Episode 1345 Scott Adams: I Am Back, This Time With Audio
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
"Rupared", and now..."Ruparations"
Coca-Cola feeling it in the pocketbook?
Court packing co-sponsor...Jerry Nadler!
CNN opinion propagandists
CNN, propaganda site, per CNN Technical Director
2 Dilbert NFTs just launched
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
You'll be experiencing a thing I like to call audio.
Yes, the iPad has a little flaw built into it where you can't charge it and plug in your microphone at the same time.
Same port. That's not right.
But shall we redo the simultaneous sip?
Because you may have missed it on the first try.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice inside, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Come on in and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope bean hit of the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Yes, the silent sip.
Not nearly as good.
Now, of course, the context of this is that trolls like to come in here and say the sound doesn't work.
This time I knew it was true because I didn't have my microphone in.
But I was surprised that the sound doesn't work without a microphone.
You'd think that would be kind of basic.
You were worried I'd been cancelled.
Oh, that's going to happen. So let's talk about that.
So YouTube took down one of my videos from weeks ago and said that I had violated something.
And so I tweeted about it saying I didn't know why I was taken down, and YouTube responded.
Some official Twitter response.
And it said that I had violated one of their rules about talking about the election.
To which I said, what did I say?
That was inappropriate about the election.
Because I'm not aware of anything I said that would cross any line that YouTube or anybody else has.
No, it wasn't. Apparently, they said it wasn't about China.
So they did tell me it was about the election.
But I didn't say anything that was inappropriate about the election.
Nothing that wasn't obviously true.
And some opinions that are just opinions.
So here's the thing.
Do you see the setup? So I've got this one warning, if you will, which could turn into a strike, I assume, if I do it again.
But how do I avoid doing it again?
I don't know what I did the first time.
And they won't tell me.
So the odds of doing something you didn't know you did the first time are pretty high.
Because I didn't know I did it the first time.
It would be one thing if I knew I was saying something over the line, but I'm not aware of anything that was over the line, which is not to say there wasn't.
I'm just not aware of it.
It wasn't intentional. So have I not been now set up that they can give me a couple of warnings and Not tell me what they're about, and then just boot me off the platform.
Do you think that's real?
Well, I wouldn't have thought it was real until the Project Veritas videos about CNN. When you see it on CNN, you think to yourself, well, that's probably not the only place it's happening.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
Alright, so stocks are up 9.8%.
Those stimulus checks must be working.
And anecdotally, the There's a lot of people in stores lately.
I've been noticing that. But I love the fact that Biden is getting credit for basically doing things that Trump would have done.
So Trump would have brought us out of Afghanistan, but a few months later, Biden's doing it.
Trump would have done some kind of infrastructure plan, or at least backed one or signed one, but a few months later, Biden will probably get to do that.
Trump would have eventually given checks, stimulus checks.
A few months later, Biden does that.
So even CNN's opinion propagandists were saying that Biden is accomplishing Trump's objectives.
But they try to make it look like Trump couldn't get it done, which is not implied.
It's just there's a time for everything, and Biden was in office when it happened.
Alright, here's the pun of the day.
Best pun of the day.
You've heard that Vox, I guess you'd call him journalist, Aaron Rupar, his name got in, is sort of in the, what would you call it, let's say it's entering the common language as The word for misleading video.
So when you take a video out of context and it changes its meaning, that's being called a Rupar.
R-U-P-A-R. Because, allegedly, Aaron Rupar does that so often that they just named it after him.
So, it's in the lexicon, thank you.
It's in the lexicon. But there's a new one, a new Rupar, about Tom Cotton.
So he was... Doing some stuff in Congress.
And if you see just the clip, he looks pretty unreasonable.
But if you see the whole context, looks a lot better.
So he got Rupard.
Joel Pollack tweeted about that and suggested that any, he said, victims of misleading video edits should get, wait for it, Ruparations.
