Episode 1257 Scott Adams: I Tell You How the Giant Pile of Pocket Lint Called Joe Biden is Doing So Far
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
"Narrative Business" is a better label than "Fake News"
Who divided the country, President Trump or CNN?
The biggest threats to the country
The worst start of any President so far
Is tremendous empathy a good leadership quality?
Biden doubts the loyalty of the troops?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
If you think that's a tribble on my shirt, it's not.
It's a microphone. And the trouble with tribbles is, well, you know, you've seen the show.
But what do you need to have the best day of the entire day?
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And without it, you might feel a little bit empty.
But luckily, I'm here to help.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure and the dopamine to the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Happens now. Go. Ah.
Oh. Well.
So I've been very curious since the beginning of the pandemic about how the people who turned out to be wrong would manage their public reputations.
And what I mean by wrong is that in the beginning, some people were saying it was the end of the world, or, you know, it was a big, not the end of the world, but it would be a major, major pandemic.
And other people said, bah, it's just basically a cold.
Forget it. Now, one of those two sides was going to be right in the end because, you know, probably there's nothing in the middle ground there that people would say, well, it was or it wasn't.
I feel like it's either going to be the pandemic or it was no big deal.
Now, wouldn't you say that we can say at this point, are you not on board with the fact that it's a big deal?
400,000 people dead in this country, millions dying around the world.
I feel as though the people who said it wasn't a big deal have been disproved.
I see a lot of you still are not on board.
You know, it's actually amazing to see this.
Because I spend time in the conservative bubble as well as the liberal bubble.
I try to spend time in both bubbles.
I'm amazed that so many of my audience who is watching right now and watching the comments go by, there's a strong bias toward thinking that the pandemic is fake.
Let me tell you something with complete confidence.
The pandemic? It's real.
It's real. Something like half of the people getting the virus are having ongoing complications.
Does that sound like no big deal to you?
Half of them? I don't know if that number is right.
But somebody says the numbers aren't real.
So it's basically the election thing just applied to the pandemic.
Let me finish my point.
Let's say hypothetically, since most of you do not accept what I consider obvious at this point, that the pandemic's a real pandemic.
I consider that beyond obvious at this point.
Now, if you're still on the side that says it's a fake pandemic, the numbers are fudged, there's no real problem out there, I feel as though your day will come when you might move over to my side.
If you're not there yet, I'll give you some time.
We should have probably half a million deaths pretty soon.
That might get your attention.
By June, maybe a million.
I don't know. How big is the number going to get?
But at some point you'll agree with me.
And here's my point.
What would the people who are wrong, and I guess we don't know that yet, according to you, what would the people who are wrong say when they're wrong?
I was watching Alex Berenson, who's probably famous as the most skeptical of the Tight lockdown restrictions.
And I was listening to him on Fox News yesterday, and he did a little verbal sleight of hand that I'd like you to look for.
Now, I don't personally know if the science of masks is perfectly accurate or not.
I don't know. I don't personally know what kind of lockdowns and restrictions work and which ones don't.
But there are people who have strong opinions on it.
I don't feel that the information is quite out there to have a strong opinion.
So Alex Berenson, I believe he went from saying that masks don't work.
Can somebody fact check me on this?
I feel he had been saying masks don't work to change the pandemic curve.
But his latest statement I heard was that masks don't protect the wearer.
But that's actually what the scientists say.
So has he...
Give me a fact check on this.
Has he shifted back while trying to act like he hasn't to completely agree with the science from being a skeptic?
Because science always said the mask isn't going to help the wearer so much, but it might reduce the risk to other people.
And I feel that that's what Alex is saying now, that it doesn't help the wearer.
But I feel like he's saying it like you're supposed to hear it like it doesn't help anybody.
Does it feel to you that he's shifted?
So I'll put that as a question, not an allegation.
Just the question whether he's shifted and whether you're detecting that or not.
