Episode 1316 Scott Adams: Biden's Brain, Immigration and Other Fun With Beverages
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
My new favorite public feud...Candace vs Cardi B
Dumb things Biden said in Stephanopoulos interview
Watch list terrorists entering America via southern border
What's the point of transgender transition?
Rasmusson poll: 75% support voter ID
Dealing with "imposter syndrome"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
The place where all the simultaneous sipping originated.
Yeah, it's a big phenomenon around the world.
I know you're hearing about it everywhere, but this is where it started, and it's the best thing that ever happened in the history of civilization.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
What do you need to contribute?
Not a lot. All you need is a cup or a mug, a glass of tank, a canteen jug, a glass of vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine heath of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called this. I will take a sip and it's happening now.
Go. Somebody says my racing stripes make me look fast.
I think that's true. I think it also makes me look like, if I cover up the bottom parts, it looks like I'm some kind of military general.
Alright, that doesn't work.
Let's talk about all of the news.
Mike Lindell of MyPillow fame is...
Counter-suing Dominion election software company.
Now, as you know, Dominion is suing Mike Lindell for claiming that their machines had any issues in the election.
Mike Lindell is suing them back.
Now, and it says here in the report I saw that Alan Dershowitz has joined the legal team.
So, Alan Dershowitz is on Mike Lindell's Legal team.
How would you like to be Dominion Software?
Or Dominion. Whatever the name is called.
How would you like to be Dominion and find out that the guy you're countersuing is...
the guy you're suing is countersuing and he just got Alan Dershowitz on his team?
How do you feel about that?
I don't think that...
I don't think anybody ever had worse news.
Dominion, we've got some bad news and some worse news.
What's the bad news? Well, you're probably going to lose billions in revenue because Michael Lindell, the pillow guy, is going to tear you apart in public.
That's bad. That's really bad.
What's the worst news?
When he countersues you, he's going to have Alan Dershowitz on his team.
It's a little worse. It's a little worse.
Now, of course, people are assuming that the real play here, because Mike Lindell said it directly, is that if he gets sued, then he has the right to dig into some of their details, their operation.
So he has the right of discovery.
He can ask questions, and they have to answer them.
And the thinking is...
That if they do have anything to hide, or anything that they might just not want anybody to know, it doesn't have to be a crime, just something they don't want people to know, that they'll probably back down.
So if you had to predict where this goes, my guess is that Lindell will ask for information that Dominion doesn't want to give them.
And that will be the end of it.
Because if they don't provide it, they're either going to have to drop the lawsuit or provide it.
Those are the two choices.
And I don't see how they could possibly provide everything that Dershowitz and Lindell and the team are going to ask for.
Because you know that Dershowitz and his lawyers are going to be smart enough to know to ask for things that they won't give them.
And that's the end of it.
Am I wrong? Let me tell you a story about a lawsuit I was involved with some years ago in which...
I can't give you the details because part of the court settlement is you agree not to talk about the details.
So I'll say there's a very large entity, a really large company, that once sued me.
And... I said, quite reasonably, oh, well, if you have a claim that something bad happened because it was one of my businesses, my restaurant, if you have a claim that's based on my restaurant, just show us what the evidence is, and just show us the evidence, and we'll take that under consideration.
And they wouldn't. They said, no, our Our contract states that we don't have to show you evidence.
We can just claim that you did something bad and then start draining your bank account.
And I thought, well, there's no way my contract says that.
But it did. The contract actually said they could drain your bank account just because they said they had a reason.
They don't have to show you the evidence.
So they sue me.
And we...
I decided to take it to court.
It would have been easy to settle.
I could have just paid the, I don't know, $90,000 or whatever it was that they were trying to get from me.
So I could have settled, but it kind of made me mad because there was no evidence of anything.
Their claim just didn't show us any evidence.
And I correctly estimated that if I took it to court, which I did, Or at least I took it to negotiations.
It didn't actually make it to court.
I correctly assumed that if I said, yeah, let's go to court, and you're going to have to show me the evidence that shows what the problem is here, that they would drop it.
And they did. So the moment I threatened, I'll show you mine if you show me yours, it was over.
That was it. And I correctly estimated that that would be the outcome.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I live in the real world, and I do know that real people like to hide their secrets, and if those are in play, they're going to change their mind.
So, there's that.
We'll watch that. There's also a related story, sort of related, let's see if I can find this, about, is it Michigan, where the courts have decided that Michigan did not handle the election correctly, and that their changes to the mail-in votes were illegal.
Now, that won't change any of the outcome, right?
Because Biden's the president.
That's not going to change. But every day that goes by, we're going to find out a little bit more about what happened in the past.