Yes, ruperations.
I asked this question on Twitter in a little poll.
I said, have you cut back on your consumption of Coca-Cola products for political reasons?
Over half of the respondents said yes.
Now, of course, this is the most unscientific poll they could ever be, and my Twitter followers lean conservative, even though I'm not conservative, but they do.
They're conservative.
And half of them said that they're cutting back on Coca-Cola.
In completely unrelated news...
Coca-Cola has announced that maybe they should be more open-minded and, you know, listen to the people on all sides of the aisle.
So do you think that Coca-Cola is feeling it in the pocketbook?
I don't know.
But if half of the people who were just following me said they cut back, I have to think probably anybody who is watching Fox News, which is a lot of people, probably a lot of them are cutting back.
So, here's an interesting thing.
Should an actual professional polling company ask this question?
Have you cut back on your Coca-Cola consumption for political reasons?
If the answer is yes, in any substantial way, it changes the world.
It'll change the world.
Because it would be the most noticeable example of a corporation that sort of left its lane to get into politics and just got spanked.
Now, the other possibility is there's no difference in Coca-Cola sales.
Don't know. If enough people in a survey say they're cutting back for political reasons, that's going to get their attention.
That's the sort of thing that gets the CEO fired.
So we don't know if he'll get fired for that, but I think he should be.
In my opinion, getting involved in politics and having that take a bite out of your bottom line, I think that's a firing offense.
That's just bad management.
Speaking of polling, Rasmussen asked how many people expected conviction in the George Floyd trial.
So how many people thought Chauvin would be convicted?
Interestingly, This is one of those unifying questions.
79% of conservatives expect Chauvin to get convicted of one of the charges at least, but 76% of liberals too.
So basically the same.
Just as many conservatives as liberals expect a conviction.
And I've said before that this should have been the most unifying thing that's ever happened in this country.
From the day the George Floyd thing happened, right up to today, I've never heard anybody who wasn't horrified by it.
It's not like there's some conservatives who are saying, yeah, that's just the way it should have gone.
I mean, there are people questioning whether the officer caused the death, and that's a fair question.
But there wasn't anybody who wasn't horrified by it.
It's really unifying.
But we found a way to not be unified over it, even though it should have been.
The one thing we all would have agreed on, that we don't want that, what was on the video, But then the next question Rasmussen asked was how likely...
And by the way, for the numbers I gave you, I added together the two likelies, you know, very likely and somewhat likelies.
And I'll do that again with this one.
How likely it will cause riots?
86% of conservatives think that whatever the outcome is, it'll cause riots.
But 68% of liberals...
Also expect riots.
Again, regardless of the outcome.
But remember I keep telling you that in these national polls, no matter what the question is, about 25% of the people who answer would just be whack.
They either misinterpreted the question, or they're insane, or they're pranking.
They're just something. But that solid 25% is just...
Crazy people. And it turns out that 20% of liberals say that rioting is not likely after the verdict.
What? There are 20% of liberals who think it's not likely that there's going to be riots?
Who are these people?
These are the most wrong people in the universe.
Do they even understand the question?
I mean, honestly, I can't figure out how anybody would have that opinion.
Like, even one person in the whole country.
How do you get even to that opinion?
If somebody says artists, maybe.
Yeah, 25%-ish will answer anything in any poll.
Don't know what's up with that.
Stock market's up.
That's good. All-time high, I think.
So the police officer who accidentally discharged a gun instead of her taser, and actually killed the guy she was stopping, is charged.
And she's in her orange jumpsuit.
And I don't really understand it.
Do you? Because the body cam footage made it completely clear that it was an accident.
Do you get...
Is that a jailable offense?
If it's obviously and totally an accident?
Now, you could say, we wish the accident hadn't happened.
You could say, if she were better trained or a better officer, it wouldn't happen.
But accidents happen.
And they couldn't be more clear that there was no intention, and that she couldn't have known, because if she knew, she wouldn't have pulled the trigger.
