.
I mean, that's easy, right?
So all the congresspeople who were on that, they need to resign.
All the fake news industry, they need to resign.
All the CEOs of the social media platforms need to resign.
And I would like to offer my own resignation.
Unfortunately, I don't have a boss, so it doesn't hold the same weight as other people resigning.
But if it makes you feel better, would Trump have been elected if people like me had not supported him?
Well, not by myself.
I probably didn't make the difference to put him over the line.
But I'm part of a group of people.
Whose support, if you imagine, did not exist.
He would not be president.
There would be no protest at the Capitol.
So I feel like I should resign.
I just don't have a boss.
So it might be a little bit more theater.
But I offer you my resignation for my role in all of this.
I take full responsibility.
Let's see what else is going on here.
And by the way, does anybody disagree that Trump's 2024 run ended this week?
There's not really any chance that he could run for president again.
And by the way, I wouldn't support it for 2024 based on age alone.
So it wouldn't matter what else was true.
It wouldn't matter. He's the only one who can beat Trump.
Whoever he's running against, or it's fair, or it's the only way we can take back the country.
There would be lots of arguments for him, and he might actually be in pretty good shape in four years.
It's perfectly possible that he has all of his faculties, etc.
But you couldn't bet on that for the four years after that.
That would be a pretty bad bet.
So, no, his 2024 run is, I say, completely done.
At least in terms of the odds of winning, it's completely done by this week.
I guess Kimberly Strassel wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in which one of the things she said was, the pity is that Mr.
Trump's conflagration will mostly burn the Americans.
He wants Washington help.
They will bear the higher taxes, the higher costs of regulation, the higher unemployment, the loss of freedoms, etc.
So would you say that Trump's conflagrations...
There's a word I never use in public or even in writing.
I would recommend that you not use that word either.
That's one of those words that...
Maybe just never use it.
Because it's a bigger word...
Than what you need to say what you say.
And why would you use a word that half of the people reading it don't understand?
Why would you do that? So don't use that word.
Conflagration. Conflagration.
But do you think that what Trump's actions, whatever his actions were this week, do you think that it caused the...
Or let's say his actions, you know, collectively...
Do you think it cost him the election, which therefore cost his supporters, all the things that they wanted?
Is that a fair statement?
I'm not sure if I'm quite capturing Kimberly Strassel's argument, so I'll just say that I'm asking the question.
I don't know. You can make that argument, but I think, you know, if people elected a fighter and they got a fighter...
I don't know. I'm not quite buying into that criticism.
So here's an argument that I'm hearing today about the election fraud claims, which, because I'm on social media, I have to frame this by saying there is no proof, no proof of any election irregularity that would make a difference to the outcome.
But having said that, So that I don't get deplatformed yet today.
Here's the argument I'm hearing about the court cases that were put forward and I guess 59 out of 60 failed and the one that didn't fail didn't seem that important or something.
But people are actually arguing with these two points of view as if they're compatible.
Number one, that the Trump supporting lawyers who put forward all of these lawsuits That they included the best fraud arguments.
So this is the first part.
So the Trump critics are saying, the lawyers who put forth all of these cases that failed, they put together...
That it was complete and it had all the claims in it.
All the strong claims were there and that judges have seen the strong claims and ruled that they weren't strong and dismissed them.
So that's one claim.
The other claim is that those same lawyers who did a thorough and complete job of the best fraud allegations and they captured them in lawsuits and put them forward Those same highly qualified lawyers who didn't miss anything.
They got all the good arguments and put them forward.
But somehow, although they're really capable and competent of getting the best arguments, they're also crazy clowns who can't tell a conspiracy theory that's kind of obvious from the truth.
So somehow these two opposites are being put forward.
That the lawyers were thorough and got everything and presented everything and therefore the court rejected them.
But also those same lawyers that are so thorough and good at making arguments are also completely crazy conspiracy clowns.
I feel like you have to pick one.
I've picked one.
And the one I picked is I don't believe that there's any chance that the lawyers were capable enough to put together the strong argument.
Do you believe it? Do you think that this group of lawyers had the capability to look at, let's say, the statistical arguments and know the good ones from the bad ones, ask the right questions?
I don't think they had anything like that capability.