And I'm going to say something that will probably get me kicked off of all social media.
I don't know.
But I'm going to try it out.
So here will be an edge case.
I predict...
Now let me say it as clearly as possible.
So I want to say this in a way that there's no falsehoods.
But I'll probably also get kicked off of social media.
So I'm not going to say anything that is false, okay?
First true statement, Biden is president.
The system elected him, he's been certified, he's president.
That's it. Biden won the presidency in 2020.
Now here's my prediction.
Now the prediction is not based on any false claims.
Right? So there will be no allegation of any claims.
It's just a prediction.
That we will someday learn that Trump won the election.
At least in terms of the votes.
Or, somewhat similarly, that the election was not what we thought it was.
Which ends up being the same.
You don't know who won. So, I'm sure I would get kicked off of social media if I said I know this to be true.
But I don't.
I'm simply sticking with my prediction that if you wait long enough, and it could be 10 years, right?
It could be 10 years, that somebody will come forward sometime in the next 10 years and say, you know, here's something you didn't know.
So when I was talking about the accuracy of my predictions, I was noting that how accurate my predictions are depends how long you wait.
If you don't wait very long, they don't look so good.
But if you keep waiting, they might look better.
So here's the question.
Can I say something that's a pure opinion while also saying it's not backed by a specific fact, but it is the accumulated, let's say, accumulated instinct.
That's the wrong word, but getting close to it.
It's sort of the accumulated instinct of life.
Meaning that sometimes you can smell things before you can see them.
And I think a lot of people have the same feeling, that I smell something with this election, but I can't see it.
So, we'll see. Take, for example, just the Michigan story.
I'm not sure I have all the facts of that right, but if it turned out that just the Michigan story stands, and the Michigan story...
Is that there was something illegal happened in the state.
Now, again, it doesn't matter to the outcome.
The outcome is done, right?
Biden is president. Nothing's going to change that.
Except his health, I suppose.
But won't history record that the vote in Michigan was not the way it should have gone if everything had been done legally?
That's just a true statement, right?
Is there any doubt about the statement I just made?
The history will record, based on what we know now, because the court has actually ruled, that what was done there was not legally copacetic.
So we now have Michigan that's put into the unknown category.
Unknown what would have happened if they had handled everything the way the courts say they should have.
That's one. Now what will happen in Georgia if we continue waiting and the chain of custody information never comes forward?
Because that's the situation now.
So there are these documents that show where the ballots were and who controlled them so you have this chain of custody.
So that's been asked for, but they're not providing it.
Now it's been a few weeks.
What if it's never provided?
How will history judge the Georgia outcome if they don't provide the most basic visibility that you would have, which is the chain of custody?
Well, I think that takes Georgia and moves it into the maybe box.
Again, the election's over.
Biden's president. Nothing's going to change it.
But I think Michigan and Georgia just got moved into the maybe category.
Now we've got this Mike Lindell thing.
What's going to happen when Mike Lindell asks for discovery and transparency and probably even the source code, right?
Don't you think Mike Lindell will be able to ask for the source code?
How the hell are they going to give him the source code?
I mean, really. No company gives you the source code.
You have to assume it's proprietary at some level, right?
So, I think we're going to move into a point where we went from those voting machines were absolutely, definitely fine, according to the official statement about it.
No evidence of any fraud.
I don't believe that...
Here's my prediction. I don't believe Mike Lindell will produce any evidence of fraud by Dominion.
Here that is clearly as possible.
I predict...
He won't find any evidence of fraud from Dominion because the discovery will not go that far.
There's no way that they can open their kimono and show him everything that he's going to ask for.
They have to settle.
They have to. And I think this is probably why Dershowitz is on the case.
This is just a guess. I shouldn't speculate about what Dershowitz would do, because he's operating at a different level than I am.
But I feel as though he probably sees what I see, and lots more, of course.
I think he sees what I see, that there's no way that Dominion can actually press this case, because they can't open the kimono, they can't show you the source code, and if they don't, if they don't, what are you going to do with Dominion?
You're going to move it into the maybe category.
So, in mere months, it looks like Michigan, maybe Georgia...
And maybe the Dominion system will have been moved from the these are definitely okay to the we got big questions and one of them definitely would have been different, Michigan.
We don't know different in what way, but different.
And two of the other ones are in the maybe category.
So that's going to happen within a year.
So within a year we're going to go from definitely we had an election we can trust to well there's no way to know.
What happens in 10 years?
I'm going to keep my prediction.
In 10 years, history will, by consensus, agree that Trump won the election in 2020.
Now, if you never see me again on social media, because I think that's the rule now, right?
Simply saying what I just said should get me kicked off of social media, shouldn't it?
