All Episodes
Feb. 22, 2021 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:10
Episode 1293 Scott Adams: Experts Prove How Worthless They Are, And the Rest of the News

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Experts and the yearly flu death count Social media restricts free speech more than law? Line item veto COVID vaccinations and the pandemics end Charismatic party leaders ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody.
Come on in, gather round.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
The best time of the day, every single time.
It's amazing what a record we have.
Not an unbroken streak yet.
Incredible, yeah. And all you need to make this an even better time is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or tels or stein the canteen jug or flex a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And I'd like to settle a little mystery.
Yeah, there's real coffee in there.
Try not to pour it out.
But you can see it.
Oh yeah. And I'm really sipping.
Apparently there's some controversy about whether this is a fake sip or a real sip.
Oh, it's real. Let me slurp it to make sure you know.
Ah! Any questions?
That's real coffee.
And that's my cat Boo, who has taken a spot on the shelf.
I guess she'll be sitting on my shoulder.
All right. Let's talk about all the important news.
Wow! Have you noticed that the news is, dare I say, scintillating?
Yeah, I don't get to use that word a lot, but it's just smoking.
Yeah, for example, there's a story about the Ivy League cancelling sports.
Aww. Aww.
The Ivy League is canceling sports.
The most elite gifted athletes in the country, who are not good enough to play professional sports, obviously, but gifted enough to play in the Ivy League, and they don't get to play this year.
Here's what I say.
Why the hell do colleges do sports?
It doesn't make sense anyway, right?
We're used to the fact that schools and colleges just include sports and it's a big part of the whole thing.
But why?
Why? It doesn't make any sense.
When you homeschool, do you throw a gym class in there?
Probably not.
I feel as though...
Exercising and playing pick-up sports is the one thing you don't need to teach anybody.
I mean, it's the one thing people will pick up on their own.
Throw a soccer ball in the street and let them go.
Anyway, I'm anti-school sports.
And the reason is it's elitist and it basically picks winners and makes everybody else a loser in a category that nobody should be competing on anyway.
I mean... You're the best lacrosse player in the school.
Oh, good for you.
The best lacrosse player.
There's a valuable life skill you'll take with you.
Not. Alright.
So I don't care about school sports, I guess is the bottom line.
I caused a little trouble with the experts this morning.
Let's talk about the experts.
Let me tell you, if there's one thing I can say for sure when it comes to science and medicine, I would not be an expert.
Can we agree on that?
I'm not an expert. Could we also agree Well, let me get into this.
The topic is, I've been questioning the official statistics of how many people die from the normal seasonal flu.
And the basis of it is that if so many people die every year from the regular flu, 50,000-ish, why don't we ever hear about it?
Because we hear about auto accidents.
Everybody knows somebody who died in a car.
And it's about the same number every year.
You all know somebody who died of AIDS, probably, right?
You all know somebody who died of an overdose.
Overdoses are about the same number a year as the season of flu, allegedly.
So why is it that some categories of death, you all know somebody who died in that category, but you don't know anybody who died of the flu?
Why is that? Now, I asked this question, and what did the experts say?
Shut up. Yeah, basically.
The experts said, shut up.
Now, they didn't use those words.
Let me tell you what some of the experts said.
There was a pulmonary cardiologist who weighed in and told me on Twitter to stop spreading false information about seasonal flu.
Because, did I mention I'm not an expert on science or medicine?
And so therefore, if I ask a question about an obvious discrepancy between observation and science, If I just ask the question, can you explain the discrepancy?
I have become somebody who's doubting science, and I'm out of my field.
And so this pulmonary cardiologist says, stop spreading false information.
To which I say, wait a minute.
Asking a question about how to explain a discrepancy, is that really the same as spreading false information?
Well, it is if somebody is dumb enough to look at my question and then conclude that there therefore are facts to prove that the ordinary flu doesn't exist.
But I didn't say that.
