Episode 1252 Scott Adams: I Teach You How to Fix Wokeness and Free Speech Problems With Aggressive Compliance
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Jack Dorsey's statement on banning President Trump
congress saved 2B at a cost of 10B?
An impeachment of Trump...or of free speech?
Identifying a propaganda bubble
Hypocrite strategy is a LOSING strategy
Aggressive compliance strategy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. Well, today is a special day full of interesting news.
But most importantly, I'm going to tell you how to fix everything.
And before we get to that, let's enjoy it to its maximum potential.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or cyanide canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous hip and it happens now.
Go. What's the slaughter meter?
Somebody says. Well, you know, it's interesting.
If you make a prediction about the outcome of the election, but you're not entirely sure if everything's been audited as much as it could be, is the prediction wrong?
Or is it hard to measure?
So, let's talk about all the things.
Big news today. I think you heard Trump got impeached for a second time.
You know, I don't hate that at all.
It has nothing to do with what Trump did or didn't do.
I kind of like the fact that he got impeached twice.
It feels better than once.
Am I the only one who feels that?
Because if you get impeached once, what does history make of it?
I think they say, well, probably did something to deserve getting impeached.
That would be the first thing you'd assume, right?
Because impeachment's pretty serious.
If you're going to impeach somebody, you probably put some thought into it and made an argument, etc.
So if you're impeached once, that feels really, really bad on your record.
But if you're impeached twice, and especially if the last one is a week before you leave office, does that say something about Trump, or does that say something about impeachment?
See where I'm heading?
I think he came out ahead.
Now, I know I'm the guy everybody mocks for spinning things pro-Trump, no matter what it is.
No matter what it is.
But I'll just put that out there.
If it were me, if I were in his position, I would much prefer being impeached twice.
Because the second one is so obviously bullshit, it makes the first one look like bullshit.
See where I'm going here?
Two impeachments, obviously just political.
One impeachment, maybe he did something worth impeaching.
It just makes the credibility of the whole thing so much less.
And I also like the fact that That Trump is a sort of a person of extremes and a person of records.
Good records, bad records, but records.
He's a guy who sets all kinds of records.
I kind of like the fact that he has the record for impeachments.
Because it does tell the story better than if he only had one.
If he has the record, well then he's truly a, let's say, a disruptive character.
If he just has one...
Maybe he just did something wrong.
All right. Jack Dorsey made a large statement on Twitter about the banning of Trump from Twitter.
And I like to look at these CEO statements about controversial items to see how they did.
Just to see how the communication went, whether it's persuasive.
So, separating from the topic...
I'm just going to talk about whether the communication was done well.
Skipping to the final vote, it was done well.
It's an impossible situation, meaning that Twitter and the others, they really didn't have a clean winning path.
So anybody who thinks, oh, just take the easy path, why didn't you do that?
There was an obvious solution, but you did the wrong thing.
That's not really what's happening here.
Twitter basically had two bad choices and had to pick one.
They didn't have the choice of not picking, because not picking a choice is a choice too.
So here's how Jack does this.
I'll read some of the highlights from his thread.
And I want you to see the technique, because it's really good.
Now, if you can separate from a moment what you currently feel about Twitter and what you think about Jack Dorsey, Just separate from that for a moment.
We'll just talk about the persuasion part.
Just the skill. Forget about the politics.
We'll just talk about the skill.
The skill in this is extreme.
It's really good. The first thing you need to do if you are going to deal with something this controversial is you have to acknowledge the complaining side.
It is not good technique to say something like somebody is complaining Therefore, we're going to do X, Y, Z. It's not good enough just to note that there are problems or complaints.
You need to describe the complaint in your own words as clearly as the complainers describe it.
Right? So if you can't put it in your own words, what the other people are saying about you, it doesn't look like you understand it or accept it or treat it as valid.
So that's the first thing you look for.
And Jack did that perfectly, actually, in a few different ways.
Let me give you some quotes. He says, you know, he goes, I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban Trump.
So the very first sentence is, he's telling you he's not happy about it.
That's pacing, because he knows the people who are looking at this are not happy about it.
So the first thing he says is, I'm not happy about it either.
That's good. Good technique.
He's not happy about it either.
His reasons may be different than yours, but we'll get to that.
