Episode 1388 Scott Adams: Wuhan Lab Leak Theories, Flying Saucer Drones, Rewarding Terrorists, Banks Are Dead, and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Filibuster and the 01/06 investigation
Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem?
Military drone flying saucers?
Peacocking trolling concept
Jacqui Berlinn, StopFentanylDeaths.org
One app could replace banks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And if you'd like to take it up another notch, and I think you would, what do you need?
That's right. That's right.
You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel or a canteen jug or a glass, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes really everything better, it's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go! Well, shall we talk about all of the things?
Yes, let's talk about all the things.
So there's a story about the money manager for Bill Gates.
Apparently there's one firm and one individual who's been managing Bill Gates' money for 27 years or something.
And now, coincidentally, just when Bill Gates and Melinda Gates are having a divorce, coincidentally, after 27 years, Bill Gates' money manager is in the news for, of course, allegations of MeToo stuff and other, I think some other stuff, or being a bully or something, allegedly made a racist remark to a black employee.
We'd like to hear that remark so that we can judge for ourselves.
But this story is in the New York Times.
Let me ask you, do you think it's a coincidence?
It's just a coincidence.
That Bill Gates is getting all these bad stories that have been available to be a story for a long time.
But now it's a story.
Do you see in this example that your opinions are assigned to you by the media?
If the media had never told you anything new about Bill Gates, well, your opinion would be whatever it had been.
But suddenly...
The press has decided that you need to think less of Bill Gates, which probably means that somebody associated with Melinda Gates, just speculation, may want to make Bill Gates look a little bit less awesome during the period of negotiating some kind of a divorce.
So don't assume that any of this is a coincidence.
Here's the good news. Some real good news, actually.
The FDA just approved another therapeutic for coronavirus.
It looks pretty good. It's a monoclonal antibody and it's called Sotrivumab.
It's called Sotrivumab because all the good names have been taken long ago.
If you need a name for a new drug now, You have to basically put together all the letters that shouldn't be in the same word.
There's a lot of letters that just shouldn't be near each other or in the same word.
Sotrivumab. Who ends a word with a B? I guess there are a few words that end with a B, but too many of them in my opinion.
So the good news is, apparently it reduces hospitalization or death.
In COVID patients, if you get it to them early, by 85%.
What?
That's pretty good, if you get it to them early.
Now think about what's different from the beginning of the pandemic.
The first thing that's different is that everybody knows what the symptoms are, right?
I think at the beginning of the pandemic, if somebody got a cough or some symptoms, they might have said to themselves, eh, it's probably not the COVID. Probably just a cold.
And maybe they waited too long and maybe they died.
But I would think that one of the big things that's changed is, especially with all the social distancing, if you get anything that looks like COVID symptoms, especially if you have some comorbidities to worry about, you probably take it a lot more seriously now just because we're all trained to take it seriously.
So it seems to me that people who are at risk Have either already been vaccinated, for the most part, or if they haven't been, they at least know what the symptoms are and can get their ass to the hospital pretty quickly.
Now apparently the monoclonal antibody is mostly for people who...
most of the results are for people who had a bad case.
So this doesn't necessarily hold for all people, just people who had a bad case of it and got in early.
But still, a pretty big deal.
Pretty big deal, because I think people are getting in earlier, that's my guess.
Chad Pergram had an interesting theory that he wrote for Fox News, that the filibuster, which is really the only thing that allows the minority party in the Senate to have any power at all, they can just filibuster, which is essentially just talking forever.
I'm simplifying. But talking forever so that a bill can't be voted on, Because the minority party doesn't have enough votes to stop it in a 50-50 way, but they have enough votes to keep the filibuster going.
So if you got rid of the filibuster, suddenly the Democrats could pass anything they wanted, because they have the majority, and they wouldn't need to worry about getting past the filibuster blockade.
And Chad Pergrim notes that Even Democrats appreciate that the filibuster has a purpose, because sometimes they're in the minority party, and sometimes they want a filibuster.
But Chad's hypothesis, and I think it's worth mentioning, is that if the Republicans use the filibuster to stop the investigation of the so-called January 6th protest on the Capitol, That that would be an inappropriate use of a filibuster.
It would look like they're just trying to protect Republicans or just trying to sweep it under the rug.
But do you think that's going to be a problem?
It seems to me that every use of the filibuster looks illegitimate to the other side.