Those are the rules.
But I haven't said anything fraudulent.
And you need people like me to press the boundary here, right?
So every time somebody gets taken down for their anti-wokeness, everything's just going to keep going that way until somebody pushes back.
So in some ways, in some ways, I'm giving you an edge case intentionally.
I'm pushing the boundary beyond where I know the boundary wants to be.
I'm just pushing it back a little bit.
That's all. So, may never see you again.
There's a story about some tragedy in, I guess, a couple of Atlanta massage parlors.
Some guy with a gun came in and shot a bunch of people.
Two different massage parlors.
And, of course, it's being reported as anti-Asian-American violence.
But where in the story is evidence to support the claim that this might have to do with a racial motive?
Right? There's no evidence of a racial motive.
And yet that's the lead story.
Why would you put a racial story into a story that doesn't have any indication?
Now, it might end up that that's exactly what it was, in which case that adds a horror on top of a horror.
But this whole anti-Asian-American violence thing...
It's a little dicey, isn't it?
Now, I'm not saying that there isn't, because I'm sure there is.
I'm sure the statistics are right.
And that's a cause for great concern.
So I'm not minimizing the problem, right?
So hear me clearly.
I'm not minimizing the problem.
I'm just saying, I don't feel like the way we're reporting this has any connection to reality.
So, we'll see.
I've never before said I had a favorite public feud, you know, when celebrities get after each other and famous people are carping at each other.
They're usually fun for a while, but, you know, I wouldn't say that I had one that I could pick out that's just the best one.
Until today.
My new favorite public feud is Cardi B and Candace Owens.
Now, if you're not up to date on this, the two of them have had some words on social media.
And Candace Owens has ripped into Cardi B for her allegedly lewd performances.
And then Cardi B at one point tweeted a horribly untrue rumor about Candace and her family.
I won't even repeat it, but just whatever you think on a scale of 1 to 10...
Whatever is the worst false rumor you might hear, it was a 10.
And it wasn't really a rumor that sounded like it could have been that true.
I mean, it just sounded like it was fake on the surface, and it was.
So Candace goes back at her and blah, blah.
So Cardi B's last rejoinder, if you will, It was one of the best things I've ever seen in terms of persuasion.
All right, so you've got these two celebrity-type people, and they're going at it in public.
And you figure that when one escalates, the other is going to match it or escalate a little bit more, and it's just going to get worse and worse.
But instead, Cardi B giving Scott a little lesson on why she's famous.
Because, I've told you before, I'm not really a music guy.
I don't really follow music, so I don't even know a lot about the most popular entertainers.
So I didn't know much about Cardi B. I couldn't, except for her WAP, I couldn't even name a title of a song, and I don't know even what it sounds like.
So her most famous song I've never heard that I know of.
But, and so I was thinking to myself, does she really have all this talent?
Because I was wondering, where's all this talent?
Because I wasn't seeing it, you know, in little clips and stuff.
I saw of Cardi B. It wasn't jumping out at me, what is it that makes her famous?
Like, I couldn't figure out, why is she famous?
It just wasn't clicking with me.
And then I saw her latest tweet to Candice, and this was the moment I said, oh, I get it now.
I totally get it now.
So here's what she did. She showed a video of, I guess, Cardi B doing a big old tongue kiss on some black woman who is not Candace.
But Cardi B tweets this to Candace.
She says, me, you, on a beach while debating about Trump and Biden.
Think about it. Republicans go watch Op, I guess that's her music video, to see what this is about.
So Cardi B tweets a picture of her making out with a black woman and sends it to Candace saying, me and you, on a beach.
Now come on.
In the history of all public feuds, is this not the best response you've ever seen?
Yeah, I get it. It's gross.
There's some of you who are turned off by the sexual part of it.
I get that. I get that.
You can have that opinion.
But the fact that she took this thing that was a feud and turned it perfectly into a promotion for her music video and just took the argument into this whole weird place is just one of the most awesome things I've ever seen.
So in this one little anecdote of this one tweet, suddenly you can see everything that makes Cardi B who she is.
Because, let me say it this way, you couldn't have written this tweet.
The average person can't do this.
So whatever there is about her, you know, whatever it is that made her famous, she has something.
There's something there.
There's a type of intelligence that comes out with this that probably, you know, pervaded all of her other work.
And I think that's what people see.
There's like a... She's weirdly intelligent.
I feel like that's what I'm seeing here.
Am I wrong? I'm seeing in the comments, everybody wants to judge her by her, you know, she was a stripper, and she's raunchy and stuff, so you want to judge her by all that stuff.
But she is in an industry where all that stuff works, right?