And he says that they made the decision with the best information they had based on threats to physical safety, blah, blah, blah.
And then he asks the question, was this correct?
Now, have I told you the technique of saying what people are thinking the moment they're thinking it?
It's a really strong communication technique.
It binds you to the listener.
So at the very moment that Jack says in his tweet thread, was this correct, is exactly the moment you were thinking it.
So he says, you know, we made this decision based on our best information.
And the moment you read that, you're saying, yeah, but was it correct?
And then he says, was this correct?
It's exactly the right sentence in exactly the right place.
If you don't sort of study this stuff, you don't see how well this is constructed.
It's actually engineered really, really well.
So we'll get to some more.
He says, I believe this was the right decision for Twitter.
The right decision for Twitter.
That's very transparent.
Because what he did not say, he did not say, I think it was the right decision for the country.
And later he goes on saying, maybe it wasn't the right decision for the country.
Maybe we need to do better. But he says directly, I believe this was the right decision for Twitter.
Now, was it?
Are you a CEO? Do you know if this was the right decision for Twitter?
Would Twitter as a company...
Pursuing profits within a capitalist system, which is their right.
Was this the right decision?
And I feel like maybe.
Maybe yes. Maybe no.
I'm not really sure. But I don't take that decision away from Twitter.
I mean, it's their decision, right?
I don't have a better idea.
I might have played it differently, but I don't know if that would have been better for Twitter.
So I think it's very transparent, and I appreciate it.
That the first thing he says is, I think we made the right decision for Twitter, which is his job.
His job is to make good decisions for Twitter.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
I don't feel I have insight into that.
And he talks about an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, meaning there wasn't any way to do everything right.
That wasn't really an option.
And that they basically took the reduction of harm as their highest priority.
Pretty good, right?
Now, if you were making the decision, you might have said, you know, free speech has some rough edges.
You know, maybe I'd prefer free speech even if people get hurt.
Maybe I prefer free speech even if people get killed.
I still might prefer it.
But that's something you can say as an individual.
Right? That's not really something you can say if you're a leader, exactly, because you can't be in favor of anybody getting killed under any circumstances.
So they had an untenable situation, and he says they have to reflect on their operations and the environment around it.
He acknowledges that it has a negative impact on the public, and that It's a pretty big one.
So he's not minimizing whatsoever that this has an impact on free speech that could be a big, big, big, big deal.
So he's saying it directly.
That's good technique, because that's what you're thinking, right?
You're thinking it's a big, big, big deal, and he acknowledges it.
So that's good technique.
And he says, and I think this part I like the most...
Because, just listen to this, how well this is constructed.
He says, the check-in accountability on this power, the power of Twitter to, you know, ban people or not ban people, has always been the fact that a service like Twitter is one small part of a larger public conversation happening across the internet.
If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service.
Now you don't agree with that, right?
Here's the second part. The second part is he doesn't agree with it either.
He's going to agree with you now.
Watch how good this is.
He says this concept, meaning the concept that you could just go somewhere else if you don't like Twitter, was challenged this week when a number of foundational internet tool providers, the social media platforms meaning, also decided not to host what they found dangerous.
I do not believe this was coordinated.
I agree with him that there wasn't a meeting to talk about it.
More likely, companies came to their own conclusions and were emboldened by the actions of others.
I think that's actually the way I see it.
I don't think they needed a meeting, because you don't need to have a meeting and collude on something that you all kind of are going to just go the same direction anyway.
So he's basically debunking the argument that Twitter could ban you, and then you could just go somewhere else, because now we've seen in the real world that if there's something big enough for Twitter to ban you, you're probably going to be banned on the other platforms, or at least they'll be emboldened to do that.
So he's acknowledging that that argument doesn't work, and that was always their best argument.
So when have you ever seen a CEO respond to a major public uprising by saying that their own argument doesn't work I've never seen it before.
I've seen people admit mistakes, but I've never seen anybody say, our own argument doesn't work.
Here's why. It's kind of remarkable.
And again, try to separate from what you feel about Twitter, feel about Trump, feel about Jack Dorsey.
Just look at the technique.
It's kind of extraordinary.
And then he talks about what they're going to do about it, which is the next part of a good CEO response.
So they've got some kind of an effort that they're ramping up for some kind of a service that they would be a client of, their own entity.