Did I? I just said there's a discrepancy.
Something about what we understand about the world doesn't make sense, and I would like it to be explained.
And it might indicate that there's something fundamental that we believe about something that needs to be adjusted.
But the expert, the pulmonary cardiologist, tells me that lots of people have died from the seasonal flu, and I should stop spreading false information, which of course is a hallucination.
So the expert comes into the argument hallucinating.
Because I didn't spread that, I asked a question.
A reasonable one.
Not only is it a reasonable question, but he didn't have the answer.
Right? He didn't have the answer.
What's the answer to the question of why I don't hear anybody dying of this thing that's killing tens of thousands of people a year?
No answer. But he's pretty sure that his hallucination, that I've made a claim instead of a question, and now he's addressing the claim.
So should I listen to the expert when here's an obvious case?
I mean, you don't have to take my opinion about it.
You can just look at it.
You can see what I said.
You can see that I've couched it consistently as a question.
And you can see that he's treating it as if I said it was a fact.
That's a hallucination.
Right? You can see it for yourself.
So how do I trust the experts when I can observe them hallucinating?
You don't even have to wonder.
You're directly observing a hallucination.
I'm not making this up.
You could go look yourself. Is he the only one who hallucinated this?
Nope. Here's an OR nurse who comes in and says about my tweet, asking the question, Rarely have I seen such a perfect example of somebody making assumptions about a subject that is out of their area of expertise.
I can only suggest you talk to someone who is actually an expert in the field.
I'm a healthcare professional, and you could not be more wrong.
Do better.
Do better. So, it starts out by saying that I'm making an assumption about a subject.
What was that assumption?
Can you point to the assumption I made?
There isn't one.
So this is another expert who says, yeah, hey, I'm in this field, you're not.
And the expert comes in and then hallucinates, literally, literally hallucinates, that I made an assumption.
I asked a question.
That's the opposite of an assumption.
I said, I don't know how to explain this discrepancy.
Can anybody explain it?
And that turned into an assumption that something's not true.
So should I listen to this expert who's hallucinating about my assumption, or the other expert who's hallucinating that I made a claim?
Neither of those things happened, right?
And you can directly observe that they didn't happen.
Here's another one.
Rebecca Diamond, MD, says, I've cared for two pediatric patients in my young career, and training and training who died of influenza two healthy children two kids me I cared for them when they were alive then they died Scott Adams please come look parents in the eye and tell them flu is exaggerated to push vaccines okay why would I look people in the eye and tell them something I I don't claim why would I do that So here's the expert telling me I should look parents in the eye and tell them something that I'm not claiming.
I'm asking a question.
So she's hallucinating again, right?
This is three in a row.
Experts who are all hallucinating and not even being able to understand the question.
Clearly. Now here's my other question.
How do healthy children die...
How do healthy children die of a seasonal flu?
Now, isn't the first thing you would imagine is maybe they missed something?
Like maybe they weren't so healthy and we just didn't know?
Well, one paper that somebody sent me to explain this It says that actually the problem in some cases, and may have been the problem with the two kids that this doctor saw, is that if you're young and your immune system has not yet been challenged,
so you haven't developed a healthy immune system yet, it's something you probably will develop, but you don't have it yet, and then the virus is too much for you, you don't have the immune system.
Now, what would be a description of somebody who doesn't have a working immune system?
Healthy? I mean, that is the word we use.
We would call those babies healthy despite not having a functioning immune system.
Yet. Because if everything went according to plan, they would develop that in time.
So are they healthy? It's normal, right?
It's normal. And there are people who would certainly be healthy.
But how in the world do you say that the flu is what killed them when they didn't have an immune system?
You need both conditions.
Not one. Both.
So if two things have to happen to cause the death, which one's the cause?
If I were making the rules, I would say the cause is somebody lived in the real world without an immune system.
And there's a big risk when you do that, and one of the many things that could get you, got him.