So obviously she didn't know, and obviously there was no intention, and obviously she was horrified as soon as it happened.
Do you go to jail for that?
A mistake? I get that the standard has to be higher for the police, but what about the human being standard?
You know, there's nothing she can do to bring back the deceased.
You know, if there were some way to make that better, then I'd say do it.
But there is no way to make that better.
All you can do is destroy a second life more than it already is, and it's got to be pretty bad because she killed a guy without meaning to.
I mean, she has to live with that.
So there's something deeply unjust about this police officer...
Being taken a mugshot in an orange jumpsuit and then being put with presumably other prisoners.
I don't know in what sense.
But, wow, that just seems so wrong.
It's like a double wrong. So it's like two wrongs killed Mr.
Right. That was his actual name, Right.
Right. So two wrongs.
I mean, what he did certainly made it more risky.
What she did was obviously the thing that killed him.
So they both had to do something wrong.
It was two wrongs that killed Wright.
That actually happened.
All right. Not making light of anybody's death, of course, but the simulation is just offering up all these coincidences that are just weird.
All right. Jack Posobiec warns that you might want to think about getting out of Minnesota around the time of the verdict.
But I was warning people that getting out of Minnesota or staying out might be a good idea, but if you come to California, There's probably just a very short window before the forest fires start, because apparently our forests are like super, super dry, like drier than they have ever been, with more kindling than there's ever been.
So in about a month, the skies here will darken, and I will not have summer like last year.
Last year there was no summer in California.
So in the middle of the pandemic, you still couldn't go outdoors.
Like, it was the only thing you could do, and you couldn't even do that.
Because it was just, air quality was too low.
So that's coming.
And I'm not too optimistic about the electricity staying on either.
Oh, there's an outcome in the Ashley Babbitt situation.
She's the woman who was shot during the Capitol assault.
If you're checking your predictions, what was your prediction?
My prediction was that the person who did the shooting should not be charged, just based on what I saw.
You don't really know all the facts in a thing just by watching it on video.
But in my opinion, and I know this was deeply offensive to maybe most of you, but in my opinion...
I saw somebody who should not be charged with a crime because I did think that lethal violence was called for under that very specific situation.
Now, I hear people saying, should have done a warning shot or should have done something.
Maybe. Maybe.
But I just don't think that shooting somebody who's breaching Reaching a door in the Capitol surrounded by rioters who you don't know what kind of weapons they have or what their intentions are, I'm going to say I agree with it.
I'm going to say I agree with no charge.
And I agree with us not knowing who did the shot.
I do agree with that.
But I understand.
Completely understand if just emotionally everything about this feels wrong.
Because she was just...
She got shot trying to make the world better.
Right? That's a fact.
She was in the process...
Of legitimately and patriotically trying to make the world a better place.
She thought there was some injustice, and she thought she was marching against it.
Somebody who was in the military, trained to defend the country, probably thought she was.
So it's tragic, and I certainly don't think anybody deserves to get shot.
But that's a separate question from whether the person who did the shooting did a really hard choice...
And you don't want to be in that situation.
But, yeah, I think no charge was the right decision.
But I also respect anybody who disagrees with that, because I think that's a close call.
We've got some court packing going on.
I guess there's a bill now, and even though Biden set up this advisory committee, which we think is just a smokescreen for figuring out a way to not do it, but still Congress finding a way to embarrass itself, has introduced a bill, and it's led by Judiciary but still Congress finding a way to embarrass itself, has introduced a bill, and
Now, the fact that Jerry Nadler is assigned to this makes me wonder if every time they talk about who's going to do something, if it's something you know is doomed, you look around and say, well, this project's kind of doomed. you look around and say, well, this project's kind of Who would like to be the lead on it?
Russia collusion? Anybody?
Jerry? Jerry!
Jerry would like to take the lead on Russia collusion.