If you would just judge from their public statements, the lawyers...
And here I'm talking about the Sidney Powells, the Lynn Woods.
I'm not talking about Jenna Ellison.
So I'm talking about the ones who are a little bit more out there, not the ones who are sticking to the constitutional questions.
That's all just fair.
But the ones who are out there.
And then which lawyers were they that put together the ones that are not directly from the Trump administration?
That was most of them, right? What kind of capability did any of those lawyers have?
Well, I feel like, you know, you've got some strong attorneys, definitely.
But it looked like most of them were deeply incompetent.
So why would I assume that the courts have seen a good argument?
I assume that they haven't.
Now, that doesn't mean a good argument exists.
All I know is, if you're arguing that the lawyers presented the good arguments, I would say that's completely inconsistent with anything I saw from the lawyers who were in charge of the arguments.
I didn't see any competence.
I didn't see anything that looked even remotely competent.
From Trump's main attorneys.
Again, not Jen Ellis.
There's some that were sticking to the constitutional questions, mostly.
So that's my argument.
My argument is that the case has not been made.
Now, people quite reasonably ask me, what did I think were these strong arguments?
I'll tell you what the weak ones are.
The weak ones are, I saw this thing on videotape, weak, because it's not there.
I watched the same videotape.
The ones about the pristine ballots, you know, there can't be any unfolded ballots that's been debunked.
There can be. There are reasons that are good.
The shredded ballots, that appears debunked, because I think they just shred some envelopes or something.
And I can go down the line.
The dead people voting has not been proven.
The people with the wrong addresses at least hasn't been proven.
Now, there's some question about whether the information has been made available so you could prove or disprove these things.
But I would say all of those claims fall into the category of things that 95% chance are fake.
You know, the van showing up with the fake votes and stuff.
Maybe. I mean, anything's possible.
If I had to bet, I'd bet against it.
So that class of things I will categorize as, in my subjective opinion, as unlikely to be true.
So that will be collectively the weak criticisms.
Doesn't mean they're true.
They're not true. I'm not saying that none of them are true.
I'm saying that from my limited vantage point where I don't know the real truth, I'm just looking at the claims because that's all I know, they don't look strong to me.
So if somebody's asking me my opinion, what would be strong claims?
I would say, for example, we don't have access to the software.
We haven't done an audit of the data logs.
We don't have...
There's lots of eyewitness evidence that the observers were limited.
The Italian story, I don't put any credibility in.
Again, I suppose anything's possible, but I would say that the Italian connection, that doesn't look even slightly plausible to me by its nature.
I don't have any inside knowledge about it.
It's just that sometimes when there's a story about Bigfoot, You don't really have to research it.
It's just, it's Bigfoot.
You can tell just by looking at it, right?
You don't need too much research.
That said, every once in a while, there's going to be something that looks ridiculous.
It looks like it's a Bigfoot, but that's true.
You know, every once in a while.
You never know for sure.
I just put it in the category of things that are really, really unlikely to be true.
Now, let's talk about the strong evidence.
I would say the strong evidence is an eyewitness of anything, especially if there's more than one.
One eyewitness?
Eh. But two eyewitnesses?
Now you're getting towards something.
Any kind of a...
As I said, the fact that we haven't audited the software...
While at the same time we know that it is hackable.
Because all systems are.
There's no exception to that.
And then I would say these statistical claims, not every one of them, but that some of them are backed by statisticians who do seem to have the right data, I would call those strong claims.
Now, when I say something is a strong claim, is that the same as saying it's true?
No. There are just some claims that, by their nature, look really strong.
Now, I don't know if they've been debunked or not.
I'll give you one example of one that, by its nature, sounds strong, but that doesn't mean it's true.
And I mentioned this before.
If you had two, let's say, voting precincts right next to each other, and since the beginning of time they always voted the same way, because they have basically the same demographics, You know, you've got, let's say, 60% are Democrats, and every year, 60% same ratio.
And then, this year, they diverged.
Wildly. Well, that could be a coincidence.
Could be somebody did better, voter, voter, I don't know, get out to vote in one than the other.
But if you have enough of them, if you have enough of them, that tells a different story.
You know, one or two, no big deal.
But all the right ones at just the right places?