Now, I can see the argument that you'd say that that's actually the flu.
But the flu is just sort of the way our brains work is just the recent thing that happened.
So it feels like it's the flu.
But if you're really looking at what killed them, it's all the things.
Everything that happened had to happen just right for them to have that tragic end.
So I feel as though...
These are people, both the senior citizens who die of it, are, I think in every case, probably compromised from some other comorbidity or their general immune system has depressed to the point where a little bit of a typical flu can kill you.
But would you say that the flu killed you if you're a senior citizen?
Let's say you're on the edge of death anyway.
Maybe you're a year away, so it's coming.
Let's say your immune system started up here and starts to drop as you're getting nearer and nearer in death.
Now, where it starts out, maybe if you got the flu, it wouldn't kill you.
But the flu is still the flu.
It doesn't change that much, right?
It's just the flu. But your ability to withstand the flu decreases and decreases and decreases until you don't have an immune system that could keep you alive.
And then you get the flu and you die.
Would you say that it's the flu that killed that person?
We do. But I wouldn't.
I wouldn't say that. I would say they died of old age.
They died of not having a body that can live in the real world.
Because the real world has all these bacterias and flus and stuff.
Now let me ask you this.
How many people who die of the flu, especially seniors, die in the hospital?
How many do you think die in the hospital of the flu?
Probably... Pretty big number, right?
Wouldn't you guess? Not all.
Or in, let's say, a nursing home.
Hospital or nursing home.
Probably a lot, right?
Big percentage? Don't know the percentage.
How many of those people get checked to see if specifically what they died of was the seasonal flu?
None, right?
They don't check that. If you had some flu symptoms and you died, they're going to say it was the flu.
Let me ask you this. How many people die from hospital infections and just picking up something else in the hospital?
A lot. A lot.
Makes you wonder if maybe there's some confusion about why people die.
Anyway, so let me add this.
When the experts tell me, hey, we're the experts, listen to me, I like to add this context.
Number one, have you checked my track record against the experts?
Because I certainly understand the concept that people should not be talking about medicine and science if they don't have backgrounds in it and overruling the experts.
As a general statement, that's pretty smart, right?
You don't want the ignorant people overruling the experts.
In my specific case, I'm usually dealing with their thinking, not their expertise.
You can see in this case, these are three experts who didn't think well.
Beyond that, one of my early jobs in my career, I was a bank lender for Crocker National Bank, and I would approve loans that came in from the branches, and I was supposed to be the expert who said whether the loan was put together right and whether it should be approved.
And for some of those years, I worked in a special group that focused on doctors and some other professionals.
And why did we focus on doctors?
Was it because it was a really good market and they had a lot of money, so you want to have a special group to focus on loans for a good group?
No, it wasn't that.
It was because doctors are bad at repaying loans.
Why are they bad at repaying loans?
Because they're not good at business.
Why are they not good at business?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But I know that it was my job to keep doctors from doing stupid things.
Literally. That was my job.
To keep doctors...
From being stupid about something in the world.
You know, do you make enough money?
Does the risk management make sense?
That you could pay back this loan based on what you project about your income, etc.
It was literally my job to keep doctors from doing stupid stuff.
And we needed a whole department to do it because doctors, in particular, did more stupid stuff.
At least financially.
So that's some good background for you.
And so while the doctor was telling me that I should not be doubting, because what I was doing is questioning and doubting.
So that part is true. I'm a skeptic about the estimates for regular seasonal flu.
And... So after the experts came after me, Andres Backhaus, my favorite internet fact checker, came in and tweeted to one of the professionals an article from the Journal of American Medical Association, JAMA. Now this is one of the most respected medical publications, right?
So this is in the field of the expert who's telling me To stop questioning the seasonal flu numbers.
All right? So that's what the expert told me.
Stop being out of my field.
But here's what the Journal of American Medical Association said.