Well, I don't know who owns the entity.
There's a question there. But the point is, there's some Plan that Twitter's doing to address directly the free speech thing so that everybody can get their free speech, but Twitter could also be protected and you as a user can see what you want to see.
So they've got something they're working on.
I don't know how long that's going to take.
I'd like, you know, it'd be better to have some transparency on that.
But as a response, I thought it was excellent.
It's a complete acceptance of the situation.
That's about as good as you can do.
Completely accepting the complaints and telling you what they're going to do about it.
You can hate everybody, but this is good technique.
I tweeted yesterday that this was the low point in the Biden presidency yesterday, and he hasn't even started the job.
What do you think about an incoming president, Biden, who won't stop this impeachment when he knows it's going to lead to He knows it has no purpose, and he said so, basically.
He basically said out loud he's not really so much in favor of the impeachment.
He just seems like he doesn't care.
But that's not too much leadership.
I feel as if Biden could have stepped in and said, look, it's time for healing.
My entire proposition was healing and getting rid of the division, so we're not going to pursue this because there's not enough of an upside.
But there's definitely a downside.
There's just not much of an upside.
So let's not do more division for that little bit of gain you think you're going to get.
That would have been presidential.
And indeed, I would have been a little bit impressed.
Not going to lie. If Biden had done that, I would have reassessed his entire starting presidency.
I would have said to myself, huh, that actually is what's good for the country.
But he didn't do that.
It's clearly what's best for the country is to not do the impeachment and try to move on, because all the impeachment does is it guarantees that you're going to get more and more Trump past the inauguration, because now the Senate is going to give him a platform.
So I would say it's the worst day of the Biden presidency, and I don't know if he'll ever do worse than this.
I mean, it's pretty bad. And at the same time, Well, we'll talk about that later.
So, what is the price to the country of the Congress focusing on impeachment?
Well, here's a little report on Twitter that Secretary Gene Scalia, I guess he must be in the cabinet or something, he recently asked for $2 billion from Congress to fix the state unemployment system.
And they were not able to persuade Congress.
So we asked for $2 billion recently to fix this system and didn't get it.
Now that's not too unusual, right?
It's not terribly unusual that you'd ask for $2 billion and somebody would say no.
Except that there was a strong case that spending $2 billion would have saved $10 billion.
Meaning that it was a new system that would get rid of the fraud, and they can measure the fraud, and it's around $10 billion.
So just think of this.
Your Congress, if you're American, your Congress didn't have the capacity to say yes to spending two billion dollars to save ten.
Didn't have the capacity.
Now is that a hard decision?
Do you want to spend two to make ten?
That wasn't even a hard decision.
Neither was it political.
Is there a Democrat position to saving ten billion?
No. Is there a Republican who's opposed to it?
No. Your Congress is so obsessed...
That's a persuasion word.
I'll take obsessed away. They're focusing on impeachment at the expense of doing even things that everybody agrees on.
That is as incompetent as you could possibly get.
How could you become more incompetent than that?
That's what they're giving you.
So it feels like the impeachment of Trump is really an impeachment of free speech, wouldn't you say?
It feels like a continuation of impeachment of free speech.
Yeah, Patrick Byrne, didn't he get kicked off of Twitter recently too?
So there does seem to be an impeachment going on, but it doesn't feel like it's so much about Trump.
It feels like it's a free speech thing.
Because when you say that if you say what you believe to be true...
Is incitement? Are you going to get impeached for it?
Because you think it's true?
Meaning, is election fraud claims?
That really is impeaching free speech.
That's not so much about the person.
It is working.
Free speech is actually going away while we watch.
The funniest story is that whoever stole the lectern, Pelosi's lectern during the Capitol assault, Twitter user John Henry humorously notes that they got it back.
And he says, breaking, Florida man's reign comes to an end.
Gainesville, Florida. The power of the United States federal government has finally been wrestled out of the hands of a Florida man, marking an official end to his brutal reign.
So all the people who think that there was something like a coup or an insurrection was pretty much limited to taking a lectern as a As a souvenir.
Now, a lot of people think that if you get the magic lectern, you actually run the country.
But no. It turns out that having the lectern did not give him the nuclear codes.
Now, I don't know if you knew that.