So if a professional statistician says, I'm using the official database, you can look at it yourself, here's my math, and I've calculated that the odds that this was a fair election are.01, or I'm just making this up, but something like that.
I would call that strong evidence, which is not necessarily true.
Meaning that there could be another explanation.
It's just we don't know what it is.
So, would that suppose that case were made in court?
Would a judge say, ah, the statistics are quite compelling, therefore I rule it was a fake election?
Not without direct evidence, right?
If you're in a court and If you're in court, don't you have direct evidence?
Is statistical enough?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the answer to that.
Now, it might be if you had enough statistical doubt that the court could order, I don't know, a recount or a re-election or something.
So I don't know how that would work legally.
I'm just making the general statement that strong evidence would be statistical evidence In which everybody agrees on the database, nobody's doubting the data came from the right place, an actual expert in the field, not an amateur, and ideally maybe another expert who looks at it and says, yeah, you did the math right.
I would consider that strong evidence.
Now, which of the 59 court cases was the example that I just gave you?
Which of those did the judge evaluate that specific thing that I just mentioned and decided that it wasn't convincing?
I don't know. The reason I don't know is that we don't have a functional news business.
Imagine if we did.
If I were a reporter and I wanted to do an actual real job, where I gave real information to people, It would look like this.
I would say, what are all the allegations?
And then I would do what I just did in public here.
I would sort them from the ones that, if they were true, would be strong, versus the ones that, nah, they're just Bigfoot claims.
And then I would take the few that look strong, and I would do a story about them.
I'd talk to the statistician.
I'd make sure I talked to another statistician, say, hey, did he do this work right?
Can you check this out?
I'd make sure that the database is the same one that both sides agree is the actual data, and then I'd write an opinion on it.
Where's that? Have you read a story like that?
Can you imagine anything that would be more important than that story?
Somebody looking at the strongest claim and just sort of digging into it a little bit.
The only ones I see are where the fake news takes the weakest claims, so they'll take, you know, They'll say 10 of the weakest claims of, there might be 25 or 30 claims, they'll debunk the 10 and they'll leave you the impression that those were the good ones.
But they weren't. They were the dumb ones.
So the public is, of course, being manipulated and brainwashed by the propaganda that strong claims have been evaluated, but I've not seen any evidence of that.
I mean, it could be. Could be that they have been.
I just have no evidence of it because we don't have a news media that works.
So, Ali Alexander, who is organizer of the Stop the Steal event January 6th, which got out of hand and turned into these Capitol protests.
I'm wondering how he's feeling about this today.
Because now we know that five people died.
And here's the bigger question.
Will we ever have a protest in the future in which the protests, let's say they're peaceful protests, or they're intended to be peaceful, will we ever have a protest where bad elements don't get into it to break stuff and hurt people?
Because I feel as if we never will have another situation where there could be a peaceful protest.
Because there'll always be the instigators who say, ah, this is perfect.
And whether they're Antifa or just people who like trouble, they'll just go there to break stuff and cause trouble.
And then whatever trouble that is will be, you know, applied to the reputation of the entire thing.
So have we seen the end of public protests that can work?
Because a public protest doesn't work if there are bad elements in it that are killing people or breaking stuff.
So I would say that Black Lives Matter had this great cause, great intentions, but because of the looters, the Antifa and the looters who tagged themselves onto the movement, they ended up behind the curve.
You know, recommending dumb stuff like, you know, defunding the police, probably hurt them politically, set them back.
So I don't know if we may have reached a point where you just can't have a friendly protest and come out ahead.
That every time you have a protest, you come out behind.
Certainly Black Lives Matter, I would say they came out behind.
And I would say that the Capitol protests came out behind as well.
And both for the same reason.
They both had, you know, bad elements in them.
That did not represent the sentiment of the whole, but the whole gets the reputation of the few.
I don't know. I feel as if public protest just won't work anymore.
What's that do to you?
Speaking of public protest, apparently Michelle Obama is recommending an end to free speech, which is interesting.
Now, technically, since it wouldn't be the government who would be making these decisions, she's saying the tech companies should permanently ban Trump from their platforms.
If it is ever okay to ban somebody like Trump, Why wouldn't it be okay to ban people who also had similarly provocative and sometimes incorrect ideas?