Quote, from our analysis, we infer that either the CDC's annual estimates substantially overstate the actual number of deaths caused by influenza, Or that the current number of COVID deaths are substantially overstated.
So even the Journal of American Medical Association, somebody says JAMA is ad-driven by pharma, which I don't think matters too much to this case, but it's worth noting.
And so here's the expert who was unfamiliar with his own field.
You can see it yourself. Do you think that the medical expert who told me to stay out of this is familiar that his own field is questioning, exactly like I am, whether these statistics are accurate?
Right? So, who is the idiot here?
The cardiopulmonologist, or whatever he is?
Or the guy who knew that the...
Because I already knew this.
By the way, I didn't know from the JAMA article, but I was aware that within the medical community this number is being challenged.
But he wasn't.
Who's the expert?
All right. So here's my little mental exercise for you.
Suppose there's a bubble boy.
A bubble boy is somebody who has no immune system.
And he has to stay in his bubble to avoid contact with the real world.
But one day the bubble boy decides to sneak out of his bubble.
He immediately gets infected by the first thing that gets him.
His immune system can't handle it.
He dies. What's his cause of death?
Is the bubble boy's cause of death that specific infection that was the thing that finished him off?
Or was the cause of death having no immune system and going outside?
How do you code that?
Because it feels like the cause of death was having no immune system.
Because if life, just going outdoors, kills you, I don't know if it was life that killed you.
I feel like you weren't designed to live within this life.
That's what it feels like.
But I get that we have to maybe code it differently for different reasons.
Alright. There's a Polish law.
This says that the social media platforms will be fined millions of dollars if they ban anybody for speech that's not, listen to this, also illegal under Polish law.
So in other words, the social media platforms are not allowed to restrict speech more than the government restricts it.
That's a pretty good law.
Why didn't I ever think of that?
Why did you ever think of it?
It feels like exactly the right way to make a law, doesn't it?
Because what could be cleaner than that?
This removes really all doubt.
Now you still have to argue about maybe some specific cases that you're not sure if they violate Polish law as well.
But I like how clean this is.
And I think it would also require, it would push, I think, the platforms to still carry this offensive speech, but make it easier for other people to not see it.
Because at the same time that I think offensive and incorrect speech should be allowed for free speech reasons, I certainly would like a button that I don't have to see it.
You know, optionally, if I can push a button and say, don't show me any of this stuff that's just obviously BS or obviously hate speech or something like that.
So I haven't heard the counterargument to that, but I like it.
And I don't even know why the social media platforms would disagree.
What exactly would be the argument against it?
Because they do have the ability to wall off anything they want.
You could just say, I don't want to have content from that kind of people.
And I think the AI would figure out how to keep it away from you by keywords and whatever else.
United Airlines, one of their 777s, lost an engine.
Did you see those scary photos?
And I just wanted to add my own experience because I saw Ian Bremmer tweeting the other day about how bad United Airlines service is.
And I told you not long ago when I tried to go for my delayed honeymoon in Bora Bora that when I found out the only way to get there, at least easily, was a United flight, I just immediately added four hours to the trip.
Because United Airlines, in my experience, and this is just anecdotal, I'm not making a claim that would necessarily pass any statistical check, but in my experience, there's a technical problem with almost every United flight I'm on.
It's only a matter of how long they're delayed and whether they eventually just trade out the plane.
But the number of actual mechanical and technical problems I've personally Encountered only on United flights is really high.
Like the number of United flights that don't happen because of a mechanical difficulty is scary.
And here's one that fell apart in the sky, but they landed okay.
Seen a lot of complaints about the big spending package that has a bunch of pork and stuff that the Democrats want.
And everybody, of course, is complaining and saying, why can't we have the line item veto and all that?
And I think the reason you can't have the line item veto to get rid of the pork is that you wouldn't be able to get anything done.