Seems to me. And I'm not so sure that Anybody cares about this January 6th investigation?
What do people think they're going to find?
I mean, really? Do you think you're going to find anything?
What are they even looking for?
Are they looking for something to tie President Trump to violence?
I mean, they have his speech.
It looks like he did what he did in public.
I don't know. I don't think there's anything to find.
It doesn't look like there's any there there.
It's just a bunch of people did exactly what it looks like.
A bunch of people coordinated and said, hey, let's protest this thing.
Things got out of hand.
I just don't know.
I just don't know that there's anything to research.
So no, I disagree.
With Chad Pergram's view that the filibuster could fall because of that one issue.
Because I don't think anybody cares about it, really.
It's just a political issue.
Joel Pollack points out that apparently the Biden administration is going to open up something like a consulate in Jerusalem, which I guess was not the case under the Trump administration.
So now Hamas is going to...
Let's see.
I guess maybe the Palestinians.
Whose consulate is it?
It's a little unclear to me.
I guess I don't know the details of this.
But there's some kind of a consulate being opened up, and I know that over $100 million is going to be sent to Hamas or the Palestinians.
I'm not sure exactly where the division is there in this case.
But the point is...
That there seems to be some kind of reward for attacking Israel.
Attack Israel, you get yourself a consulate and over $100 million.
That looks like a victory for the people who fired rockets at Israel.
Now, what is the thing I say about the Democrats?
That sets them apart from Republicans.
What do I always say?
And I tell you, I'm going to show you example after example until you can't think of it any other way.
Inducements. Exactly.
The big difference between Republican policy and Democrat policy, pretty much always, not always, but it seems like 80% of the time or more, Democrats ignore the effect of human motivation consistently.
They act like it doesn't exist.
So when they design a system, they just ignore the variable that's actually the most important one.
If you design systems that ignore, consistently, the most important variable, which is how do people act in certain situations, what are you doing?
It's not engineering.
It's not smart.
It's not reason. It's nothing.
It's literally a nothing.
You can't even say it's good or bad.
It's just nonsense if you leave out the biggest variable.
It would be like, I think I'll calculate the national debt, but I'm only going to add up the numbers that have a nine in them.
Why? Right?
Okay. So, Democrats here again are rewarding the bad guys, or at least the people firing the missiles.
You can decide who's bad and who's good.
And it's just so consistent that they make the same mistake over and over again.
Anyway, speaking of the left, Juan Williams has announced he's leaving the hit show The Five on the Fox.
Now, some of you don't watch that show.
I know most of you watching this probably have seen it a bunch of times.
And I have a contrarian opinion about Juan Williams.
The thing that you don't realize when you watch Fox News, and I say this often, but this is another perfect example, whatever you want to criticize Fox News about, you can't criticize them for their Let's say design and production.
The producers of Fox News are really good, and they put together just brilliant elements to create good programming, and there's a reason.
There's a reason they dominate the news landscape.
It's not just because there are a lot of conservatives.
It's because they produce a really good product, even if you disagree with its opinions.
Just the product is really good.
And part of that is knowing what things to put together and what things not to put together.
And my observation about Juan Williams is he was perfect.
I mean, my God, he was perfect.
Because if you watched the show, you would see, you know, four, let's say, more Republican or right-leaning people, you know, arguably, maybe more independent.
But Juan was the lone left-leaning person.
And he did his job so well.
Because remember, it's an entertainment product.
It's newsy, but The Five is an entertainment product that just talks about the news.
And from an entertainment perspective, you just couldn't have picked a better person.
And to his credit, and I don't think people appreciated this, he knew exactly his role.
He knew exactly what he was supposed to do, and even when his arguments—this is just my speculation because I can't read his mind—but I feel as though Juan knew when his arguments were weak, but also knew it was his job to put them forward, and he would just get slammed and savaged by the other members— And he would just come back just as cheerful the next day and do it again.
And I think he needs, like, an award or something for this.
So it'll be tough to replace him because you need somebody who is...
He had a really weird, perfect skill stack for that, which is that he was left-leaning...
But he was like a positive, upbeat, nice guy.
So it was just everything.
It was just perfect. I don't know how they're going to replace him.
So let's talk about the Wuhan lab.
Everybody wants to talk about that.
I have a question, which is...
How do you calculate the odds that it's a coincidence that a virus escapes...
Right across from where there's a wet lab, but also where there's a lab that does that kind of work.
Can't you calculate that?