As soon as you allow that this is okay, that you can pick out one person and ban them, you can kind of ban everybody after that.
Now, I don't believe in the slippery slope, but this isn't even a slippery slope.
This is starting at the bottom of the hill.
If you can ban Trump for being incorrect, but you're not going to ban Biden for inciting violence against Trump supporters all day yesterday?
I mean, that's what he did.
Biden was inciting violence against people like me in the country Demonizing half the country.
But Michelle Obama would say he could stay, despite the fine people hoax and the most divisive lies we've ever seen.
I would say more so than Trump.
You know, Trump's divisive.
But I think Biden beat him by a little bit.
You know, not a lot, maybe 20% worse.
But if Biden's okay and Trump isn't, that's the end of freedom of speech.
Practically. You know, the Constitution will still say it.
But if social media can shut you down, that's how you speak these days.
So for Michelle Obama to actually come out unambiguously against freedom of speech, those are my words, not hers, but it's pretty unambiguous what this means, is shocking.
It's just shocking.
And that it's treated as just a suggestion.
This isn't just a suggestion.
This would be the end of everything.
Because if you get rid of freedom of speech the way Michelle Obama is suggesting, that is straight to totalitarianism.
You know, you won't even pause.
Straight to totalitarianism if you do that.
So did Biden encourage violence against Trump supporters, or am I exaggerating?
Well, he did paint the Trump supporters as being complicit, essentially, in whatever Trump did.
And Certainly he's painted Trump as a racist and therefore all of his supporters.
I would say that he did, in fact, paint a target on the back of Trump supporters.
Now let's compare, because what will happen starting now is that everything Biden does will be compared to everything that Trump did in the similar situation.
That's unavoidable.
So let's start now and start keeping track.
When Trump and Pence were first elected and before they were inaugurated, do you remember how I was talking glowingly about their pre-inauguration work?
Because they went to Ford and tried to convince them to keep jobs here.
They went to Carrier. Now, I don't think either of those two things made much difference.
In fact, I don't think any jobs were created from that.
But I was praising it not for those specifics, not about Ford and not about Carrier, but because it created...
An understanding in the country about how serious Trump was about jobs, and especially keeping jobs in the United States.
And I think that that was transformative about how we thought about it, you know, what was a priority, and then he went and he succeeded, right?
He had the lowest unemployment, set all kinds of records.
So I would say if you were to judge the Trump-Pence pre-inauguration phase, it's the best I've ever seen, by far.
Name anybody else who made a difference pre-inauguration.
I've never even heard of it.
But Trump Pence did, and it was real.
I called it out at the time.
I'm not a 2020 hindsight guy.
I called it out live at the time.
Now compare that to Biden.
He just did the most divisive speech I've ever heard from a president or a president-elect.
And I would give him a complete failing grade to the point of, I think he should resign.
I think Biden should resign because of his speech yesterday, condemning half of the country as racist.
Now, so if you're keeping score...
And this is inevitable.
The pre-inauguration phase for Pence and Trump is A+. That was my score when it happened.
Biden's pre-inauguration is a failing grade.
He's literally suggesting or promoting violence against half the country.
I don't know if you could fail harder than that, really.
What could Biden have done that would have been even worse?
Pre-inauguration. Once he has power, he can do things that are worse.
But until he has power, I don't know that he could find any way to be worse.
Actually, he did. Some of his appointments, apparently, involved people who pushed the Russia collusion hoax.
That's worse. Well, maybe it's not.
Maybe it's not worse. It's not worse than promoting violence against half the country.
In my opinion. That's my interpretation of what he was doing.
So I would say Biden is the worst president we've ever had pre-inauguration.
And Trump is the best president we've ever had pre-inauguration.
So as we go, I'll keep doing my scorecard, but right now it's not even close.
Not even close. Now, will Biden provide a better job in his transition of power?
Probably. So if you want to look ahead, I'll probably be giving Biden higher marks for whatever he does when he transitions and leaves office than I'm giving Trump, because I'm literally saying Trump should resign over it.
So, you know, I'll try to be fair.
But so far, it's one to nothing Trump.
All right, apparently there were two pipe bombs during this situation at the Capitol.