It came as a big surprise to the Democrats that having full control over the magic lectern, not as important as you'd think.
Turns out you can't order the army to do anything.
He probably tried. I was mildly in favor of impeaching Trump for inciting violence that led to the Capitol assault until I heard their argument.
After listening to the Democrats argue why he should be impeached, I thought to myself, uh, you already had me.
You already had me.
And how hard is it to get me?
I mean, for God's sakes, if you can get me to say that Trump should be impeached, stop selling.
You've already made the sale.
Stop selling.
But did they stop selling?
They did not.
They kept selling.
And in their selling, they proved beyond any doubt that I have, I mean, you might have a different experience, but they removed any doubt I had that it's just revenge, and it's just political.
I was completely on board when they were talking about real things.
This is sort of the Geraldo view which I share, which is, although the president's words had nothing in them to incite violence directly, He should have known that just being involved the way he was created a dangerous situation.
And my opinion was, well, that's true.
I feel as if he should have known that the way he played it created a little more danger than was necessary, even though his words did not incite violence and directly said, be peaceful.
Very directly, he said, be peaceful.
But still, should have known that I would have known.
I think you would have known.
I feel like he should have known that there was a little danger involved in that.
So if that was the argument that they had used, they already had to be sold.
Now, I had said before that if it were the beginning of his term, that I might think differently, but I don't care if he gets impeached three days before he's gone anyway.
It makes it funnier.
Two impeachments is funnier than one.
It helps him more than it hurts him.
I don't care. But as soon as I heard them sell it, it was so obviously demented, evil, poorly conceived, revenge-y, emotional.
Now I'm fully against it.
Now he got impeached anyway, so it doesn't matter what I think.
But this is a good example of why you don't keep selling after you've made the sale.
Because everything you say after that might hurt you, like you did here, but it's not going to help you.
You already made the sale. Extreme incompetence by the Democrats just making their arguments in public.
I saw a CNN piece in which a person on the street was talking to Trump supporters, and the CNN person asked this question, quote, What if you found out Trump was lying to you about the election being stolen?
And they asked that hypothetical question.
What if you found out Trump was lying?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, CNN and the other news sites that are anti-Trump, don't they report that Trump is lying about his election fraud claims?
They don't say he believes it but he's wrong.
They say he's lying.
Which was such a tell for propaganda because my take on it is that all the evidence suggests he believes it.
All evidence suggests he believes that the election was stolen.
Just like tens of millions of other Americans also believe it.
And when they say it, they're not lying.
They believe it.
They could be wrong. They could be right.
But they're not lying.
It's what they actually believe.
Now, when you change somebody's honest belief, which might be right, might be wrong, Into their lying, that's just propaganda.
Because you're not a mind reader, and there's no evidence of lying.
There's plenty of evidence that he believes it, as in all of it.
100% of everything you see suggests that the president absolutely believes it, just like tens of millions of other voters believe it as well.
So CNN decides that they'll just try to get away with calling it a lie, and you won't notice.
There's no evidence that it's a lie.
There is evidence that it might not be true.
That's not a lie. So here's the little thread that I did.
People liked it a lot this morning, so I'll just go over it.
Here's how you can tell you're in a propaganda bubble as opposed to being in a world with real news.
And here are six reasons.
The fake news tells you Trump is lying about the election stolen as opposed to actually believing it the way tens of millions of people do.
That's an obvious tell.
That's an example where the news is not even really trying to be anything but propaganda.
Because if they were trying, they wouldn't be calling it a lie.
They'd say it's just he's saying it, and it's not true, in their opinion, if that's what they believe to be true.
Number two. The fake news tells you all of the election fraud claims have been rejected by the courts.
But where is the master list?
Have you seen the list of all the election fraud complaints and then a list of all the courts that have ruled so you can see that all the complaints have been ruled on and rejected?
Have you seen it? Well, if you haven't seen it and you watch the news as much as I do, I haven't seen it, wouldn't you assume it doesn't exist?
Right? Now, soon after I put out this tweet, I was contacted by...
Let's say a prominent member of our government to say that that list does exist.
And he could provide it to me.
Now, I haven't looked at it yet, but I do know that whatever that list includes, it does not include we looked at the source code of the digital systems involved in voting.
Because I know that didn't happen.
