Episode 1498 Scott Adams: Put Earmuffs on the Children When I Talk About Our Broken Election System
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
COVID is now "endemic"...we're ALL going to get it
Humor writing lesson, the 3rd part
A winning campaign formula for President Trump
Make elections fully auditable
21 day extreme quarantine in China
Democrats plan will massively tax elites?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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're already sad thinking about the fact that it might end later.
Yeah, I know.
But don't think that yet.
Just enjoy it.
Just be in the moment.
Now, this one comes with a warning.
Because the California election is happening right now, the recall election, and I got a little bit triggered.
So there will be cursing.
Later. Just warning you.
So, put the earmuffs on the children, and I think the rest of you adults will be able to handle this.
But, if you'd like to get fortified so that the cursing doesn't bother you, what would be a good way to do that?
Yeah, coffee.
That's right. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except our fucked-up elections.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Ah.
Oh. All right.
It's all going now. Well, Rasmussen asked people what do they think about celebrity or external politicians campaigning for a candidate.
Do you think it helps?
Do you think people think that makes a difference when the celebrities and the external candidates are helping out?
Well, most people say no, but shockingly, 30% say it's important or somewhat important that celebrities and outside politicians help campaign.
Now, I don't think I've ever been influenced by a celebrity endorsement.
I don't know if I've been influenced by a politician endorsement, although those seem more weighty.
But I feel like it works.
I feel like it works.
Because if Newsom is campaigning with a celebrity...
Or with Kamala Harris or Biden.
He just gets more attention.
And attention is the thing that gets you elected, right?
The more attention you get, the better.
So I think that these celebrity endorsements do work just because they draw people and they draw attention.
I don't think it has anything to do with the endorsement, per se.
Well, you remember, most of you who watched this recently, I think it was yesterday, I was talking about what if...
The preprint paper about young boys getting some myocarditis from the vaccination itself.
And I said to you, do not be too confident that this is correct, because even peer-reviewed studies, or half of them turn out not to be right, and this is before it's even peer-reviewed.
So a preprint should be your lowest level of credibility within the scientific realm.
And I warned you that maybe these initial findings might not hold up.
Well, that took about 24 hours.
And Alistair McAlpine, M.D., so he's a doctor, he says of this major study that showed that young boys were having heart problems from the vaccination, he points out that it's non-peer-reviewed, It's an unpublished preprint, and it's based on data dumpster diving through a non-verified database that once listed becoming the Incredible Hulk as a side effect.
And it uses outdated statistics to paint a false picture.
So that's one opinion.
All right, so one knowledgeable opinion is it's a garbage study.
And Andres Bacchus said, He's also warning us it's going to fall apart.
So, if you're worried about young boys having a little heart risk with the vaccination, the first thing you should do is compare it to the risk of getting COVID itself.
Because I think it was Scott Gottlieb, ex-head of the FDA, who is now calling this an endemic, meaning you're going to get it.
You get that, right? So we used to think, well, maybe we could keep some people from getting COVID. Nope.
Not anymore. Apparently, you're all going to get it.
It's just a matter of when.
Maybe it won't be this year.
It could be five years from now.
But it's going to be around. You're all going to get it.
And if that's the case, then you have to compare the vaccination to getting COVID. Not a percentage chance of getting COVID, Not a 10% chance of getting COVID, but you're going to get COVID. So now, if you know you're going to get it, even though there would be a timing difference, you can basically now compare the risk of heart problems from COVID versus the risk of heart problems from the vaccination.
It turns out that COVID is worse.
So, at the moment...
I would say there is zero credible evidence that young boys have extra risk.
Zero credible evidence.
It could still be true, right?
Because when I talk about credibility, that doesn't mean true or false.
That just means, do you have evidence that's the kind of evidence they should convince you or not?
We don't. We don't have the kind of evidence that should make you make a different decision based on that factor.
Maybe later we will, but we don't know.
All right, there are two things we know for sure.
And I tweeted this, and I'm going to read it because I tweeted it so well that I can't improve upon it.
So I'm just going to read it. I said, there are two things we know for sure.
Number one, we must use good science and good data to make decisions.
Absolutely. Number two, we know for sure, we wouldn't recognize good science and good data if it showed us three IDs and made us scream its name while ass-fucking us at its home address.
I'll just let that sit there for a moment.
Now, here's a humor-writing lesson.
You ready? Humor-writing lesson.
What makes this sentence funny?
We wouldn't recognize good science and good data if it showed us three IDs and made us scream its name while ass-fucking us at its home address.
What makes that work?
Well, it's visual, right?
It's also cruel.
It's bizarre. These are the dimensions of humor.
If you get any two of the six dimensions of humor in there...
It's going to be funny. So you've got cruelty, bizarre, it's clever.
It's got basically three or four.
But here's the technique I want to share with you.
It's that third and last clause at its home address.
So if you're going to exaggerate something, this is a simple humor technique.
You just say, okay, something's bad.