One pipe bomb was put up by the Republican National Committee headquarters, and the other pipe bomb by the Democratic National Committee headquarters.
Who do you think placed two pipe bombs in those two locations?
Was it Republicans?
Do Republicans put pipe bombs in front of Republican and Democratic headquarters?
Probably not. Was it Democrats?
Would they put a pipe bomb in front of the Republican office and the Democratic office?
Probably not. Probably not.
What entity or entities would put a bomb at both of those places while there was also going to be a big organized protest?
Well, Antifa.
Yeah, Antifa would do it, because Antifa wants everybody to be fighting everybody in chaos.
And I'm not interpreting.
That's actually what they want, explicitly.
What about China?
Would China put a pipe bomb in those two places to cause trouble in the United States?
Well, I'm not saying they did.
I'm saying they would.
How about Russia?
Sure. Yeah, Russia would do that.
Anybody who wanted the United States to do poorly would do that.
But it's not the people who were marching.
It's definitely not the people who were there for the Stop the Steal event.
It wasn't them. They're the only ones you can rule out.
Now, let's count up.
I said there were five people who died as a result of various things.
Let's count up the number of people who were killed by any intentional act of the protesters.
Alright? So five people died.
Let's count up how many of the five were killed by the protesters.
Zero. Zero.
Right? Now, there was a police officer who died of injuries.
And you might say to yourself, well, there's one.
Somebody injured him to the point of death.
But here's what we know.
And by the way, if that proved to be true, then that's just true.
We don't have that information yet.
But at the moment, what it looks like is we had one person who died of a stroke.
One person who somehow got trampled to death, which I don't quite understand, you know, I don't really know how you get trampled to death, but, I mean, it could happen, I mean, I could see it with a gigantic crowd, a soccer riot, but I don't know how it happened in this case.
I guess it could. But obviously that's not a case of anything intentionally being done.
It's tragic, but an accident.
There was a case of some law enforcement person who shot one of the protesters who was unarmed.
But again, that wasn't the fault of the protesters shooting anybody else.
It was them getting shot.
And then there were some...
How many police officers?
Three police officers?
Who died? No, how many died?
But a few police officers died based on something that happened.
Now, here's...
I don't want to make light of any deaths because they're all tragic and we'll take them all seriously.
But it has to be said that if you were to compare the protesters at the Capitol to, let's say, an Antifa or Black Lives Matter protest, it has to be said...
That there is a difference in health.
In other words, you've never heard of anybody in the Black Lives Matter or Antifa group who were killed because they had a stroke while they were protesting.
It's a healthier group.
They're younger. They seem to be far more fit.
They could ride all night.
But the Trump supporters, unfortunately, were not, let's say, in the healthy lifestyle segment of the population.
And you just mobilize that many old fat people and somebody's just going to drop dead.
And that's partly what happened.
I would bet that when we find out what happened with the law enforcement people who died, that it might be some combination of bad health Plus the things that were happening.
I don't know that they died because somebody stabbed them, shot them, or bludgeoned them.
I feel as if, you know, there's a lot yet to learn.
But whatever killed those policemen could be very similar to whatever killed the number of the protesters, which is...
Bad health. You couldn't survive a crowd, couldn't survive the excitement, couldn't survive something that would have not killed somebody else.
So it has to be said that the deaths are at least partially a demographic artifact, meaning that if you put a bunch of 70-plus-year-old overweight people into an exciting physical situation, people are going to get hurt. You put a bunch of young Antifa people in the same situation, maybe not so much.
There is a difference. Yeah, there's a big difference in age.
Right. So that's a big deal.
All right. So just to reinforce, I'm not mocking anybody.
I'm saying that that's a real difference and you can't ignore it.
So, let's see.
Everybody's calling this an attempted coup, but that's crazy, because Viking horns is not a coup.
The other thing you're hearing is that if Black Lives Matter had tried to take over the Capitol, the pushback would have been different.
The guns would start blazing away, and there'd be a different result.
To which I say, would it?
I don't feel like that's a reasonable assumption.
Because what we watched was a white woman who was unarmed being shot through the neck intentionally.
And I'm thinking to myself, it would be worse?
It would be worse than that?
Shooting somebody who is unarmed?