And if you didn't look at the source code, Do you really know what did or did not happen in the election?
Now, not looking at the source code doesn't tell you there was any problem.
It just tells you you don't know.
So apparently there is some kind of a large list.
I'll look at it and I'll let you know how many of the claims it looks like it did address.
But we know it didn't address at least, I don't know, three quarters of the votes, which probably went through...
100% of the votes went through some kind of digital system at one point.
So that's an open question I have.
All right, so here's some more of the six points that...
Oh, here it is. So then I also said you're in a propaganda bubble.
If knowing you are inciting domestic violence is a standard for impeachment...
And that's what happened with Trump, is that they said, well, he knew that what he was saying would incite violence, therefore he's guilty of it.
But that standard needs to apply to everybody or else it's just propaganda.
If you applied the same standard to Harris and Biden, pushing the find people hoax and supporting the BLM rioters, Harris actually helped start a fund, I think, to bail out some of the bad actors in Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
So if inciting violence is a standard that we accept for impeachment, you have to impeach everybody who did it.
Otherwise, it's just propaganda.
So given that there's no interest whatsoever on the Democrats of policing it within their own ranks, you can't call that news.
That's just propaganda. If there's no acknowledgement that the fine people hoax is still the most damaging fake news in the history of America, that's not any attempt to be a news organization.
That's propaganda. Because the fine people hoax is the most well-documented, easy-to-debunk hoax, and CNN still reports it like it's real.
That's how you know you're in a propaganda bubble.
In 2016, when Trump won, the fake news said, definitely Russia interfered, and that interference definitely made the difference.
And yet, when Biden wins, suddenly Russia doesn't have any role, that whatever they did didn't make any difference.
So that's how you know you're in a propaganda bubble, because either Russia is trying to change things or they're not, either it's working or it isn't, but it's going to be the same-ish.
Or at least you would have to address why you thought it was different.
Nothing. It's just that Russia was a problem, now they're not.
Blah, blah, blah. Don't look over here.
Propaganda bubble. And of course the big one is when the fake news labels the Capitol assault, I'll call it an assault, a coup, or when they called it an insurrection, how did they think these protesters were planning to Conquer and hold power from a superpower by occupying a few empty rooms and stealing a lectern.
Did they think that those plastic ties would be enough to secure the entire military of the United States?
Or did they think the military was going to join them?
Exactly how was this supposed to be a coup?
Because I don't think I've ever seen a coup that didn't bring...
Weapons. Too many people did have weapons, but it's obvious they were not planning to use them offensively.
They used some clubs and stuff, and they did kill people, and they need to go to jail for that.
Anybody who was involved in that, that does be treated with extreme prejudice.
But it didn't look like they were preparing to take over a country.
I didn't see that.
Because if they did, they're really bad at planning, and I don't think that's the case.
There were a lot of military people there, ex-military, etc.
If they wanted to take over the country, if they wanted to do a coup, if they wanted it to be an insurrection, it would have looked a lot different.
A lot different.
Somebody is prompting me in the comments, That the trouble there was planned long before Trump had made comments.
I don't totally buy that that matters to the argument.
I think it's true.
I just don't know that it matters to the argument.
Because whether or not they had planned something, Trump was still saying things.
And the things he was saying, a reasonable person could have said, you could have told them to stay home.
So there's room for judgment on that.
Alright, here's the important part.
I'm going to tell you the one and only way that Republicans can get back something like a country.
In other words, how can they get out of the wokeness cycle?
How can they get out of the end of free speech?
What would be a strategy that the Republicans can use?
The strategy they're trying to use is the hypocrisy argument.
You just saw me use it right now.
The hypocrisy argument, Lindsey Graham also has used it.
He says, if you want to end the violence, end impeachment.
Now, Lindsey Graham, I would say a credible person, even if you don't agree with him, he's a credible person who understands the world.
He has just stated to Democrats that pursuing impeachment will incite violence.
They did it anyway.
Now, Does the hypocrisy claim move the needle?
Does it solve anything?
No. Claiming hypocrisy and blaming somebody of being a hypocrite has no persuasive power.
It has no political weight.
Nobody in the history of the world has ever won an argument or changed anything because of claiming, even accurately claiming, hypocrisy on the other side.
It's a complete empty strategy.