Good work, Jerry. Get out there on camera.
Make sure you've really put your reputation on the line for Russian collusion.
It's going to be good for you, Jerry.
I think this could make your career.
Because, you know, your career in Congress, I don't want to say it's not stellar.
But it's a little not stellar, if you know what I mean.
This could be your chance, Jerry.
Jerry, you could be our star.
But don't worry.
We're not going to send you out alone on this Russia collusion thing.
No, no, no, no.
We're going to give you a strong partner that people will respect.
His name is Adam Schiff.
And when the two of you go out there, it looks like Abbott and Costello.
But no, it's a very serious duo.
And you're going to have a great result.
You said yes? He said yes.
He's going to do it.
Well, months go by.
Somebody gets the idea of doing a court-packing bill, which the public hates, the Supreme Court hates, Joe Biden doesn't like it too much, and even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was against it.
So they said, we need to volunteer to lead this corp packing idea.
Anybody? Anybody?
Jerry? Would you like to step up?
Good work, Jerry.
Glad you're stepping up to this.
Take the ball and run.
And if you'd like, we could pair you with somebody who is equally worthwhile.
I mean, somebody who could help you out.
Somebody whose reputation couldn't get any worse.
Have you met Eric Swalwell?
He's on the team. Actually, I don't know if he's on the team, but it would be funny if he were.
And if you never thought of Nadler and Adam Schiff being Abbott and Costello, well, you're welcome.
You're welcome, because that's when you're heading down.
Well, if it turns out...
Let's do another topic.
So CNN... It has a little bit of a reputation problem, courtesy of Project Veritas.
And it's getting to the point where it's just funny.
I mean, CNN is so busted now, it's funny.
And there are lots of levels to why this is funny.
So, just so you know the story.
This is the funniest part.
There's a CNN technical director who got caught on video trashing CNN, his employer...
For being just a naked propaganda site, and that they all know they're working on propaganda, and he describes how they do it with no regard to truth, and he just says it out loud, and it's on video.
And the funniest thing about it is that he got busted by this Tinder date woman who went on a date with him, and allegedly she went on five dates with him, because it took him a while to To give up the goods on video.
She went on five dates with him and I don't think he got a kiss.
So this is the quality of person that they hire at CNN. Somebody who goes on five Tinder dates and don't think he got a kiss.
So those who can't date work as CNN. So, but it gets better.
So the latest drop, so there's, I guess there's gonna be multiples, but the second one from Project Veritas and James O'Keefe hitting home runs this week.
Congratulations, by the way, James.
Congratulations on probably your biggest...
I would say this is O'Keefe's biggest score so far, I think.
I don't know anything that's bigger than this.
And they actually got on video.
This is amazing.
They got on video the CNN technical director saying directly that they target Matt Gaetz.
And here's what he says.
Quote, if the agenda, say, is to get Matt Gaetz right now, he's like this Republican.
He's a problem for the Democratic Party.
So we're, meaning CNN, we're going to keep running these stories to keep hurting him.
He said it directly. Directly.
That it's a propaganda network.
They singled somebody out for destruction because he's good.
Now, here's the funniest part.
Now, I'm not going to predict this is going to happen, all right?
It's just funny because it could.
So this is more in the speculative fun category, not a prediction.
Somebody very smart, who shall remain nameless for now, but very smart, said when this first broke about Matt Gaetz, this very smart person said, there's one of two things that's going to happen from this.
He'll be destroyed, or it will make him president.
And when I heard that, I just laughed because it just didn't ring clever to me.
I was like, no, he's just going to be destroyed.
Just going to be destroyed.
But it's getting interesting now, isn't it?
Yet another day has gone by without something that looks like definitive legal risk for Mr.
Gates. You were kind of expecting it, weren't you?
All this smoke?
Got to be a little fire.
But every time we clear the smoke and we look down and we're waiting for that fire, it's sort of in the future.