Here's a comment people made when I was asking the question, is there any physical possible way to massively, let's say widespread, Cheat on a major election and get away with it, and have it not detected by either an audit or a recount.
And some people weighed in and said, well, there is one way, which is you throw away the ballots before they ever reach the counting station.
So let's say, and I'm not saying this happened, by the way, so I'm not alleging this happened.
I'm just pointing out that there is a way to do widespread fraud without it being detectable by a recount, Or by an audit.
And that would be, and again, no allegation that this happened.
I have no information that what I'm going to say next happened.
I don't even suspect it.
It's just, if you want to know the complete story, if the folks in the post office decided to just throw away the ballots for certain zip codes that they knew were going to be Trump voters, that's it.
That's all it would take. It would just take the postal employees to take all the ballots and just throw them away.
Now, when you did the recount, there would be nothing to count because those ballots never reached the counting center.
How would the person whose vote was thrown away know if they voted?
Probably wouldn't. And if they checked, they might find out, oh, I guess mine got lost in the mail.
Right? So, if you thought that there was no way for it to happen, That is a way, but let me add that it would require lots and lots of people being in on it, and therefore the odds of being caught just because you'd have a whistleblower is really high.
So I don't think it could be that widespread.
Maybe it didn't need to be if it was concentrated in the swing cities or swing zip codes.
But if it was even that widespread, I think we'd get a whistleblower.
There would be a little information on that, so I don't think it happened.
But I just put that out there for completeness.
I saw some tweets, people talking about, there's a Stanford study that says there's no clear significant benefit of the more restrictive shutdowns.
Now, what does a more restrictive shutdown mean?
I guess you could use your imagination there.
But do you think that this is a reasonable study without even looking at it?
Without looking at the study, without knowing who did it, without knowing that it is peer-reviewed, because it is peer-reviewed, does this sound like a useful study to you?
And if not, what's wrong with it?
Just on the surface, anything wrong with it?
Well, let me tell you what's wrong with it.
I imagine that they looked at places that had restrictive rules and places with a little less restrictive, although everything is restricting at some point.
I think everybody is doing a little something.
And so they probably looked at them and said, hey, there's not much difference.
The super restrictive people had bad infections.
The less restrictive people had bad infections or at least similar.
You're done, right? If the people who We're good now, right? If you think that, you need to learn a little bit more about the world and how to compare stuff.
Here's what's wrong with it, in my view, just on the surface, without even looking into it at all.
Which places had the most restrictive lockdowns?
Was it the places that didn't have many infections?
No. The places with the most infections and the most reason to think that there would be more, let's say they have lots of travel, it's a population center, they know it's a problem area.
Do you think that the problem areas would do more restrictive lockdowns than the non-problem areas?
I think so. That would be the whole point, right?
You do more restrictive lockdowns where you think there's going to be more problem.
Now let's say that the restrictive lockdowns and the non-restrictive lockdowns end up generating something similar in terms of outcomes.
What have you learned?
Nothing. Nothing.
Because you don't know what would have happened in the bad infection area if they had not done the lockdown.
There's nothing to compare it to.
If you're comparing it to a different situation, a different place with a different infection rate, that's the wrong comparison.
Now, did this study do that?
Or did the study do a controlled study where they did the same city with restrictions and the same virus, and then, no, of course they didn't.
There's no way to test that.
You couldn't do any kind of a controlled study.
The only thing you know is what happened.
That's it. All you know is what happened.
You actually don't know why there are too many variables.
Is it the sun?
Is it the pattern of people?
Is it the demographic, the age?
Is there something about the culture that, you know, they're more likely to get together?
There are a lot of young people in it that are violating, you know, the rules.
There's so many variables here.
There isn't the slightest chance that you could isolate The difference for the lockdowns.
But I would say that common sense says that staying away from each other has got to be better than not, which is not to say that we should keep the restaurants closed.