Could somebody tell me how many, let's say, cities there are that have, let's say, over a million people in the world?
And also cities that would be an industrial outliers country that would have a lab.
What are the odds? And then, on top of the odds that a virus would break out right where there's that kind of lab, what are the odds that they would locate the lab right next to a wet market, which is the other way that you might imagine a virus could appear?
And were you shocked when China decided to reopen all of its wet markets?
After time has gone by and you're looking back, If you're looking back on it, is it kind of a little convenient that the lab that works on viruses is located right next to the alibi?
If you're going to commit a crime, or you think a crime might be committed that you would be blamed for, wouldn't you want to locate the possibility of a crime, even before it happened, right next to the alibi?
Is that a coincidence?
I feel like that might be a little bit strategic.
Otherwise, it's the luckiest thing that ever happened.
Or it could be that there's a wet market in every big city, so you couldn't stay away from them.
That's possible. But can it be calculated?
So this is a serious question.
Can somebody do me the calculation, if we have that data?
How many cities? How many virus labs?
How many of them are next to a wet market?
Just show us the odds. Because it could be that if you calculated the odds, maybe, I don't know, maybe you'd come up with a 20% chance it could happen.
Maybe. You know, I'm not qualified to calculate that, and I don't have the data.
But I feel as if it wouldn't be 20%.
It feels more like it's deeply unlikely it's a coincidence.
But, of course, coincidences do happen.
And it might not be a coincidence.
It could be just that there are lots of wet markets and lots of labs, and maybe it was just going to happen somewhere.
CNN, in its reporting about this, said that the lab escape idea originally was being spread by conspiracy theorists.
What? If it's currently considered by all the experts in the world as at least a possibility, was it really conspiracy theorists?
And who was it who decided that the people who had that opinion early on, who was it who labeled them conspiracy theorists?
Wasn't that CNN? Wasn't it CNN and their trained monkeys who Or winged monkeys, I guess.
The flying monkeys. Wasn't it CNN and people like them who labeled people conspiracy theorists?
It's good to be the news.
You just get to call anybody that disagrees with you a conspiracy theorist.
So, Senator Kennedy was talking to, I guess, some kind of congressional hearing.
He was talking with Fauci and Collins.
And got them to admit that Biden never consulted their top health officials before they killed the probe that the Trump administration had started about finding out where the COVID came from.
So Biden killed a Trump thing without even talking to any experts.
His own experts. He didn't even talk to his own experts.
Purely political.
But now Biden is forced to restart it, and it makes him look bad.
So, how many times have I told you that you're going to find time and time again that Trump looked right?
Now, did Trump and Pompeo really have secret information way back when they were saying it was probably the lab?
Did they have secret information that we still don't know?
I don't know about that.
But I'll tell you, one of the things that I think Trump is good at, and it's totally underrated, he's good at spotting bullshit.
I feel like that's one of his highest skills.
And it could have something to do with the fact that he promotes bullshit too.
You know, takes one to know one kind of a situation.
And so I feel like Trump being, you know, as his critics would say, the king of bullshit, I feel like he knows bullshit when he sees it, right?
And I think he looked at this Wuhan thing and probably said to himself, I know what bullshit looks like.
This looks like bullshit to me.
So he may have maybe...
Could have been some hyperbole in how certain he was, but I think his instincts can't be ignored when it comes to spotting bullshit.
I feel like he's probably good at it.
I feel like he's good at it.
All right.
Speaking of COVID, nearly three-quarters of patients who had moderate to severe case of COVID... Had at least one long-term symptom, and most of it was brain fog.
Brain fog, which is bad stuff.
If you know anybody who's had the problem, it's not fun, and it seems to last a while, months at least.
And are you scared of anything that gives you brain fog?
Because does a cold ever give you a brain fog?
Does a Does a regular virus give you brain fog for months?
What the hell is happening to your brain?
So, apparently there was some movement on vaccine acceptance when the CDC said If you're vaccinated, you can take off your masks in certain situations.
So apparently that little bit of human motivation they got right, oh, if you tell people there's a reward for getting a vaccination, maybe they'll do more of it.
Again, something Democrats were blind to.
The Democrats couldn't figure out that if there were no reward for the vaccinations, not enough people would get them.
But they finally figured it out.
And I would say that this brain fog thing has to go into the mix, too.