Well, oh, well, I guess I don't see any burning embers at the moment, but they're coming.
How do we know they're coming?
Well, let me read for you a headline from CNN about the Gates situation.
This is the headline.
Women detail drug use Sex and Payments After Late Night Parties with Gates and Others.
Now, if you heard this headline, what would you expect the story to say?
Would you expect that this women detail drug use, sex and payments after late night parties with Gates?
Wouldn't you expect that some part of the story would say that somebody, anybody, had seen Matt Gates do any of those things?
But the story says nobody saw him do any of those things.
And there's no evidence.
That's the actual story.
There's no evidence of any of that.
There's no evidence that he took a recreational drug.
None. Somebody saw him take a pill.
I kind of take a pill just about every day.
Vitamin D, whatever.
Who knows? But no evidence it was illegal.
Then there's, you know, the talks about the sex.
Nobody saw sex.
Nobody saw underage, any women there.
And the payments, there's no direct link to Gates on payments.
There are indications and allegations and suggestions, and who knows?
Who knows what we're going to find?
I remind you, it's not my job to defend anybody's sex life or drug use or alleged drug use or anything else.
So Gates is on his own for that, right?
He's on his own.
And generally speaking, I'm not going to defend anybody's sex life.
That's just not my job.
But we can talk about the propaganda aspect of it while we're waiting to find out if there's anything to it.
So my point being that if they don't finish Matt Gaetz off, and they're trying pretty hard, if they don't finish him off, he might get stronger.
And the reason they're targeting him is they've admitted he's effective.
How many people would they say that about?
Right? How many people would CNN say on the Republican side, how many people would they call out as effective?
Because that means they're worried.
If he were bad at his job, which is talking in public about policies and stuff, if he were bad at that, they would just let him on and let him do his thing.
But they said he's good.
The Democrats were afraid of him.
It sounds a little smarter now, doesn't it?
When you think, if they don't finish him off, he could be president.
Let me give you another element to that.
The things he's accused of, let's say there's no evidence of whatever the worst parts are.
So this will just be speculative.
If it turns out that there's no there there and no real evidence ever emerges...
What we're going to know about Matt Gaetz is that he was targeted by CNN for being too effective.
Right? That's what you'll know about him.
Here's the second thing you'll know about him.
When he was single, he had a very active sex life, we're told, reliably.
Do you think that would hurt him?
Put on your persuasion hat.
There's a young man in Congress, and he had a very successful, apparently, sexual life.
Hurts him or helps him?
Yeah. Think about it.
Because he was single, as long as nothing worse comes out than we've seen, it's going to help him.
I hate to say it.
But human beings...
Like people who are, let's say, sexually successful, if I can put it that way.
Yeah, JFK, right?
Your brain will say, oh, he's a horrible man slut.
And if you're talking in public, you'll say, well, I hate all of that.
He's sure a bad person.
I wish he hadn't shown those pictures to his weasel co-workers who apparently threw him under a bus.
But a part of you, like your rational brain, will say, this is all bad.
I disavow it.
But your biological part is going to be a little triggered by it.
So keep an eye on this.
It'll be interesting. All right.
Here's the biggest news of the day.
You ready? A Dilbert, well actually two, two Dilbert NFTs just launched.
And you can look at my pinned tweet to find the link to them.
There are two versions of Dilbert comic strips that were made just for this.
They don't run in any newspapers, these particular ones.
But one of them is a naughty version.
The other one is the clean version with no naughty words.
One uses the F word and it will be Probably the only time it ever happens in a Dilbert comic.
Obviously that can't run in a newspaper.
So it's the only one that has an obscenity in it.
It's used, you know, in an artistic way.
I don't just throw it in there.
And you can now vote by, you know, being a part of the auction.
And I'll tell you what an NFT is in a minute.
And you can see if you like the naughty one or the other one.
So here's what an NFT is.
An NFT, if you don't know, is a digital collectible piece of art.