I don't think people quite appreciate that the pork is a legal form of bribery, which, given the other parts of our system that are imperfect, is sort of the only way to get anything done.
You have to actually bribe members of Congress By saying, all right, we'll build a bridge in your stupid state too, or we'll put a military base there if you'll just vote for this thing once.
So the problem is that the politicians are in this position in the first place.
The problem is not that they solved it the only way that you could, by literally bribing people.
The problem is that there is no solution other than bribing people.
As soon as you put in the line item veto, The people who needed to be bribed wouldn't vote against it.
So the line item veto doesn't solve anything.
It just makes it impossible to run your government the way it was designed.
Now you'd have to change something more fundamental to make the line item veto also work.
But you can't just toss that in there and think it solves things.
I'm always reminded of this when I see people complaining about the cost of a wrench or a screwdriver is $400,000 for the space shuttle or something like that.
And all the people who see those stories, they say, what?
What a rip-off.
It doesn't cost $400,000 for one screw to fix the space shuttle.
They're ripping us off.
Now, of course, what the news doesn't tell you, because the news is dumb, is that they're not charging you $400,000 for a screw.
They're charging you $400,000 to build a factory that can build that one screw.
Because they only needed one.
And they don't make them any other way.
So I'm exaggerating, but the whole point is that the reason those individual items cost so much is that you're absorbing some overhead for creating a system that will make one device that only works on the space shell, right?
So the public is never told that there are actually perfectly good reasons for why there's pork.
Nobody has a way to get rid of it, that I've heard.
And there's a perfectly good reason that your one bolt for your space shuttle does cost a gigantic amount of money.
There's a real reason for it.
The news just doesn't tell you what that reason is, so you think, it's nonsense!
It's nonsense! But that's not exactly what's going on.
I feel as though...
I believe I'm maybe one month away from the vaccination.
So I'm 63, and I have a little bit of asthma.
So I think the next layer, at least in my state, it's different everywhere, I suppose.
But in California, at least within the Kaiser HMO, it looks like the next wave would include people like me.
Now, people like me being you have at least one comorbidity that you can...
That you can sell.
So I think if you add my age, which is below the limit that they say is automatic, plus my asthma, I probably get the shot in the next wave.
Now, here's the thing.
By the time you're giving shots to people like me, don't you have really 95% of the people who are going to die from this thing?
I mean, without the vaccination that would have died?
Because I don't feel like I would die from COVID, even with a comorbidity.
Like, my odds would be pretty small.
But far bigger than other people, in theory, right?
Because of the comorbidity. But if one month from now I'm going to be vaccinated, and let's say it takes a few more weeks to kick in, I think we're almost there.
Because you don't really need...
The young people to be vaccinated.
I mean, it might be nice, but you don't need it in order to get to the end.
So I feel as if we're really like one month plus a few weeks for the vaccine to catch in.
We're close now.
You can smell the end of this thing, even though I know the mask wearing and stuff is going to linger seemingly forever.
But the real dangerous part, the part with the high mortalities, the part where you have to close all your businesses, the part where you have to close your schools, I feel like we're close now.
So I hate to quote that bad movie, but stay alive.
Stay alive.
Just a couple more months.
You can do that.
We're almost there.
And when we're done with this thing, and we will be done with this, it does have an end, we will be the generation that lived through it.
We'll have something in common that forever will bond us.
And I feel like we could be quite proud of this.
Despite the massive amounts of deaths, despite all the mistakes made, I feel like, as humans, We should be proud of this.
And we're almost there.
So hold on.
Stay alive. Do a little social distancing between now and then.
And I think we got this.
I think we got it.
All right. Michael Che, who's on Saturday Night Live, he's in a little bit of hot water, as they like to say, for making a joke about Israel, which, as you might imagine, is being called anti-Semitic.
Here is the joke he made.
Use your judgment.
Should he apologize for this joke?
He said, quote, Israel is reporting that they vaccinated half of their population.