It can't work. It's worth noting, so you shouldn't ignore it, but don't think it's some kind of a strategy.
It's not going to change anything.
If you want to change something, I believe we're down to one choice.
Here I'm ruling out anything like a coup, I'm ruling out any kind of violence, I'm ruling out all the crazy stuff.
If you want to live in a real world with real rules, and you don't want one side to be beating the other side like a Like a seal.
There's only one strategy that could work.
And I've mentioned this before in the context of my first job as a bank teller.
And the strategy is aggressive compliance with the rules.
And here's how it worked when I was a bank teller.
We had a whole bunch of rules about what we could or could not do in terms of dealing with the customers.
So, you know, if they didn't have two IDs, you couldn't cash the check.
If they didn't bank here, you couldn't do this.
If the amount was over a number, you had to get signatures.
So we had all these restrictive rules of what you could or could not do.
But they were so restrictive that if you actually followed them all, you couldn't do anything.
You wouldn't be able to do your job at all.
Just every single customer, you'd have to call a supervisor.
So you quickly learn to bend the rules when Let's say it's a customer that you've waited on 15 times and you've seen their two IDs before.
Well, you don't need to ask for the second ID if you've checked the same person and you know them personally because they come to your window all the time.
It's like, okay, I'll just check one ID. I literally know your last name as soon as you walked up here.
Now, would that be a security problem?
Obviously not. Obviously, bending that little rule was just good for the customer, good for the bank, good for me.
But what happened when I got in trouble for doing some other bent rule?
Well, as soon as I got in trouble, I and the other tellers said, you know, it's a good idea.
We should follow all these rules.
And so, I would call a supervisor for every transaction.
Because that was the rule.
I wasn't making up stuff.
The rule was, oh, I can't do this.
I better call it a supervisor.
At the same time, all the other tellers in the line were also calling the supervisor for the same reason.
There was only one supervisor.
What did the supervisor...
Fairly quickly learned to do.
Change the rules.
Because we proved that following the rules couldn't possibly work.
All we did is follow the rules.
Aggressively. We aggressively complied.
And it broke the whole system.
And immediately forced a change.
Now, the Democrats have said, wokeness is important.
Fairness is important.
Freedom of speech should be limited if we can make an argument that incites violence.
Those are their rules.
They're using them like a club to beat the living shit out of Republicans.
What are Republicans doing in response?
Ow! Ow!
You're a hypocrite!
Ow! Ow!
Stop hitting me!
You're a hypocrite!
Ow! Why isn't this working?
I keep saying you're a hypocrite, but you keep hitting me!
Ow! Ow!
Ow! That's it.
That's the whole fucking strategy, is to get hit with a club and say, stop hitting me with a club.
The whole fucking strategy is to get hit with a club.
That's it. Here's a better strategy.
Adopt their techniques more aggressively than they use their own techniques.
Use their own arguments and never break character.
For example, they should...
Republicans should.
Close the entire government down.
Don't let any work get done until they handle the important things.
Wokeness, fairness, and making sure that everyone who incited violence is impeached.
That's big work.
And they shouldn't do anything else until they get that work handled.
So they should immediately do articles of impeachment for every Democrat who supported Black Lives Matter.
Harrison Biden, of course.
Pelosi, of course. And this would be a much bigger task than you could actually handle and still do the business of government.
So you should stop doing the business of government.
Just let it go. Don't let any checks go out.
Don't let any laws get passed.
Don't do anything else except try to get some fairness in the Democrats.
For example, does it seem fair to you that Pelosi, a white woman, is the speaker?
I don't think so. I think that there should be a lot of pressure on the Democrats to get a person of color to replace Nancy Pelosi.
Why? Because I don't want to live in any racist country where a racist white person can be in charge of the Democratic Party, which isn't even catering to white people.
How is that right? Right?
So instead of arguing your own side, let's say you're a Republican, and saying, hey, how about everybody has free speech?
And hey, how about we don't pick ourselves to death over this wokeness stuff?
It doesn't work. You need to embrace it harder than the other side until it shuts down the whole government.
Now, When you say, Scott, isn't that a little dangerous to shut down the whole government?
It's not as dangerous as the alternative, which is to let one side dominate the other because one side has a club, you know, this wokeness and the impeachments and the you're not fair and you're all racist, and the other side doesn't have a weapon.