What? You say.
How can you collect a digital thing when anybody can just make a perfect reproduction of it?
They're literally worthless if it's a digital image or a digital video or anything.
And all these things can be NFTs.
It stands for non-fungible token or something.
But that doesn't matter.
You don't need to know what it stands for.
So what it is is a marketplace for digital art.
That people will pay up to millions for.
And what makes it unique and collectible is that the artist, in this case I'm the artist, the artist essentially registers it, I'm speaking in a non-technical way, essentially puts it on the blockchain so that it's public and uncorruptible forever, that one copy is the original.
Every other copy will not have the benefit of that connection to the blockchain, Which is the way you know it's the original.
Now, should you invest in digital art called NFTs?
I don't know why anybody would.
Because I don't collect things.
I don't collect stamps.
I don't collect cars.
I don't collect anything.
I had sort of a flashlight fetish for a while, but I even broke that.
So, if you are not already deeply into crypto, don't get into it for this.
You want people who are into it to do it.
But now let me connect this to an actual topic you care about.
If you're not in the NFT market, this has no meaning to you.
But it does connect to the real world in a way that I don't know if I've heard anybody say yet.
And I might have a little behind the curtain insight about this.
And this might blow your mind a little bit.
You know also, and I'll tie this into the NFTs, you've heard of BitClout, a new startup, B-I-T-C-L-O-U-T, BitClout, in which people, human beings, real people, such as myself, are turned into essentially an NFT-like asset, I'll say it's like it, it's not the same thing, in which you can buy coins or tokens in people.
So right now, Elon Musk is the most expensive one, and I think I'm somewhere down the list.
But I'm in the top 20, I think, of human beings in the world that are in this market.
Now, here's the part that you don't see coming.
There's a much, much more important social element to this that's completely invisible.
The crypto market is creating a market in influence.
And the higher you are bid up in this market of influence, the more you will actually have in the real world.
Not only because you might share in this upside, so you could get some of the financial benefit of other people bidding you up, because that's how BitCloud works.
The creator gets some coins if they want them.
And... What that does is create almost, if it's successful, it's nowhere near this point yet, but where it could go is creating a shadow government.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
Now, I've told you that the form of government is already evolving so that people who are I'm going to lose power here fairly soon, so if it goes blank, we'll be done for today.
If the power goes out, my battery's low.
So the point is, these markets of NFTs and the BitClout, which are separate, but they're moving toward the same direction, that people can be bid up in influence.
So my influence, for example, is way above my fame or my elected office or my wealth or anything would put me.
But people on BitClout, and of course it's not a representative of the whole country, but people on BitClout apparently have decided to increase my voice.
Now, that's not what they think they're doing.
They probably think they're just investing because they think maybe I'll get more attention, my reputation will improve or something.
But the effect of it is boosting eventually, not quite there yet, but eventually boosting people who are not elected.
So it's almost a form of election in which a shadow influencer society will be created and you can find out who other people who are smart think you should listen to.
Remember I told you that we should have a propaganda checking service?
Well, we don't have that, but suppose you knew who to listen to who wasn't going to lie to you.
Pretty rare. If you look at the list of the top people on BitClout, here's your challenge.
Find me a liar.
Now, some of them are in entertainment, so I'm not sure how to count that.
But look at the list and find a liar on the list.
Not many. And almost everybody who is famous, you would kind of consider a liar.
Wouldn't you? Like anybody who's in the media, you'd say, well, you know, I've seen you lie.
But number one on their list is Elon Musk.
Has he ever lied to you?
I don't think so.
How about Naval Ravikant?
Has he ever lied to you?
Don't think so.
How about Balaji?
Ever lied to you?
Nope. How about me?
Have they ever lied to you?
I can't think of a time I have because I don't have any reason to.
But that doesn't mean, you know, obviously that doesn't mean...
Oh, somebody says Jake Paul's up there too.