And, I don't know, she's not dumb, that's for sure.
Over at Breitbart, oh, here's Pierce Morgan.
So you all know the Pierce Morgan story.
He walked off of Good Morning...
Britain, his popular show, he just walked off when his opinions about Meghan Markle were not agreed with by his staff.
And since then, Good Morning Britain has lost a third of its viewers.
How do you win harder than that?
Because all Pierce Morgan asked is that he would be allowed to present his opinion on an opinion show.
That's all he asked.
Pierce Morgan only asked that he be allowed to present his honest opinion on an opinion show of which he is the host.
Come on! Is that the most reasonable thing that anybody ever asked?
I'd like to put my honest opinion on this honest opinion show.
Most reasonable thing anybody ever asked, and apparently that was a problem.
So he walks off and it costs them a third of their business, which probably puts them under water.
I don't know if you could lose a third of your audience and stay profitable in today's world.
I don't know. Biden had an interview with Stephanopoulos on ABC because apparently that's a safe space.
So Biden, I guess, knows that Stephanopoulos will ask the right questions and they'll edit out anything that looks too bad.
So it's a little safe space.
But here are some of the dumb things that Biden said.
Biden denied that he should have anticipated the surge in migrants based on his softening of the rules.
Really? I hope that was a lie.
I've never hoped a politician was lying more than I hope it now.
You didn't anticipate that?
The part where you said we'll make it really easy to come across the border?
And you didn't anticipate that that would cause some additional people to come across the border?
I hope he's lying.
Because if he's a liar, well, then he's just a politician.
But if he really didn't anticipate it, we've got a big problem.
We've got a big problem.
Because you know who did anticipate it?
Everyone else.
In the world.
All 7 point whatever billion of us Every one of us anticipated this.
But Joe Biden didn't.
He's the only one. All right.
Then he said he was defending the idea that people were coming here because of his policies.
And he goes, the idea that Joe Biden said, come, because I heard the other day that they're coming, because they know I'm a nice guy, Biden said, here's the deal.
They're not. And I thought to myself, if that works as a defense, I'm going to use it for everything.
You know, if somebody comes upon me and there's somebody who's been murdered, and I'm covered with blood, and I've got the murder weapon in my hand, and they play the video back after I get arrested, and they say, well, there you are on video.
We can watch you murdering this person.
There's blood all over you, their DNA. You've got the murder weapon in your hand.
What do you say? Here's what I'd say.
I'd say, come on, man.
Here's the deal. It didn't happen.
And then the police would say, oh.
Oh. Oh, I'm sorry.
We saw all this blood all over you, and then you had the murder weapon, and we've got the video of you committing the crime, so we just leapt to this conclusion that you were guilty.
But then when you offered your defense, here's the deal.
I didn't do it.
Well, we're persuaded.
Here's the deal. Never happened.
Meanwhile, Biden's job approval stays high.
I think Rasmussen is going to give you some numbers that will make your head fall off that Biden's approval is so good.
Now, it's not an accident that That keeping him out of the headlines makes him more popular, isn't it?
We all agree with that, right?
There's nobody who would disagree with the statement that the more you keep Biden out of the news, the more he's popular, right?
Because the news is about your flaws.
The news is rarely about the good thing you did.
It's about your flaws.
So the less news there is, and it might be that Biden has discovered something that all future presidents will use.
Because you don't have to be Biden to be more popular by not being on TV. I feel the more that you show yourself, the less popular you are.
And I'm wondering, what will happen if Biden goes into a coma?
I feel as if his popularity would reach levels that we've never seen before.
Like if he actually went into an actual coma.
I'm not hoping that happens, of course.
But if he did, I think he would hit like 80% approval ratings.
And if he were to actually die in office, which again, we hope that doesn't happen.
Nobody wants anything bad to happen to anybody.
But I think that would be his highest popularity.
He could reach 100%.
Because if he actually were dead, I think Republicans would be in favor of him at that point, and then Democrats would.
He could actually reach 100% approval just before his final breath.
So there's that. Biden also said in the Stephanopoulos interview that Putin would pay a price.
He told Step 11 because, quote, we had a long talk, he and I, meaning Putin and Biden.
I know him relatively well, and the conversation started off.
I said, I know you and you know me.
If I establish this occurred, then be prepared.
This occurred, meaning interference in the election.
When pushed on what the consequences would be, the president said, the price he's going to pay, well, you'll see shortly.
So take that, Putin.
Putin, if you've done this, I'm going to do something to you and I'm not going to tell you what.
So, be afraid.
At the same time he was making these comments, like literally just about the same time, Biden's own director of national intelligence was saying that they've looked into it and there's no evidence that Russia targeted the election this year.