I mean, I feel as though the restaurant situation, we could probably manage that, and maybe the gyms and stuff.
So we could definitely do a better job than the super, super restrictive shutdowns.
And I think we'd be willing to pay a little extra infection for that, too.
Probably. It'd be worth it.
All right. So in a month, Trump is going to be off golfing, we think.
And we will think less about Trump in the future, but not yet.
Apparently, Trump is still the only headline that matters, with one day left.
But I was listening to Biden's daughter talking about Biden's main quality for leadership, and she said that empathy is what makes him stand out.
He has tremendous empathy.
You've heard that a lot, right?
It's probably the main thing that people say about Biden.
They say he's not Trump.
I guess that's the number one thing.
But number two, he has all this empathy.
To which I say, do you know who else has that leadership quality?
Every sentient being.
It turns out that even sociopaths do show empathy.
They just don't act on it.
They have empathy. They feel it.
They just don't act on it.
That's what makes a sociopath.
That was recent news, by the way, that even sociopaths have empathy.
So Biden's main leadership quality is something that every human being, except for psychopaths, plus every dog, possesses.
And you're actually being sold that these are his leadership qualities.
Something that literally your dog possesses.
Empathy. Now, I've often said that I would be a terrible leader because I have too much empathy.
Have you ever seen a good leader?
Do they have lots of empathy?
Nope. In fact, the thing that makes a good leader is a lack of empathy.
Now, that's my personal view.
And it's the reason that I can't be a good leader, because sometimes you just have to crush somebody to make a better world, right?
Somebody's got to take it on the chin for somebody else or maybe the larger good or something, but you're always picking winners and losers.
I'm not good at that because I can't pick the loser.
I don't want to be the one that says, uh-huh, you're going to have a bad time so that other people who are not you can have a better time.
I just can't do that.
So I have too much empathy.
The last person who talks to me is going to influence me too much.
So the fake news has sold you that having lots of empathy is good when I think it is clearly a negative.
What is empathy going to get you when you're, say, managing immigration?
Empathy would get you to open the border.
Completely. Because you don't want to leave anybody behind who's got a bad life and they want to get a better one.
Empathy would say just open the border.
What would be the obvious outcome of that?
The end of the United States.
Now, I don't think Biden is going to go that far.
I think he'll be forced to put some kind of controls on it when the caravans start coming over.
But the point is that the assumption is wrong, that empathy is a good thing, Even my dog has it, and it's probably more bad than good.
Indeed, one of the things I liked about Trump is that he seemed to have empathy, but he could get past it.
He could get past it.
That's sort of what you need.
I would be bad at getting past it, so I wouldn't be a good leader.
The vaccine rollout seems to be a mess.
I don't know how much of that we should blame Trump for.
I feel like probably a lot, if we're being honest.
He's still in charge.
I doubt he's got his eye on the ball at the moment during the most important part of the country.
I think if you want to criticize the Trump administration for the vaccine rollout, Even though the states are the ones who are not getting it right, they probably needed funding, needed more support.
I think this is an example where Biden will do a better job.
Can I be objective?
And say, if I had to guess, Biden will probably do a little bit better job on vaccine rollout.
Don't know yet. I mean, we'll have to wait and see.
And there'll be nothing to compare it to because we don't see what Trump would have done if he'd had a chance to correct whatever's wrong.
Everybody who's thinking about going to Washington, D.C. for the inauguration is a bad idea.
Whatever your strategy is, if you're on the right, just stay away from the inauguration.
Stay away from Washington, D.C. There's no strategy in which that makes sense.
There's not going to be a revolution.
Nothing's going to change.
You can only make things bad for everybody, whoever supported Trump.
So stay away from the inauguration.
So here's the pattern that we've been seeing through the Trump administration.
Trump will do some policy that has obvious national security implications.
Such as closing travel from countries where they can't verify easily who you are.
And before that, the so-called Muslim ban, before they refined their rule, it was a rule that was bad for those people in those countries, but good for the United States.