Yeah, there will be people who are just celebrities, you know, Taylor Swift, etc.
But I think that they...
I think the celebrities will be somewhat discounted in the clout category.
They'll just be famous. Somebody says you lie by omission.
Not intentionally. I can't think of a time I've done that.
But I'm also welcome to, in the comments, anybody who adds context.
In fact, the very thing that I try to do most is add context.
So if you ever see me doing what you think is lying by omission, just put it in the comments.
If I see it, I will mention it.
Oh, I withhold news that will scare you.
Yes, there are things I don't tell you, But it's different if the topic is already out there and there's some context.
I don't try to withhold context if the topic's out there.
It's only a topic you don't know about.
All right. So look for this.
What you think is a silly, silly crypto thing that makes no sense, that has no impact on the real world, nothing more important than people collecting decorative plates, you're missing the long-term play.
It could replace the frickin' government.
Keep an eye on it. I guess Biden is going to sanction Russia.
What's that look like?
What the hell are we going to do to Russia?
I guess we sanctioned some companies and some people.
Is that going to make any difference?
I don't think we have any leverage, do we?
Because we've already sort of sanctioned all the obvious stuff.
There's nothing to do today.
But Biden will have to do something.
My guess is that Putin is completely aware that he can take what he wants and that Biden won't start a war over it.
The only thing Putin has to worry about is that Biden is run by the military-industrial complex, which you have to worry about, right?
Because if the military-industrial complex sees an opportunity for a fight and war that we think will be short of a nuclear encounter, they're kind of going to want to see it.
Because it's good for business.
So Biden's a little scary that way.
Whereas Trump, we had more confidence that he was going to make a decision that was good for the country.
You don't feel the same about Biden in this case.
In this case, you wonder, who exactly is the power behind Biden?
And do they want no war?
They might want a little war.
They might want a little bit.
They don't want nuclear war, of course.
Oh, the other thing that the CNN undercover tapes by Project Veritas said is that CNN plans to make climate change the next scariest thing.
So that's why you see it turn into a climate emergency and they're already running climate scare stories.
So that's coming.
The latest from the CDC and the experts about viruses is that you probably can't get it from a surface very easily.
That it's pretty much all in the air and it's pretty much all indoors.
So the two things that we got, let's say, more confirmation of just in the last day or two is that breathing it indoors with people who have it is the dangerous thing.
Being outdoors in any context appears to be quite safe.
In any context.
Because outdoors just sort of blows the virus away, apparently.
But then the other thing is we're probably, you know, overdoing the sanitizing the surfaces because you almost can't get it that way.
You can. You can.
It's not perfectly safe.
But it's not likely.
Now... In the comments, I would like to ask you this.
I made a decision on day one of the coronavirus that I wasn't going to sanitize stuff.
My gut feeling is that if you could get it from surfaces, we're all going to have it in a month.
And therefore, after a few weeks, when it was clear we didn't already have it in a month, I said to myself, I'm not sanitizing anything.
Now, if I go into a building and they've got a requirement or even a suggestion, I will do the hand sanitizer.
But I have never sanitized anything I bought from a store.
I have never gone to go sanitize my hand after taking some cash from a cashier.
I've completely ignored that guidance.
And was right.
And was right.
Now, somebody says, but you do wear a mask.
What do you think the best medical scientific evidence is for masks?
In the comments, tell me what you think is the best evidence for or against masks.
Not a specific thing, but do you believe, tell me how many people believe, that science has shown conclusively, or at least really, really strongly, that That masks work?
Or how many of you think that the science shows they definitely don't work?
In the comments. Go. Now, I'll make some comments while I'm watching your comments.
Now, most of you are probably leaning right.
There are probably more conservatives here than others.
And you are accused, not you specifically, but...
The group of conservatives are accused of ignoring science.
Sometimes, way too often, ignoring science turns out to be right.
Which is exactly why you do it, right?
All of you conservatives who are criticized to death about ignoring science...