And indeed, this was one of the biggest reasons that I decided to get vaccinated, because I don't know what the risks of the vaccination are, but I got a pretty good idea what the risk of not getting vaccinated is.
It looks pretty ugly. All right.
But you can make your own decisions.
I'm sure you will. Mashable, which is a really good follow on Twitter.
Mashable. They have a lot of new technology stuff you haven't seen yet.
They've got a little piece on there I tweeted today on drone flying saucers.
So apparently there's a form factor that looks just like a flying saucer, but it's a motorized drone.
And one of its advantages is they can sort of stop quickly and change directions and Apparently, they think it could be juiced up to the point where it would be.
Scott has coronaphobia.
You get removed for that.
Put user in timeout.
No mind reading.
No mind reading, please.
So, if there's a flying saucer that we know already exists, you know, we can see it, there's video of it flying around and stuff, what do you think are the odds that the US military has drones that have the form factor of a flying saucer?
What do you think? What are the odds that some advanced military lab has a flying saucer-shaped drone Given that we know there's a commercial version of it already.
Yeah, it's like 100%.
They're at least testing it, right?
They don't all look like rockets and airplanes.
So they're probably at least testing it.
Now, does that explain why it would look like it's defying physics?
I feel as if the defying physics part is just not real.
Even if it turns out that these spaceships are from another planet, I think we're going to find out that the defying physics never really happened in any of the senses.
I think it's just how we record it, the artifact of how you video it, etc.
I doubt anything is defying physics.
But we're now hearing reports that there are underwater UFOs.
What? That's right.
Apparently there are lots and lots of reports of underwater craft moving again at speeds which we can't understand according to our current technology and physics.
And apparently there's a lot of them, including one case where a vessel emerged and grabbed some kind of a sensor that somebody else was going to pick up and just grabbed it and pulled it underwater.
What? So, my prediction had been that if there are UFOs, they're more likely coming from our ocean than they are coming from another planet.
Why? Because the physics and technology that you would have to solve to have a hidden underwater world seem far easier than solving the distance problem from other planets.
Now, I'm open to that being wrong, so if Elon Musk wants to tell me, no, no, no, we can solve the distance problem, maybe the ocean is actually the harder place.
But I'm going to put that out there for those who are smarter than I am.
Which would be a harder problem to solve?
Technology living under the ocean, with all the water pressure and problems that go with it, or Traveling from a distant planet so far away we can't even detect life on it from here.
Which is easier.
I'm guessing the water is easier.
I'm also guessing that it could be that aliens have been on Earth for a million years, but they prefer living in the water.
And they just live there.
It could be That alien probes, let's say robots for a better word, have been living in our ocean for a million years.
And they just pop out every now and then to look around and see what's new.
Nigel. Goodbye, Nigel.
I wonder if at home you're an asshole, or just in public.
I tell you, my life has gotten so much better now that I learned to understand which comments are coming from narcissists.
The narcissists are the ones whose comments are designed to make them look smarter than whoever they're commenting about.
And so usually they're not attacking, you know, just the evidence or the argument, which would also make you look smarter.
But they're usually just like general put-downs.
My God, this guy's never studied virology.
What does he know about physics?
Yeah, the peacocks.
So as I was writing on the Locals platform this morning, I was saying that I have a persuasion technique I've been trotting out in which I call these people peacocks.
So, for example, today somebody responded to my tweets about the horned Protester who, you know, the January 6th guy with the Viking horns, and I made some joke on Twitter, and there's always this guy who comes in, my God, don't you know that people died during that?
There is nothing funny about that.
Now that comment is not meant to make the world a better place.
It's not meant to clarify an argument.
Nothing. It is purely a statement that they are better than me.
That's it. I'm better than you.
Because I don't make jokes about things where people got killed.
So I'm better than you.
You should be as good as me.
Try to be as good as me.
And so I just write back, I see you, peacock.
Now move along.
Now, so far, any time I've called somebody a peacock and then just dismissed them, it kind of ended the conversation.
Because what can they do?
If they go away, well, then I win because I said, go away, peacock, and they went away.
But if they stay, they're going to be peacocking.
And they don't want to play into my insult, so they can't stay and be a peacock, and they can't leave.
But they end up just sort of leaving.
So try that out.
Try calling somebody a peacock.
See how long they stick around.
So if I told you that there are some things which the government should lead, and then there are some things which the government just can't do, and the public has to lead the government.
Now, this is certainly the case with face masks and distancing.