No evidence of it.
Do you believe that? Do you believe that Russia targeted our election in every prior election, which probably they did, but not this one.
Not this one. When Biden wins, there was no Putin in there at all.
Suppose Trump had won.
Do you think they'd still be saying there's no Putin interference?
Doesn't seem like it.
All right. But apparently our intelligence agency is saying that Russia did authorize a persistent effort in just influence.
So Russia is doing an influence campaign, but not specifically on the election, I guess.
So wouldn't that be like every country?
Isn't every country doing an influence campaign on every other country, the big ones anyway?
So here's the other news.
Biden was asked to tell the migrants, or the immigrants, to don't come.
And here's what he said. He said, don't come.
He said it directly.
So that's good, right?
Because Biden looked right into the camera, talking to the potential migrants who might come across the border, and he said, in direct words, don't come.
And then he added, stay in your towns.
Pretty good. That's why you want it of him, right?
Don't come and stay in your towns.
It's very clear. Very clear.
Well, there's a second part of it where he talks about how our government is setting up more facilities to handle things when you come.
Oh wait, that's different.
He's saying don't come until we have enough facilities to handle you efficiently.
I didn't see anybody report that.
Did you? I was looking at the news today, and I was looking at Biden's comments, and I thought, well, this will be the big headline.
That he just said, just wait, you migrants, just wait until we can handle the volume, and then come on in.
That's what I read. Was I reading between the lines?
I mean, he didn't say that directly.
Well, no, he did say that directly.
It looked pretty direct to me.
He said, don't come yet because we don't have our operation efficient, but as soon as we're efficient, come on and come on in.
Oh, Tucker reported it last night?
Somebody saying? I didn't see Tucker last night.
But I didn't see it on the...
I don't think I saw it on Fox News page this morning or on CNN. How is that not the biggest news in the country?
The biggest news in the country should be that the president just invited Mexico into the United States and said the only thing stopping you is, you know, we're not efficient enough to process you, but we're working on it.
What would be bigger news than that?
Like, what? It's the damnedest thing.
I've told you this many times, but every time you see an example of it, it shakes you.
Which is, the things that we're told are the news...
Are not the things that are important, necessarily.
They're the things that the news business has decided they want to report on.
It's something they're going to have a theme that goes through the season.
It's like a story with an arc and everything.
But then you see other stories that are, like, gigantically important.
I mean, enormously important story.
But if the news business just decides to de-emphasize it, it's like it never existed.
All right. What else we got?
So CNN, this was weird.
On CNN, Jeff Zeleny, who's a senior Washington correspondent, wrote an article in which I almost can't believe this happened.
He was basically giving Republican Governor DeSantis credit for being right on how he handled the coronavirus.
This is weird. You don't expect it, right?
So CNN actually has an opinion piece where they're calling out a Republican governor for getting it right.
Here's my problem with this.
I think we're ascribing intelligence to luck.
Here's what I think happened in Florida.
I think Florida made its decisions on, let's say, political philosophical grounds, which is favoring freedom over safety a little bit, and that somebody was going to get lucky.
Because one of the things we've learned is that we can't tell if leadership decisions are making much difference across the world, country to country, etc.
We can't even figure out what works because there are places where the same thing that seems to work in one country didn't work at all in another.
There are places like Japan where they basically hardly did anything about the pandemic and it didn't affect them much.
We don't know why.
And So here was what was going to happen.
There are 50 states.
It is a guarantee that somebody was going to do well out of the 50 states, compared to the other states, right?
Just somebody has to be in the top half of performance.
And the people making these decisions were not making these decisions based on their superior data or their superior judgment.
They were making their decisions along political lines.
Somebody was going to get lucky.
His name is DeSantis.
He got lucky.
Because if you tell me that Ron DeSantis knew, that he knew this was the right path for Florida, that's crazy.
He didn't know.
He guessed.
And all the other states that had good performance and bad performance, do you know what they did?
They guessed. They guessed.
That's it. There were 50 states.
Somebody was going to guess right.
I mean, righter than the others, because they were doing different stuff.
And they were going to get different results for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the governor.
So, while the way our system works is that DeSantis does get credit, I agree with that, by the way.
So I agree that our system works best if we give credit to people who are in charge, and even if they didn't do something that was their fault, if they're in charge when it happens, they've got to pay for it.
That's just the way the system has to be.
So I do think it's reasonable to give DeSantis and other governors who did well credit, But realistically, realistically, they were the ones who got lucky.
And if you don't see it as luck, I feel like you're not analyzing this right.
Jake Tapper went pretty hard at Governor Newsom.
And he asked them basically, what were you thinking about going to the French Laundry?