Basically, it was discriminatory because we weren't going to check people from those countries.
We were just going to say, that's a problem country, so we won't let you in.
That was the initial stance.
America first. He's the president, and he does get to say, I'm going to disadvantage another country to advantage us.
That was why he was hired.
And you can think of several other examples, immigration, etc., where what he's doing is clearly for national security, but CNN and their ilk reported as white supremacism.
So if you're only watching CNN and you see that Trump is making these national security moves, but CNN reports it as obvious white supremacism, what are you going to believe if that's the only news you watch?
So the news is...
I think it's wrong to call it the news when it's a little bit of news and a lot of narrative.
I feel like we should stop using the word news and maybe even stop using the word fake news, because it's really just narrative.
They're trying to interpret the news for you.
They're not trying to tell you what it is.
So then Trump does a national security policy.
CNN and their cousins all do turn that into white supremacism.
Their public accepts it because it's on this thing called the news.
And then you conflate the white supremacists with Q supporters and Which are a completely different thing.
But of course there's overlap with every group and every other group in this country.
So then you turn it into Q supporters and Republicans are all part of this white supremacist thing, either directly or by a tacit support.
And then here's the best part.
Then CNN blames Trump for dividing the country.
That wasn't Trump.
Did Trump divide the country by implementing a national security policy policy?
That was bad for other countries and their citizens, but good for us.
Is that what divided America?
No. It was CNN that divided America.
And then they placed the blame on Trump.
And it got him unelected.
How will history even report this?
Will history follow the lead of the narrative business?
That used to be called the fake news, but I'll just call it the narrative business.
Will they report that that's what happened?
That Trump was divisive and he did all these white supremacist things and he divided the country?
Will that actually be the history?
Because I didn't see that happen and I was here.
I watched it just like you did.
I didn't see that happen.
I saw that there are white supremacists, of course.
There are bad people everywhere.
And what I saw was the news business divide the country.
That's all I saw. So we need some kind of a Yelp review for the news, don't you?
Wouldn't you like to see some objective entity whose job it is to do an ongoing report on the quality of the different news organizations?
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, That would be so subjective that it would just be nonsense.
But I'm not sure it would be.
Because I do think you could create a master list of things that are hoaxes according to the left, things that are hoaxes according to the right, and just things that are fact-checked as pure hoaxes no matter who you are.
Wouldn't you like to see a ratio that said how many hoaxes, based on whoever says it's a hoax or not, How many hoaxes every entity buys into?
Wouldn't you? Because I haven't done the math, but I will bet you that CNN, MSNBC were about two to three times the hoax ratio of Fox News, just to pick an example.
Now that's anecdotal and subjective and unbiased, so I don't know if that number would hold, but it feels like that.
It feels like it was two to one.
Now, I'm going to reverse that for the coming administration.
In all likelihood, once Trump gets out of the news, however long that takes, once Trump is out of the news, I've got a feeling that Fox News is going to be telling more hoaxes and reporting them as if they're true.
Because that's the way it goes.
Whoever's in power, the news entity that's opposite of that, ends up having to create a lot of hoaxes because the real news isn't bad enough.
So, But I'd like to see some kind of a Yelp industry, because otherwise the news has control of the citizens.
You need to put something above the news, such as a rating organization.
Now, how would you do it?
It'd be hard. But I think if you had enough money behind it and the right people, you could have people who actually, let's say historians, objective people, just looking into it and then scoring things.
And maybe you have judges.
Let's say you had a dozen judges and they scored every story for whether it's a hoax or it's true or it's misleading.
And then you just report what the vote was from the 12 people who were pretty objective.
I don't know. I think we need that more than anything.
Have you noticed that the news can't quit Trump?
So there's this guy, Don Winslow.
He's trending today with the hashtag Trump's New Army.
And I think some of it's been removed from Twitter for being too dangerous.