I believe the public is leading the government, and the government is trying to catch up.
That's my view of it.
But there's another case of this happening now with fentanyl.
So, as you know, China is shipping fentanyl into the cartels.
The cartels are shipping it into the United States and killing tens of thousands of people every year with overdoses.
Now, you could argue, no, no, no, those people are killing themselves.
Nobody made them take fentanyl.
And I hear that argument, however, if we didn't have fentanyl, They would be taking other drugs far less dangerous.
They wouldn't be off drugs, but they would be at least taking drugs that are far less likely to kill them.
So, because our government, for whatever reason, both under Trump and Biden, have been completely incapable of stopping this whatsoever, apparently citizens are starting to organize to do it themselves.
And one mother, Jackie Berlin, Whose son is apparently at risk of dying from fentanyl because he's hooked and she knows that his odds of surviving are about the same as my stepson who died from fentanyl and other drugs.
And so she's taking her protest.
She took her protest to San Francisco, was joined by Michael Schellenberger and about 30 other people, and they went right to the open-air drug market and protested.
Got some press, and they're moving their protest to Skid Row in Los Angeles.
Now, of course, I'm fully in favor of this.
I wish I could be there myself.
It's just not practical in my case.
But if I could, I would.
And this is another case in which the government has just failed us.
Just completely failed us.
Because we shouldn't do anything with China until they stop the fentanyl trade.
That should be the ticket to even having a conversation.
We should close our embassies.
We just say, fuck you, China.
Look, it's bad enough you've got the Uyghur situation.
It's bad enough you're stealing our IP. It's bad enough all the other stuff.
But we're not even going to talk to you until you stop sending fentanyl.
Because you could just turn that off.
You could just turn it off.
You're doing it intentionally.
We're not even going to talk to you until you stop that.
That should have been the price of admission.
There shouldn't even be a conversation with China anymore about this.
Now, here's what I need to do for you.
I need you to do for me.
I'm trying to figure out what law it is, or what is stopping the big companies, and let's just say Amazon, from saying what country the manufacturing is happening in.
I'm done not knowing that.
I need to know where your shit is built.
If you can't tell me, I'm going to start looking for a company that can.
So if somebody wants to launch a competitor to Amazon.com that tells me where my products are made so I can stop giving money to China wherever it's possible, I will immediately take my business there.
Now, why is it that this is not already happening?
I need somebody who can figure this out to dig down and find the weak underbelly of this problem.
If you can find me the weak underbelly, I will put an arrow in it.
I just don't know where to aim.
So I need some aiming help.
A little GPS guidance here.
Tell me who to shoot.
Hypothetically, not actually shooting.
But tell me where the target is.
Just tell me where it is.
Is it Amazon? Is it Jeff Bezos?
Is there a law that's preventing it?
Is there some kind of force that's stopping us from knowing this information?
Why don't we have a law that requires it?
Why are Republicans sitting on their thumbs doing fuck nothing about this?
The government has failed us on fentanyl.
Now it's up to us. So let's solve it the way we know how to solve it.
Let's figure out how to know what's coming out of China so we can stop buying it.
Find me the soft underbelly.
I don't know where it is.
Find me the politician who's stopping it.
Find me the corporation that's stopping it.
Find me whatever is stopping it from happening.
And I will fucking end them.
Alright? One way or another.
I mean legally. I'm not going to do anything illegal.
But find me the lever.
I just don't know where it is.
I'll pull it. You don't have to do that part.
If there's some risk involved, let me take that.
I'll take on the risk.
I just need to know where the target is.
Because our government has completely and fully failed us.
I would call on the few capable people in Congress.
Rand Paul.
Tom Cotton.
I might fool you a little bit here and throw this one in here.
Elizabeth Warren. I'm going to throw Elizabeth Warren in the mix.
She's effective. Even if you don't like her politics.
Somebody needs to get on this.
And if you do, I will back you for president.
I think banks are defunct.
Speaking of Elizabeth Warren, she went hard at Jamie Dimon at a Senate hearing about their overdraft fees.
I guess Jamie Dimon's bank, which is...
What is it?
Chase? Something Chase?
JPMorgan Chase? Had $1.5 billion in overdraft fees.
Do you know why banks charge overdraft fees?
Because they fucking can.
And they hate you.
Do you know how hard it would be for a bank to insert a little code into their process so that you never have an overdraft?