And here's the thing.
Apparently the recall effort went from 50,000-some signatures To close to two million, and the big spike happened after the story about the governor going to the French Laundry to eat when other people he was asking to be, you know...
Well, anyway, he ate at a table with no masks and lots of people at it, so he got in trouble.
Now, here's my take on that.
So it turns out that that was like the pivotal moment that may have taken him out.
He may still win re-election, but...
It was a pivotal moment.
It was also the least important thing he did.
It was the least important thing Newsom did.
I would say he should be held to account for the forest fires, the energy problems, immigration, COVID, the economy, homeless people, drugs, mental health problems.
Those are all big.
And he should be held to account for all of that stuff.
Do you know what he should not be held to account for?
Eating at a restaurant that was open.
Because everybody else that day who ate at a restaurant that was open did not break any laws.
Neither did he. Now, he does take responsibility for sitting at a table with too many people without masks from different houses.
And that was just a mistake.
It was a human mistake.
Right? Because, let's face it, no matter how much all of us try to follow the rules, even if you're trying, you're trying to wear your mask, you're trying to do everything right, can you say you haven't broken any of those rules?
Of course you have.
100% of the public bends the rules on this coronavirus restriction stuff.
Do I care if my governor bent a little rule on this?
Not even a little bit.
So it looks like he might get taken out by the only thing that wasn't a big deal.
All these other things are really big deals.
This was the only thing that was trivial.
And it'll be the thing that takes him out.
Because the news made a big thing about it, and there were pictures, so whenever there's a picture it's worse, and it makes it look like he's the elite because it's an expensive restaurant, etc.
And there was a lobbyist in there.
It was all that stuff.
But man, in terms of content, it was the least important thing he did.
So there's some new news in the George Floyd trial, and I swear they should just cancel this trial.
I mean that literally.
We have enough information now to know that this trial should not be held.
And one of the new things that we've learned...
Apparently, George Floyd was arrested in an identical fashion, identical in some elements, to the event in which he died.
Including he was under the influence, and including he was calling for his mother, including he said he couldn't breathe, including he was resisting arrest a little bit.
I don't know. When you see that, and apparently this will be allowed, I think the judge is going to allow the evidence of his past behavior, because once you see that he called for his mother before, that's the end of it, isn't it? Because, you know, just like the Governor Newsom story, all of these other things were the important things, but we get focused on the French laundry thing because it's the shiny object.
With the George Floyd thing, the shiny object that people tend to focus on is that he called for his mother moments before he died.
Now, if you're a human being, you can't hear that without feeling it, right?
I mean, you just feel that.
But the moment you learn that that's just a thing he does when he gets arrested, it means a completely different thing now.
It just means it's the thing he says when he gets arrested.
Um... I don't know how this trial could have any kind of a murder conviction.
Cliff Simms was noting on Twitter, Cliff Simms was noting that Axios had this line in a story.
So this is a quote from a story in Axios.
Trump and other conservatives have frequently warned, sometimes inaccurately, about foreign terrorists entering the United States via the southern border.
So that's a sentence in a story by Axios.
And as Cliff Sims points out, imagine writing this line in a story that literally proves the warnings were in fact accurate.
Because the story was about actual people on the terrorist watch list who came across the border.
Like, it was a story about real terrorists, or at least on the watch list, coming across the border.
And then they have to insert a line about Trump and other conservatives frequently being inaccurate, About foreign terrorists entering via the southern border?
I mean, that's trying really hard to make your news friendly to Biden, is it?
All right. Here's the best summary of the pandemic I've heard so far.
It's a big, complicated thing, right?
But Melissa Slusher on Twitter summed it up with one tweet.
And she tweeted, I used to cough to cover up a fart, now I fart to cover up a cough.
We're done here. I think we're done here.
That's the entire pandemic in one sentence.
I have a question for you on transgender stuff.
Let me begin this by saying, the trans community, I hope they know that I'm your greatest ally, much to the chagrin of my audience.
Number two, everything I'm going to say about this topic is with respect and good intentions.
So if you feel that I say something next that sounds disrespectful, just know that that's not my intention.
But I was watching the story of Elliot Page, who used to be known as Ellen Page, And when she was defining herself as female, she's a well-known, successful actress, but is now Elliot Page and has transitioned.
And here's the question I ask, and I say this again.
I'm asking this question with genuine, respectful curiosity.
Okay? So let's keep it at that level.
This is respectful curiosity.
And I think it's a fair question.
And it goes like this.
I don't know the point of transitioning.
Do you? Can somebody explain it to me?
Like, why would you do it?
Now, I understand that people think they identify with a different gender in their mind.