Isn't that like the worst thing?
It would be one thing if she was, you know, attacking the person who shot her, but she was just coming through a window.
Now, let me say as clearly as I can, I don't know what the law enforcement rules or strategies are in that situation.
And if there were, let's say, if Mike Pence was behind that door, maybe you can shoot people.
Maybe you can. That would be the extreme situation.
So I don't want to judge before I know all of the facts.
But it's hard for me to imagine it would be worse if it had been Black Lives Matter.
I feel as if it had been Black Lives Matter, they would have done the same thing, which is if the numbers were so great, they would have gotten out of the way.
Because the Capitol Police took injuries.
It's obvious that the Capitol Police used physical defense, at least, and physical force.
It's obvious that they put in the work, they took the personal risk, and I have great respect for all the individuals who did that.
But once the numbers were big enough of the protesters, the smart play was to get out of the way.
Are you telling me that if exactly the same situation happened with black protesters, and there were so many of them, that once the defenders had realized they couldn't hold them back, what would they do?
Start blazing away and shooting into the crowd?
I don't think so.
I think they would have gotten out of the way.
Exactly like what you saw.
Would they have shot one of the black protesters in the neck and killed him?
Maybe. Maybe if it was the same situation, first one to break through a barrier, Pence is in the other room, maybe.
But I actually doubt it.
If I had to guess what it would look like if that crowd had been black, it would be either exactly the same or one less shooting.
Because you really have to think twice, three times, four times, five times before you shoot a black protester or a black suspect or anybody black because you know the pushback will be extreme.
If you shoot a white person, you've got a problem with the shooting itself.
But you don't have a riot.
If you shoot a black person, it doesn't matter the reason.
We know that. Doesn't matter the reason.
I mean, if they're unarmed, that's the whole story, right?
Unarmed, done. It'd be a huge riot.
So I feel as if the people who say there would be more pushback if they were black, I feel like it's the opposite.
But there's no way to test it.
I mean, you're not going to run the experiment.
So as Joel Pollack asked on Twitter, if Trump is going to be blocked by social media, and you've got Joe Biden, who just at the same day, he lied about Trump and tear who just at the same day, he lied about Trump and tear gas, he lied about Trump and holding
he repeated the fine people hoax, and he called Capitol Police racist, essentially, saying that they would have acted differently if there were black protesters.
And as Joel says, all of these statements could be used to justify violence.
I think that's a fair analysis.
So if you can't get rid of Biden for doing basically the same thing Trump is doing, he's just a Democrat doing it, then you better not get rid of anybody.
All right. That is Trump going on locals.
Well, Don Jr.
is on Locals. So if it might happen yet, you never know.
All right, that's all I got for now.
Somebody says, were there not black people at the MAGA protest?
There were. Now, I am seeing reports of Antifa being...
In the crowd, and they look credible.
I don't know if it's true, but the video I saw did seem to look like it was Antifa, and it did seem to look like the MAGA people were calling them Antifa and trying to stop them from breaking windows.
Again, video lies, so you never know, but that's what it looked like.
All right, I'm just going to look at your comments for a moment.
um Andrew Yang has proposals on media and social media.
Oh, that would be interesting. You know, I have a very high opinion of Andrew Yang only because he has interesting and innovative ideas.
That are not sort of obvious political things.
So even when Andrew Yang says things that maybe I don't agree with, I so fully respect the way he thinks about it and the fact that his intentions are unambiguously positive that anything Andrew Yang says, you should take it seriously.
He's a patriot. Am I worried about being thrown in prison by a Biden-Harris administration?
A little bit. Yeah, a little bit.
The problem is not that I would be arrested for something that I'm doing in public or something, I said.
The problem is that if you get on an enemies list, as Chuck Schumer said, the intelligence agencies have a thousand ways from Sunday to get back at you.
Now, I'm not saying that any intelligence agency would come after me, but yeah, I'm worried that there will be some kind of retribution.
And I would say that if you based it on the rhetoric, there's every intention of retribution.
So I do expect that I will be targeted first by the media.
I think they're probably already starting today.
Have you seen this start yet?
By the end of today, maybe over the weekend, I'll bet you I can forward you some articles that are hit pieces on me that haven't even been written yet.