It just comes out of, say, your credit card or comes out of one of your other accounts.
Do you know how easy it would be for them to completely make the problem of overdrafts go away?
Real easy. Real easy.
Do you know why they don't do it?
Because screwing their customers is very profitable, and nobody's pushed back hard enough to make you stop.
Here's how it should stop.
Banks are defunct.
There's no fucking reason for a bank.
It should be an app.
You could make the entire banking system go away with an app.
It could do everything a bank could do.
It could be gathering money from people.
It could be turning it into crypto.
It could be doing exchanges.
It could have your savings, your checking.
It could be your credit card.
It could do it all.
One app. You don't need a bank.
And, of course, the reason banks can exist is because they have enough money to control Congress, so they can get laws, they give them monopolies.
But if you could find a way To, you know, do a greenfield, you know, island, build a banking app, you probably could eventually take out the banks entirely.
And I think it's inevitable, actually.
All right. I have to run and go do some other things really soon.
Yes, DeFi, exactly.
And I don't know if it's going to be crypto.
It could be that crypto is the way to make banks go away.
Because I think you would be able to create a parallel bank that's nothing but crypto, including loans, deposits, credit, pretty much everything.
Yeah, somebody's saying it will be crypto.
I think you're right. I think because there's so much regulation in the regular world of money, I don't think you can get past that.
But in crypto, you might be able to do an end run.
Yeah? And just eliminate banks?
Except for safe deposit boxes, somebody says.
Yeah, okay. I'll let the banks do the safe deposit boxes.
They'll basically be a storage facility.
John says, banking in Africa is via a cell phone provider.
Well, That makes perfect sense, right?
If you were in Africa and the total amount of money that maybe you were borrowing or you had in your bank could be maybe a few hundred dollars, why can't the cell phone company just handle that?
Because the cell phone company is the best guarantee that you'll pay them back.
Think about this.
If you knew that you couldn't get cell phone service unless you repaid a loan to your cell phone carrier, Who is acting like a bank, you'd probably pay back the loan, wouldn't you?
Or you'd try as hard as you could, because you don't want to lose phone service.
It would be devastating.
And if the phone carriers colluded so that you couldn't just go to another carrier, you'd have to pay back your loan, or else you're never going to get phone service.
So banks are actually not even a good place for banking.
The phone company is a really good place for banking.
Alright. I'm just looking at your comments for a moment.
We need more strategies to push back against peacocks?
No, you really don't.
Because the peacock label, just try it.
Try it yourself and see what happens.
But only try it on the people who are just making a statement about you or your credentials or something.
Don't do it if somebody actually has an argument.
If they have an argument, deal with the argument.
But if they're not acting like a respectable player, well, just peacock them away.
They'll go away. Scott, did your stepson have underlying trauma?
Nothing that would be beyond what a...
Well, actually, it depends what you call trauma.
I suppose everybody has some.
Is my super smart liberal friend happy with Biden?
I've got to tell you, I decided never to talk to him again.
You know, after suffering four years of insults from somebody who used to be one of my best friends because of talking about Trump, and he became just...
The worst jerk in the world.
I mean, he just, he devolved into just a monster, really.
And when it was all over, he wrote me a nice letter and said, gosh, I hope, I hope we can be friends again because, you know, now that Trump is gone.
What do you think I said?
Fuck you! Four years of torturing my ass over Trump?
You think I'm just going to forget that and just go back to being your fucking friend?
Not a chance. I will never speak to him again.
He's dead to me. And he's a fucking asshole.
He just has to live with that.
So that's for him to live with.
Not my problem. Well, thank you.
That was a nice compliment. Alright.
No, it isn't sad.
It really isn't sad at all.
See, the moment you imagine that it's sad to lose somebody like that from your life, you're making a strategy mistake.
People like that shouldn't be in your life.
Get rid of them. Once you learn to be brutal about getting rid of people who are not good for you, yeah, I wouldn't call them toxic exactly, but it was toxic in that situation.
You've got to get rid of people from your life who are doing that to you.
You've just got to get rid of them.
There's no way to make that better.
And I do wonder if he's delighted with Biden's performance, especially the more times that Trump is proven right.
Who knows? I thought I saw a question go by there that I wanted to see.
Scott, which vaccine did you get and why?
Well, I didn't have a choice.
I used my healthcare provider, and they had one choice for me when I signed up.
So I have the Moderna vaccination, but I don't see that it makes much difference.