I get that.
But why would you go through the process?
Let me drill down on it a little bit.
So the picture of Elliot Page on Time magazine shows Elliot dressed in, of course, boy or man attire.
She looks about...
I'm sorry. See?
There I did it. So that's accidental.
So I accidentally used the wrong pronoun.
But because you know that I'm not doing anything disrespectfully, just a mistake, okay?
Here's my question. In a world in which you can fall in love with and marry anybody you want, men can marry men, women can marry women, anybody can do anything.
In a world in which you can wear any clothing you want, right?
You can put on any clothes you want.
Why do you have to do anything else?
And this is genuine curiosity, and I feel like there's some big part of this whole topic that I don't understand.
So if there's somebody in the transgender community who can explain to me, what is the extra gain you get by the physical operations?
So let's say Elliot Page...
I don't know what Elliot Page's sexual preference is, because that gets all confusing, right?
So let's say that Elliot Page...
I don't know if that's true, but let's just say that's true.
Why wouldn't Elliot Page be able to date that same woman without having done any of the transition?
You know, assuming that that woman wants to be dated, right?
So if you can date anybody you want, you can wear anything you want, what is the point?
I actually don't understand the point.
And I'm just going to look at your messages to see if any of you know the point.
Yeah, so somebody's saying you feel trapped in the wrong body.
But does the operation help that?
I don't know. Does it?
And what does it mean to be trapped in the wrong body?
What makes it wrong? Let me drill down on that a little bit.
And again, if you're just joining this, we're trying to be respectful.
And the intention is just to learn something here that I really genuinely am confused about.
Because I think if you understand any group better, your ability to accept them and not to be biased is just easier.
So just understanding is a big deal.
Somebody says there's a psych-physical alignment problem.
But here's my problem.
If we agree there's no one right way to look, how could you be mismatched with your look and your brain?
Let me say that again.
If we've accepted the point, and I do, I accept this point, that you can look any way you want.
It doesn't matter what your gender is or your preference.
You can look any way you want.
Get any haircut you want.
Wear any clothing you want.
But you actually have to...
Is there a mental...
I'll just say the situation.
I don't want to put a judgment on it.
Is there a mental situation where there's someone who was born biologically female where they really need to have a penis other than it would be a defining characteristic of being a male gender?
But does the penis specifically, like you feel, is this what it is?
Do you feel like it should be there and it's not there?
You look down and there's no penis.
And then you need to fix that to feel like you're all whole?
Is that what it is? Yeah, so I don't really understand it.
I don't understand it on a logical level, but I want to.
I would actually like to understand it.
Alright, we'll get off of that. Did you see that video of the Biden and the microphones?
It looks like there's some weird illusion where it looks like his hand goes past the microphone or through it or something.
You have to see that video.
It's kind of freaky, but I think it's just the way the cameras are set up.
There's nothing to it except that the microphones were on long sticks.
So the reporters were actually pretty far away from Biden, but you couldn't tell because you just saw the tops of the microphones.
You didn't know they were on long sticks.
And then when Biden's talking, at one point his hand goes past the microphone, which you think would be impossible if the reporter were holding it.
So that's how the illusion happens.
But since you don't know they're on sticks, Biden just walked up to the microphones and at one point his hand went past them.
I think that's all it was. All right, all right.
So there was a claim that Columbia University was holding separate student graduation ceremonies by income and sexual orientation.
That turned out to be fake news, partially fake news, because everybody goes to the same graduation at Columbia University, but voluntarily they can have their own separate in addition to graduations voluntarily of, you know, a group by ethnicity or income or whatever.
And I'm thinking to myself, How is that good?
Let's say you're a black graduate or anything else.
I suppose there's probably an Asian-American group, etc.
And you've graduated, you've graduated with everybody, and then you want to hold your own separate graduation with people who have your ethnic similarity.
How does that help you, really?
Now, I could see if you had a party.
If you had a party with the people who were like you, even then that would be a little sketchy.
But at least, you know, it doesn't sound as bad as having a graduation ceremony with just people who look like you.
It just doesn't seem like there's anything good that could come out of that.
But a party. Yeah, a party's a party.
Rasmussen is reporting that 75% of, I think, likely voters...
I always forget to ask...
Which group they're looking at.
But I think 75% of people polled were supportive of voter ID laws, as you might suspect.
89% of them are Republicans, but even 60% of Democrats and 77% of unidentified want voter ID laws.
Now, at the same time, 75% of the public want voter ID laws, and even a solid majority of Democrats The Senate's working on this H.R. 1 bill, that if it passes, would, quote, force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying they are who they claim they are.
And I'm thinking to myself, is there ever been a cleaner example of the government not being on your side?