It's not because you haven't noticed the science is bullshit.
You have. And the science is filtered through political people and it's filtered through advocates.
So you never really see the science.
You just see people talking about it that you don't trust.
And they're often wrong.
So let me say to you that those of you who have the opinion that masks don't work, two things.
I disagree with But not with a binary way, like I'm 100% sure.
If I had to put a number on it, 80% sure.
So number one, I think masks work 80% certainly.
I'm not an expert, so how likely could I be wrong?
Really likely, right?
Second thing is, if you have an opposing opinion, And you say, masks don't work.
I think you're wrong, but I respect that opinion.
Because it's not unfounded.
It's not like crazy, right?
But I'm pretty sure it's wrong.
I give it an 80% chance it's wrong.
Now look at my track record for all of the predictions I've made about the virus and anything else.
And say to yourself, have I been right more than I'm wrong?
And should you take seriously that somebody who's been right a lot thinks there's an 80% chance the masks are working?
Now, here's my thinking.
The medical community and the scientific community are very unified on this.
Now, that doesn't make them right.
Can we all agree?
Just because everybody's unified, that doesn't make it right.
But it's a fact.
The doctors are overwhelmingly in favor of masks indoors, and the science is overwhelmingly in favor of masks indoors.
Outdoors is a different situation.
Now, if you believed, because you've been following certain skeptics, that if you were to look at the science, the science would show they don't work, you have been bamboozled.
Because there are a lot of skeptics printing a lot of stuff that is not credible.
And you've probably seen a lot of it.
None of it's credible.
And I've got to be really careful.
When I say none of the anti-mask stuff is credible, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
It doesn't mean it's wrong.
It could be completely right, and at the same time have no credibility because of the way it's presented, right?
You can't believe it, but it could still be right.
Now, As long as the people who know the most are really solidly in favor of it, my risk management decision is it's worth the risk, even though I frickin' hate the masks.
I hate masks as much as you do, right?
And plus I have a little asthma.
So when I put in a mask, I'm basically gasping for air.
I think a lot of it's psychological.
But I hate masks.
And I still think it's a good risk management because I think it's temporary, whatever temporary is.
So that's where I'm at on masks.
Thanks for asking. Someday I wonder if we'll know.
The evidence that most people use about social distancing and masks is unfortunately irrational.
Let's see if you do this.
You'll see a graph on Twitter and it'll say, here are two places...
One has tight mask control and social distancing, and the other is completely opposite.
No masks and no social distancing.
But look at the curves.
They're the same. So if there are two places, one uses masks and distancing, the other does not, but their curves are the same, what's that tell you about masks?
Go. The answer is nothing.
So if you believed that what I just described, even if it's accurate, and most of our data is not accurate, but even if the curves were exactly the same, it wouldn't tell you anything about masks.
And you have to understand that.
And the reason is because there are too many variables.
And one of the reasons that you don't require masks is that everything else is looking good.
So you end up, your cause and effect get backwards.
So if you believe that looking at any two areas and comparing them tells you something, you need to release on that.
Because it doesn't.
Alright, I'm about out of battery, so I'm going to make...
I'm about out of battery, so I'll make my closing arguments, which are, I think I'm...
I think I'm close.
If you saw a little hiccup there, it's because I got a low battery notice and I had to clear it.
But I have almost no battery left, so I'm going to end it up now.
Somebody says that the graphs, if they're the same, it tells you that if masks help, they don't help much.
No. No, that is 100% wrong.
You can't tell that.
You really can't.
And that's the illusion.
That's like an optical illusion, except not optical.
It's an illusion that if they made a big difference, you'd be able to tell.
Because the other variables are really big, and they're all over the place.
You really can't tell from comparing two places.
There's probably nothing more important to understand if you're not a statistics person.
Just understand. You just can't compare two places with that many variables that are all over the place.
It just can't be done. And that is your live stream for today.