I'm going to guess it's the Jewish half, said Che.
Is that anti-Semitic?
My ruling is no.
No, it is not anti-Semitic.
It is definitely a criticism of Israel the country.
That's obvious. But here's my problem with it.
It's not a good criticism.
On this topic. Because this is one of the topics where Israel set the standard, basically.
Not only did they set the standard for fairness, because they really, really made sure that they weren't doing what he's alleging.
Israel did not do that.
They did it right.
They made sure that the Palestinians and everybody else got the same access, right?
With no difference. And they were transparent.
And they gave more shots than anybody faster.
So anything you say about Israel and vaccinations, if it's not a compliment, you're uninformed.
Now, should Michael Che apologize for being uninformed?
Maybe. Maybe.
But I don't think you should apologize for being anti-Semitic.
It doesn't look like that to me.
It looks like a statement about a country And if you said, does he have a point that historically Israel has treated Israelis better than they treated Palestinians?
That's an argument you could have.
And if Michael Che's comment is really about the history of Israel maybe being more harsh to outsiders than themselves, or even more harsh to anybody but the Jewish people within Israel, You could have that argument, but I think it's an inertful joke.
Because any comment he made about Israel being unfair in the past, it doesn't apply to this situation.
Even if you think there's a good point about the past or some other situation, it just doesn't apply to this.
And saying it, I think, is bad for Israel, for the world, really.
So here's my take on this.
I don't think he owes anybody an apology for being anti-Semitic, because it wasn't, in my opinion.
It's a judgment call.
In my opinion, it wasn't.
But it wouldn't be bad to issue a clarification.
And if he did, I would accept it immediately under the 48-hour rule.
And I think a clarification could be, you know, I'm talking about the country and its history.
Didn't mean to say something about the vaccination specifically.
They're doing a good job on that.
That would be fair, right?
Would you hate him if he said that?
I think that would be a perfectly reasonable, polite thing to say.
You know, he probably went a little too far on that joke, but it's a joke.
I don't think people should lose their jobs over uninformed jokes.
If they did, I would have lost my job a long time ago.
Because I make some uninformed jokes.
Somebody says, let the Jewish people decide.
I don't know if that standard works.
Do you let other people decide that you've done something bad and therefore you must be punished in some way?
I don't know. It's not a good standard.
It wasn't even a funny joke, somebody says.
Yeah, it really wasn't, was it?
All right, I've been seeing in the comments today a number of you saying, hey, move on.
You're talking about that topic too much.
And you're not wrong.
Have you noticed that the news got very uninteresting?
But it turns out that Trump may be, I guess he's going to give a speech at CPAC. He's back.
And people are calling him the presumptive leader of the Republican Party.
Well, I don't know if that's the case.
But I would say he might be a kingmaker.
So I don't know if he's going to run again.
But if there is somebody running that he favors, whoever that is, is going to be a strong candidate right out of the gate.
Somebody says, read other news sources.
Because there's more interesting news.
Is that why? Here's the thing I worry about.
I don't believe that this country has any leader anymore.
Do you? Because Biden is the president, but he doesn't feel like a leader per se.
It's something about Biden.
And you don't think he's going to be there that long, etc.
Kamala Harris would be the president if he were to leave office, but she doesn't have...
That leaderly equality, you know, the charisma, the Trump thing, the Bill Clinton thing, the Obama thing, right?
There are lots of people who have that charisma.
And we don't have one on the left or the right.
You know, I've said AOC someday, but she's not quite seasoned up to be ready.
And I feel like this is a dangerous situation because if a charismatic person I feel like the news and social media is sort of like pushing things.
And then the leaders are just sort of responding to things.
But there's no leader leader.
Yeah, I see people mentioning DeSantis in Florida, and I think he's doing a good job as far as we can tell.
But he's still more of a state leader.
He doesn't have a national...
And DeSantis...
I don't know if his charisma is big enough...