Now, I do approve of a government doing things that the public does not like.
But the case to do that is when the government has more information or is smarter than the public.
In those cases, yeah, I'm glad we have a republic so then the elected people make our smart decisions so dumb people like us don't have to.
But in the case of voter ID laws, I feel confident that every citizen understands the entire topic.
There's nothing complicated about should you show your ID to vote.
Like, everybody gets that.
There's no context missing.
We all get that.
And if 75% of the public who gets that completely understands the topic and doesn't want it to happen, and yet your government is doing it to you, right in front of you, they have left the station.
At this point, they're not even pretending to be on your side.
Like usually they at least have an argument.
Well, you know, we're definitely on your side.
It's good for my re-election.
But mostly it's good for you.
Yeah, it's coincidentally good for me as a politician.
But in this case, they're not even pretending.
Not even pretending.
If I were president, let me tell you how I would handle this.
If I ever saw a topic that had 75% support, I would support it.
Assuming that the public understood the topic as easily as they do this.
And even if I disagreed, if I were in the 25%, I would say, oh, I'm the President of the United States, 75% of the people understand this topic and want it this way, I'm going to support them hard.
75% is not even close, right?
A lot of our issues are sort of close to 50-50.
But this isn't close.
When you get to 75% and both parties are dominantly in favor of it, this is not a close call.
And we just allow this.
This could just happen because we don't care about it.
So to the extent that the news doesn't make this a big issue, it's just sort of a little highlight at one point, we'll just let this go through.
This is actually going to happen right in front of us, while 75% of the public doesn't want it to happen.
Amazing. And it's only good for the politicians, the Democrats, apparently.
So that is my show for the day.
If you didn't see, yesterday I did a special live stream on YouTube in which I was showing you the entire writing process of writing a joke for a comic strip.
And I think that even if you're not interested in writing comic strips, you would be very interested, if you have any interest in writing, just writing in general, I think you'd be interested in seeing the thought process from beginning to end.
So go check that out.
It's on YouTube. It looks like there's some reporting about the Atlanta massage parlor.
And it says the alleged perp had a sexual addiction, and so I guess those massage parlors probably were giving happy endings.
And so he was just a crazy guy with a sex addiction.
It doesn't seem to be racial.
So the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever that it was racially motivated, turns out it was not racially motivated.
Exactly like we assumed.
All right. And if you haven't seen my lesson on Locals, the subscription platform, my tour through the way to reframe your experience and get better results by reframing the way you think was very well received.
Very well received.
I'm working on a reframe now, and I'm closing in on it, but I don't have it yet.
And the reframe is to fix the problem that so many people have, which is you care about criticism.
And if you think somebody's thinking poorly of you in any sense, it really, really affects you.
Now that is a...
I would call that a...
Maybe a...
I'm not sure it's a flaw because it's built into all of us.
It's more natural. But you could find a hack to reduce it.
So I'm working on a few ways to reframe how you think about yourself in the world...
To deal with the fact that you're being affected by criticism more than you want to be.
And I'm close to that, and I'll give a micro lesson on that when I have it.
All right, that's all for now, and I will talk to you later.
Hack your imposter syndrome.
Yeah. The imposter syndrome is where you think you're bluffing and everybody else is smart, but you're just faking it.
And I'll tell you how I dealt with that.
The way to deal with your imposter syndrome is to know that everybody is faking it.
And once I learned that everyone is faking it all the time, and the people that you think are in control and they're confident and they really know what they're doing...
They don't. They're just better at faking.
Or they may have convinced themselves or something.
But once you realize everybody's faking, pretty much everybody's faking all the time.
You don't have imposter syndrome.
You have human being syndrome.
You're just a human.
We're all faking all the time.
Some are just better at it.
All right. What happens when you believe your own BS? That's everybody.
Everybody believes their own BS. That's why we live in subjective realities.
You believe yours, I believe mine.
What would we do to stop the inevitable trial riots?
Well, probably nothing.
I feel as if the riots are just baked in.
Because the people who do the riots don't really need a reason.
So they're going to be looking for a reason.
So I don't think you could remove the reason because they're looking for it.
They're going to find it no matter what you do.
But you might be able to minimize it a little bit.
You could take some off the top, perhaps.
If you took 20% of the energy out of it, that could be a big difference.
And here's the way I think that could happen.
If there's enough reporting about the George Floyd situation...
And there are enough experts who say, yeah, it was the fentanyl that got him.
And it can be demonstrated that the knee hold is unlikely to have been much of a difference.
Maybe some of the energy can be taken out of it, but I don't think so.
All right, just looking at your comments, and I think we're done here.