I couldn't get to it, but I don't know if it's because I'm blocked or it got taken down.
So fact check that.
Was his content removed by Twitter or am I just blocked because he blocks people?
I don't know. But I couldn't see it until I looked on YouTube and there was a video of it.
And he's got this video in which he's saying that the day that Trump leaves office, he'll become the de facto leader of the MAGA army of white supremacists and QAnon, and that basically you'll have a domestic army.
Can you just let Trump go?
Can we just let him golf?
Now, he might be back in some news-related business entity, you know, some way, which will be really fun, and I'm looking forward to it.
But can you just let it go?
Let me tell you what Trump isn't going to do.
Create a domestic army.
In fact, if you were going to make a list of all the things that Trump might do the day after and after he's out of office, I would say create a domestic army would be dead last.
That's not going to happen.
And if you're a sucker enough to believe it is, you've bought into the whole CNN narrative from day one.
I mean, you've got to check your thinking if you think this is happening.
But of course, it's trending because it's...
You know, I've talked to you before that the more fake the news is and the more ridiculous it is, the more it will trend.
Because people...
We're not going to get excited about routine stuff that's just like yesterday.
They want something special.
And when you hear, Trump is raising a MAGA army, your head lights up and you're like, I've got to trend that.
I've got to retweet that. But the things which are most sensational sounding are also the least likely to be true.
This is no exception. That would be the most ridiculous Absurd, damaging hoax that something like that's going to happen.
All right. So here are some steps that the fake news is doing to demonize all Republicans.
So step one, you say that the fake news, let's say the narrative business, will tell you that white supremacist terrorism is the biggest threat in the country.
Do you buy that? Because that's what we're being told.
Because the headlines are really focusing on the biggest threat in the country, white supremacist terrorism.
Now, is there such a thing as white supremacist terrorism?
I think so.
I mean, I don't know of any examples.
I know that there are white people who have done domestic terrorist things.
I don't know. Personally, I haven't heard of an example of That was because of white supremacism, but I've heard that people who have that belief may have done some bad things.
There was one in New Zealand that was real.
Now, I'm not saying they don't exist.
I'm just saying that I'm not aware of one.
So if you say, here are three examples, I'd say, okay, those are three good examples.
So I'm not arguing that it's not happening.
I'm sure it's happening.
But I live in this country, and I can't think of one.
But the news is telling you it's the biggest problem.
Now, I suppose the assault on the Capitol would be part of that story.
I don't know how many people in that group were white supremacists or even trying to do something like a coup.
I think the number is zero for the ones who thought that that was a coup, because how do you do a coup by taking over an empty room?
And even if they captured the vice president, it's not going to work.
Because we would give up the vice president before we would give control of the country to some white supremacists who captured him.
So there wasn't any kind of a plan that could have ever been a coup, but it was reported that way.
So now the fake news has told us that white supremacism is the biggest problem in the country.
If I were going to make a list of the biggest problems, I'd probably have...
Drug and alcohol addiction, overdose deaths, mental health crisis, the loneliness crisis, especially lately.
The fake news is a bigger problem than any of this stuff.
The platform censorship will kill us all eventually.
Teachers unions were basically the main cause of systemic racism and every problem that we have in this country.
The national debt, I'm worried about that.
China, ten different problems with China.
The Green New Deal could kill us, could save us, but it's a big problem, right?
So you think the problem is, depending on where you are, the problem is that we're not doing enough about it, or the problem is we'll do too much about it.
But either way, big problem, right?
Immigration, no matter what you think of it, is a big problem.
Again, you could be on either side of immigration, but it's a big problem.
Nobody thinks that migrant caravans is some kind of an easy, good thing.
It's a big problem, even if you're in favor of letting them in.
So the fake news or the narrative news has told us, first, that white supremacists, that's the thing that needs to be in front of your mind.
That's what you need to be thinking about.
And then it says, the narrative news does, it says that we should complete any Trump supporter with white supremacists.