It's kind of predictable if you've been doing this for a while.
So I do believe that some pressure will be applied to me.
What my critics fail to understand is that I'm not like other people.
Meaning that I don't have a boss that will fire me, and even if my customers all fired me, I'd be fine.
So that's their first miscalculation if they come after me.
The second one is that unlike other people, I do know how to transform energy into my benefit.
So if they came at me with massive negative energy, Unlike someone who is not trained, I could convert it into my energy.
And I would just get new users and have more audience and have a bigger platform.
So if they come after me, I don't think I'm going to go down as easily as they hope.
I'm probably more anti-fragile than what they're used to.
So going after me would have a cost.
For example, they've been going after me.
Democrats have pretty viciously For four years, and I have the largest following I've ever had for this topic.
So I don't think it works on me, but it's going to happen.
There's a petition for CJ, somebody says.
All right, I'm just...
You can always find me on the Locals platform if anything happens to me on the other social media platforms.
And... Head on a swivel.
I don't know what that means now. Stay off planes?
Yeah. I think I'll stay off planes.
Alright, that's all I have for now, and I will talk to you later.
All right, all you YouTubers, where's the slaughter meter?
So the thing that I'll have to deal with, maybe forever, is that I predicted Trump would win re-election, and of course Biden will be inaugurated.
But what's weird about it is we don't really know if I'm right or wrong, because my prediction was not It wasn't about a system taking over and replacing the votes.
It wasn't about fraud.
I just said that Trump would get the most votes in the right places for the electoral college to be re-elected.
Now, that didn't happen, but I don't know if you could say my prediction was wrong if the reason we suspect it may have gone the way it did It was because of rule changes, last minute, and the coronavirus and everything else.
So I'm not sure that any prediction made sense because so many things changed that are not just the voters voting.
There were so many things in the environment, allegations of fraud, but at the very least there was media manipulation and rule changes and lawyer tricks and all that.
So I'm not sure that we saw anything like an election.
So if somebody says to me, Scott, you said that Trump would win the election, what do you say now?
I say, did we have an election?
Because I'm not aware of anything like a credible election.
We had something we called an election, but if half the country doesn't believe it really happened, did we have an election?
Sort of a matter of an opinion, isn't it?
We had an event, but it certainly wasn't a...
Credible and transparent election.
Was it fair? I don't know, because it wasn't credible and transparent.
Had it been, maybe I could determine if it had also been fair.
That's something I'll never know.
So I don't think you can determine whether I was right or wrong unless there was an election that we all agree was an actual election.
And since that's not the case, I would say that I get an incomplete on that prediction.
Although if I were going to make a list, I'd say that I got it wrong.
Somebody says, the only hypnotist that has never hypnotized anyone.
Don't know what that means. Reichstag fire.
Somebody keeps asking me to talk about it.
I don't have any reason to talk about that.
I don't use analogies as predictions or reasons, and neither should you.
Do you know what you should compare to the Reichstag fire?
Nothing. Nothing.
Do you know what you should compare to the Holocaust?
Nothing. Nothing. Not a single thing.
Do you know what you should compare to Hitler?
Nobody. And you shouldn't use that as an analogy.
I mean, it's a cautionary tale, so it's worth that.
We should learn as much as we can from it.
But as soon as you're labeling other people Hitler, you're just in ridiculous land.
Why ever vote again?
Well, let's see if the election system is more stable.
Here's a good question. Wait, I want this one to come back.
Who pays you?
Who supplied the bots and trolls?
Do you really think I'm paid?
Let me answer directly.
I don't get paid by any political entity directly or indirectly.
I only make money from the live stream if I sell a book or something.
So no, I'm not paid by anybody.
That would be great though.
It would be terrific if somebody wanted to give me money for doing what I'm doing anyway.
So if anybody wants to pretend they're bribing me, well, I just do what I was going to do anyway.
That'd be cool. And you're still asking me to talk about the Reichstag fire.
Let me tell you as clearly as possible.
I'm not going to talk about that because it would be a dumb thing to talk about.
All right, so having asked for it now ten times, I will block you.
Let's say... Remove.
I guess I can remove it, but I can't block you here.
I'll block you later. Alright, so no more questions about Reichstag fires, please.