They're not even looking for one.
They don't have anything. So if you want that to persist, keep doing what you're doing.
If you want it to end...
You've got to impeach every one of the Democrats who pushed the fine people hoax.
That would be a minimum.
Anybody who said that in public, the fine people hoax, that was inciting violence.
They've got to be impeached.
And you should close down, if you're Republican, you should close down the whole government.
Just say, I'm not even going to work on other stuff.
If you think this is the important thing, if you think that stopping the incitement of violence is your top priority, it's my top priority too.
And we're not going to do a fucking thing until we get this handled.
And how about the fairness? Let's take a look at all those Republican committees and appointments.
Does that look like America?
Well, probably pretty well compared to Republicans, but I don't think it's nearly good enough.
Do they have enough LGBTQ representation?
I think we ought to look into that, because they ought to have a lot more.
I think they ought to have a lot more black people in their cabinet.
I think they need a lot more Islamic folks in the cabinet, and I don't think we should allow this.
Not a bit.
We need more fairness.
We should call them racist for everything.
In fact, we shouldn't even talk about it any other way.
Every single thing they do should be called racist because it is.
Not because it isn't.
Because it is.
What I'm suggesting is no lying, no exaggeration.
Just take their own standard and use it aggressively until it closes the government because it would.
And then see if they get flexible.
If that doesn't make them flexible, that's the end of the country.
And that would be okay with me.
Because living under the current situation is untenable.
Meaning it can't last.
It will either push people to violence...
No, actually, that's all it will do.
It will just push people to violence.
So violence is pretty much guaranteed in the current system.
So, if you tell me that shutting down the government leads to bad outcomes, I say, yeah, not as bad as the other way.
It's the only way that you have actually some chance that you might be able to fix things.
So if you don't see aggressive movement toward impeaching every Democrat who pushed the fine people hoax, I would say Republicans should not be supported anymore.
I'm not Republican, by the way, just for full disclosure.
I liked a lot of the things that I thought Trump could do, because I thought he could do some things that other regular politicians couldn't do, and sure enough, he did.
The Middle East would be the best example of that.
So I feel that Republicans have just...
they've just basically surrendered.
Because if all they've got is argument, and all they've got is, hey, stop hitting us with that club, they don't have anything.
And I don't see any reason you should back them whatsoever.
If they're not willing to fight...
To get rid of these weapons on the other side, the wokeness and the racism stuff and the fake news and the fake impeachments and the fake incitement of violence and the getting rid of free speech and the banning you on social media.
If they're not fighting against that stuff, then everything's lost anyway.
So it doesn't matter what else you do.
So let's see if some Republicans can get a spine...
And shut down the government.
Because I think we're at that point where they just need to do that.
Just shut it all down.
Because this impeachment is so aggressively offensive to the public.
Obviously some people like it.
But it's aggressively offensive in the sense that they're not even trying to do the job of the people.
Because this wasn't it.
This was the job of the politicians.
They just wasted all of our time doing something that had no benefit ever.
Except to what? Their own feelings?
That's it. Scott, you said they have to fight.
Where's the rest of your comment?
Yeah, and you should also approach the NBA. Now, I think it would be a mistake to go at it like, oh, white people are being discriminated against.
You still need to say that if you think it's true.
But that's not a strategy.
That's more the hypocrite thing.
It would be better to make them live up to their own rules and Biden has to go because he's an old white guy.
I mean, those are their rules.
It's not our rules. All right.
Just looking at your comments.
COVID-19 vaccinations or MIA. I read something disturbing that I guess Israel has vaccinated 20% of their population.
I'm guessing that that 20% is in the people who have the most risk, but they're not yet seeing any reduction in the coronavirus outcomes.
So if you vaccinated 20% of your population, And it happens to be the 20% that matter the most, the ones that need the most protecting.
I always think that within the week, the statistics should start to reflect that, right?
If we don't see that reflected really soon, I'm going to have some questions.
I don't quite understand that.
All right. Adults are so woke.
Just looking at your comments for a moment.
Alright, that's all we've got now.
Yeah, we might have to wait a few weeks to know if the vaccinations are already making a difference.
There's some reporting lag as well.
Alright, that's all I've got, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