Now they're saying that directly.
Don Lemon on CNN says it directly.
Trump supporters, white supremacists, not enough difference to make a distinction.
Saying it directly.
So then after you've done that and you've painted all Republicans and Trump supporters with that brush, then you have everything you need to employ private censorship and You know, the big tech companies, their censorship.
You can do your boycotts because you're boycotting Nazis, right?
That's easy. And you can do your public shaming so that people can't get jobs, can't get banking, can't get anything.
And then you also normalize the violence against Trump supporters, which has been happening for years.
By calling them Nazis and white supremacists, you do normalize and approve of violence, basically, essentially.
That would be different than, say, Black Lives Matter, right?
Painting somebody as Black Lives Matter does not put a target on their back.
In fact, you might want to help them.
But painting somebody as a white supremacist, especially if they're not, is painting a target on their back.
It does normalize violence.
Then the other thing they do is disappear the violence on the other side.
So now we're learning that there wasn't much riots and destruction in Washington, D.C. when Trump was inaugurated, or last summer.
Apparently, Washington, D.C. has got a lot of problems a lot of the time, but that's a little de-emphasized.
And Andrew Sullivan is associated more with the left than the right, but he's one of those few people who can cross over when something doesn't make sense.
So I like Andrew Sullivan because he can call out his own team when they're being silly, as he did in this case...
I guess the New York Times was saying that last summer was just isolated instances of property destruction.
But that isolated incidences of property destruction in the Capitol that was done by the left was $1 to $2 billion worth of damage this summer.
Just this summer, $1 to $2 billion worth of damage.
And the New York Times reports that as isolated incidents of property destruction.
Now, you can start to see the narrative becoming the thing.
You know, the word fake news actually has a problem because it has news in it.
And I think it's still useful to have that term, but calling it news anymore just doesn't even feel right.
It's narrative.
It's narrative on top of a little bit of news that may or may not even be true, and certainly out of context.
So, Calling the fake news is sort of a compliment because it assumes that news is even part of the mission, and that's clearly not the case.
I don't believe there's anybody in senior management at CNN who wakes up in the morning and says, got to inform the public.
Got to go to my job and make sure the public knows the real story.
I don't think that's happening.
I think they wake up and try to make money, and that's a narrative business.
So let's look at Biden's performance so far.
I think I got around 20,000 retweets on this, which is huge for my account.
Might set a record, but here's what I said.
I said, so far Biden has refused to halt a divisive impeachment, questioned the loyalty of the troops, sparked an immigration crisis, and And surrendered to China via energy policy, you know, the Paris Climate Accord, etc.
And he hasn't even started the job yet.
Those are the things he's done, and he hasn't started the job.
This is the worst start of any president of all time.
He could have easily made the impeachment thing go away, calm down the country.
He didn't need to question the loyalty of the troops.
Again, we're going to come into this situation where everything that Biden does has an automatic contrast, which is what did Trump do or what would Trump have done in that situation?
You can't get away from that. That comparison is just going to dog Biden the whole way.
And let me point this out.
Trump never had to protect himself from his own troops.
Trump never had to protect himself from I just have to say that three more times.
Trump never had to protect himself from American troops.
Trump never had to protect himself from American troops.
And then the third time I'm going to say it.
Trump never had to protect himself from American troops.
Is there a worse start of any president in the history of presidents starting things?
Let me tell you what Biden should have done.
Let me tell you what he should have done.
Of course you should be looking for people who might be a problem.
So I think the deep vetting of the people who will be there guarding, that makes sense.
But if you're tossing anybody out for being a Trump supporter, you're making things worse.
Right? You're not making things better.
Let me put it this way.
As a commander-in-chief, you are always in physical danger because a leader is always a target, right?
You're always in physical danger.
That's why the Secret Service exists.
And part of being a good leader is knowing when to extend your own physical danger and when not to.