That makes me question whether he could take the next level up to national office.
There's a charisma issue.
If you were to look at charisma, you're looking at AOC, you're looking at Matt Gaetz, right?
Lots of charisma. If you don't like his policies or whatever, but he's got lots of charisma.
At least there's that.
So I think we're a little bit exposed.
I would worry that some evil leader could emerge.
Dave Smith is taking over the Libertarian Party.
Well, that could be interesting.
All right. Candace Owens, somebody mentioned.
Candace would be so much fun.
No, you're right. I think Candace Owens is...
If you talk about charisma, she's got all the charisma, but I haven't seen her looking like she wants to run for national office.
If she did, she'd be very interesting.
Yeah, Josh Hawley is really good on TV, and he's got that deep voice, and he's really smart.
I think he's a Harvard guy, right?
But he seems a little closer to a traditional politician with good hair and a good voice.
He doesn't feel like the special one.
Yeah, I don't know.
Is Candace old enough?
I don't know. Don't know what her age is.
She seems too young.
Both. Because she'll be even more seasoned later.
Somebody says Tim Scott.
He could be interesting. I don't know if he has the charisma.
Again. Christy Noem.
She's got charisma. But she also doesn't have a big national profile yet.
Alright. That's all I've got for now.
Let's hope that tomorrow will be...
Better and more interesting news.
If you haven't seen my video, my micro lesson that I did, that's pinned to my Twitter feed, you might check it out.
I'm teaching you how to find happiness and the meaning of life, or at least how to get on the path to having those things.
For some of you, it will be the most important thing you've ever seen.
I don't know what percentage.
Not most of you, but for some of you.
It will actually be life-altering.
So I recommend it.
It's worth two minutes of your life.
And that is all for now.
Talk to you later. All right, YouTubers.
And just looking at your comments right now.
This is the best part of the day.
Can Biden handle the State of the Union?
Yeah, sure. He'll be reading it.
When is the State of the Union?
It's pretty soon, right? Or is it...
Maybe they don't do it the first year.
They probably do it after the first year.
Wait, what did you say about me?
Scott Adams has the charisma, but he is too selfish.
You're correct. I agree with that criticism.
But I would also be destroyed like anybody else.
Now, let me tell you how I would handle the reputational problem, because if you're an artist and you go into politics, you've got lots of things you've said that people are going to dig out and have fun with.
And I think what I would say is just assume that everything you've ever seen about me is true.
Unless it was something illegal and then assume it probably wasn't true.
But anything that somebody said about bad character or decisions or bad social life or personal things, just assume it's all true.
And then make your decision.
Because if I couldn't offer you a form of leadership that you would still prefer, even if you knew I said that offensive thing 20 years ago, I probably shouldn't be president, right?
If I can't give you a good enough package to overcome the fact that I said that thing 20 years ago that offended somebody, I shouldn't be president.
So no, I wouldn't worry about that.
I just say, believe it all. Most of it won't be true.
The Murray-Gell-Mann theory tells you most of it's not true.
But I'm not going to spend my time saying, oh yeah, okay, that one was a little bit true, and that one was out of context, and that one's just a complete lie.
Just assume it's all true.
And then make your decision.
I would still be better than the competition.
Alright. Somebody says, Candace will be 35 in 2024.
That's convenient. Somebody says, I don't like that you abandoned Trump.
Did I? Did I abandon Trump?
I don't think that's a fair characterization.
I think that from the beginning, I've always said what I liked about him and what I didn't like about him.
What changed? That never changed.
There was never any time when I said everything about him is good and everything about the other people is bad.
I've never been that person. So if the last thing that he's famous for for being in office was the capital assault, that's not my fault.
That's in the news.
I didn't do that. Alright.
Somebody says, I personally feel like we're the people who have been abandoned.
You mean the base?
Yeah, I would agree with you on that.
And that's all I've got now.
Export Selection