Joe Biden should have, just by opinion, Should have extended his own physical danger and that of Kamala Harris and the other major leaders.
He should have taken the risk that somebody in the troops might have had bad intentions.
He should have taken the risk.
That risk was one the leader should have taken.
Because if he takes the risk and everything's fine, then the troops are still loyal.
We all believe the troops are loyal, just like always.
The president has shown trust in the troops.
The troops didn't show anything bad to the commander-in-chief, and we would be at the best place we could be at the end of it.
But Biden didn't do that.
He made exactly the wrong choice for a commander-in-chief.
He said he's afraid of his own troops.
Now, of course, the thing I worry about is that that's the first step toward getting some kind of private Army that protects him, and then you've got a dictatorship.
Because it might not be Biden, but somebody who comes in after him might inherit this private army, and then you've got a lot of trouble.
You've got Saddam Hussein situation.
I'm not predicting that'll happen.
I don't think it will. But, wow, it's the worst start I've ever seen for a president.
And I feel like I could add several things to that list.
But imagine if Trump had done any of these things.
I hate doing that.
I hate doing the imagine if Trump had done this, what they would say.
But imagine if Trump had doubted the loyalty of the troops.
Just wrap your head around that.
It's unthinkable.
Like, the amount of fallout that there would be if Trump had doubted the loyalty of the troops.
Now, do you think Trump had any doubts himself, given TDS, And the fact that, I don't know, maybe half of the military is probably anti-Trump.
Do you think that Trump was also at risk?
I think he was.
And I think he took the physical risk because that was the right play for the country.
Was it the right play for Trump?
No. No, not directly.
Meaning that he would put himself in physical risk, potentially.
But it would have been the right play for a leader.
He's got a lead from the front.
All right. That's my main points for today.
And is there anything I missed?
Yeah, what's going to happen in North Korea?
What's going to happen with funding the military?
And by the way, you don't hear a lot about defund the police anymore, do you?
Defund the police was all over the place.
Until Biden won and they found out that it was a bad idea.
Somebody says, you miss everything every time, Scott.
Well, that's a good comment.
Thank you for that comment that I miss everything every time.
I feel that that was useful.
You spent your time in a good cause there.
Thank you. I feel that I've been bettered by it, by your constructive criticism, that I get everything wrong every time.
Thank you for that.
I feel myself correcting now to full accuracy.
All right. Because everything.
What does your guts say about the Biden win?
I mean, in terms of whether it was a legitimate election?
Here's what my gut says.
I've said this before, I'll just summarize.
That any digital system can be hacked, but the narrative is that the election system is the only one that can't be hacked.
Now, I say can't, Because how would you know?
So treating the election as it's a given and it's solid and we must all accept the outcome, which, by the way, I do accept the outcome, and I have from the start.
Because I think the system does what the system is going to do.
Biden's the president. The system decided he was.
Whether or not the voters decided is a question that we can't know because we don't have transparency.
So I would say that the...
The Biden win did not track with my observations of the world.
So it did not match my observation.
So that's a red flag, but it doesn't mean it's wrong, right?
And I think most of you have the same experience, which is, I could see him winning in a squeaker.
But I can't see him winning that much.
Because it just, you know, my experience did not suggest that could happen.
Now there are other people who have said that for the last four years I've been talking to enough people that of course Biden was going to win.
So there are other people whose objective, let's say not objective, but their observation is completely consistent with a big win by Biden because everybody they talk to hated Trump.
So given Trump's popularity and the advantage of an incumbent and all of that, I would say that the election raised questions which many of them have been answered.
So I would say almost every election fraud claim that I've seen has been addressed in a way that makes me trust the debunk more than the claim.
Doesn't mean I'm always right, but the debunks do sound stronger than the claim, maybe only because they went second.
That always sounds stronger.
How soon have you forgotten about bullying?
Bullying? That's what we liked about Trump, was the bullying.
The bullying was his feature, not his flaws.
I'm not sure if that's what the comment was getting to.
But we...
Those who supported Trump wanted a bully.
They wanted somebody to bully the people who needed to get bullied.
Other countries, China, North Korea, Democrats.
So that's kind of what they wanted.
Now, is there some blowback from having a bully?
Yeah, it looks like a bully is a one-term president, probably.
Oh, talking about bullies preventing the observers.
Yeah, so we didn't have as much...
We don't have transparency in the observation.
We don't have enough transparency in the code.
There are probably lots of ways that an election could be rigged in small ways.
We wouldn't have visibility to it.
But I would say that if the Trump team didn't put together a convincing package of the strong claims and just make a good show of that and that didn't happen, We observed that there was no strong package of claims.
All of the claims seemed to be combined with weak, ridiculous stuff about Venezuela and Italy and stuff.
So everything looked like trash because it was combined with the trash.
But I think there are some of the statistical arguments I haven't heard one way or the other about them.
Now, the statistical arguments don't prove any kind of fraud.
They just say, hey, you should look here.
And if they say, hey, you should look here, they did a recount.
That's all we have. We can't look any deeper than that.
Scott is acting like legitimate claims were heard from any courts.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
My understanding is that The courts saw few, if any, of the actual claims.
Part of that is because they weren't presented to the court for reasons, I don't know.
Part of it is that the cases were thrown out for technical reasons, so they were never judged.
Some of them, because the claims weren't big enough to change anything, so the court said, get out of here.
But the courts were irrelevant to the question of whether there was any impropriety in the election.
If you believe that the courts told you something that would be useful to understand whether the election was as fair as you wanted it to be, those are just disconnected things.
There's what the court did, and there's whatever happened in the election, but the court doesn't know.
What's the court know? They don't know any more than you do.
All right. Now, just because things were tossed for technicalities doesn't mean they weren't debunked.
So almost everything that I saw claimed was either ridiculous on the surface, the Venezuela stuff, or was debunked by somebody who had enough information to debunk it.
There are a few things that I haven't heard of debunk for, but that doesn't mean they're not debunked.
All right. I've never heard of this book, Sinclair's book.
All right. One other thing I want to leave you before I go.
My profile, if you will, in this realm of talking about, I guess, politics and life and strategies and stuff, it has been, you know, increasing over time with these live streams.
And there's a weird thing happening, which is people are sending me massive amounts of research material and gigantic emails with multiple points.
And usually it's because they want to win me over to their side, because they think I'll be a good advocate, or they're filling in some blanks, something they think I should know to make my presentation better.
So what I want to tell you is that I can't look at all those.
There are so many things being sent to me now, just long emails and complicated messages and, you know, what do you think of this book?
So most things I won't be able to respond to, some things I'll be able to skim, but...
Somebody says, how do we email?
Don't. Don't.
I'm telling you, don't email me because it's a waste of time.
If you had asked me six months ago, I would say, yeah, send me a message.
I'll take a look. But I can guarantee you that you have a very low chance of me looking at anything that's more than, say, several sentences.
So anything beyond several sentences, just assume I'm not going to look at it.
Even if it's valuable, and even if I should, and even if I ask for it.
I just don't have the capacity at the moment.
All right, I'm going to be trying today to go and take a honeymoon.
Yes, a delayed honeymoon.
I will keep from you my secret location.
If all goes well, the next time you hear from me will be from not this room.
I think there will be at least one day in which I will be traveling during the The time of the sip.
So if there's one day you don't see me by 7.02 and I haven't tweeted about it, probably I'm not going to show up that day, but it should be just one day.
Otherwise, as long as they have Wi-Fi, and yes, it's my honeymoon.
Yes, Christine is going with me on my honeymoon.
But thanks for asking. Yeah, it's a delayed honeymoon because we got married during COVID, so we're trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
I'll tell you later where it's at, but for now you don't need to know, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