Let me describe how bad it is in a funny way.
Now, if I said we wouldn't know good science and good data if it showed us three IDs, is that funny?
We wouldn't know it if it showed us three sources of identification.
No, not really.
It just sort of sits there.
Makes a point, you know, in an analogy kind of way, but it just sits there.
If I say we wouldn't know good science and good data if it showed us three IDs and made us scream its name while ass-fucking us, Well, now you're talking.
Now it's getting a little funny because we got the naughty part in there and it's bizarre and, you know, it's got everything.
But here's the part I want to teach you.
It's the third thing that sells it, right?
The second part, you know, the first part is just a setup.
We wouldn't know good science if it showed us three IDs, right?
Not funny yet. It's just a setup.
But then the payoff is making us scream its name while ass-fucking us.
But then the real dessert, you know, the thing that ties this together and makes it work, is the third thing.
Because it's hard to come up with three things that fit.
Three things that cause you to be able to positively identify it.
And the third thing was we're at its home address.
Which took a little work to come up with that third thing.
So that's the technique.
If you're going to exaggerate, have three levels of exaggeration.
First one, okay, it's just setting me up.
Second one, you need to get the laugh.
Second one needs to make them laugh.
Alright, alright, I see where you're going.
You're done now, right?
As soon as they think you're done...
That's where you add the third one.
The third one is what puts it over the line and makes it one for the ages.
Two can be funny.
If you can get that third one in there, people will remember that.
So that's your lesson for the day on humor.
Well, apparently CNN is already worried about Trump.
He is the top story today.
Can you believe it?
Trump is the top story on CNN. Do you know what made Trump the top story on CNN? He talked.
That's it. He just opened his mouth.
He just talked. And he's the biggest story in the world.
And what he talked about was that he's reminding people that he believes the election was rigged and that that might be a major theme of his re-election.
Now, do you think Trump could get re-elected Making the election itself a major theme.
Would that be strong enough?
If he just said, hey, I got robbed, I got robbed, let's do this right, re-elect me, it was rigged.
I say no.
I say no. Yeah, and I'm seeing more no's in the comments.
No way, right. Because it's whiny, it's small, right?
It's small, it's whiny, And you just think maybe if he tried harder, he could have won.
So even if you think it's true, it doesn't work, does it?
Because you feel like he should win anyway.
If you're complaining about the referee, well, maybe you should have shot better baskets.
If you think you lost the game because of the ref, well, maybe you should have played better.
I mean, that's sort of automatically what we think.
Complaining about the rules, it's too small.
That's about him, right?
That's not even about you.
You don't want your president running for him or her.
You want the president running for you.
When Trump ran the first time, he said, make America great again.
That was about you.
When he said, build a wall, that was for you.
And people recognized it.
But if he runs because he's got a personal gripe about the election, that's not going to work.
That's not going to work.
It's just not strong enough.
I mean, he could win anyway.
I mean, maybe he could make that work because people just are sick of whatever's happening.
But it's not a good approach, even if he got elected anyway.
But here's what it would be.
You ready? Let's take Trump's complaint that really is all about himself, and now let's turn that into a winning campaign formula.
You ready? I'm going to give Trump the winning formula.
This is the campaign issue that would work.
We can't know if I won or not.
I happen to think I did.
But we have to make elections auditable.
Make elections fully auditable.
You should know if you voted the moment the elections close.
At the moment the votes close, you should get a text that says, yeah, we got your vote.
Here it is. Or some kind of a system.
I'm not saying that that would be the system.
But if President Trump runs for re-election...
And makes his main campaign thing, I'm going to fix elections.
Now, could he do that?
Because the federal government has limited capabilities when it comes to the states.
Yeah, he could. He could.
He could make money available.
He could threaten the states with losing money.
He could do a lot.
I mean, I don't know if he could fix it in one term.
But he could do a lot.
I think. Now, I need a fact check from smarter people to tell me if that's practical.
But I think it is. And if he does that, then it's about us.
I don't mind his complaint that he thinks he won, despite no proof of that at the moment.
I don't mind that complaint, because that's an opinion.
He gets to have an opinion.
But if he tells me he's going to fix the system, or work hard at it, or at least work as hard as he did on the wall, even if it didn't work out, we need somebody who cares...
To make our system auditable yet.
If Trump wins...
I'm sorry. If Trump runs with a main theme of fixing our election system, I'm all in.
So let me say that again.
Like most of you, I haven't made any decision about who I would support in 2024.
I don't even know who's running.
But if Trump makes this a major theme...
To fix the elections, to make them auditable, I'm all in.
Because you know what? I don't fucking care about anything else.
So OAN is reporting that some Republicans are being told when they go to vote in the election recall, which is happening right now, they're being told that they already voted.
Now, it's on OAN, so you can reasonably ask yourself, is that accurate?
How many people is this?
Is this one person or more?
We don't know, right?
So because it's in the media, you have to say to yourself, is it true?
I don't know. It doesn't mean it's true just because it's reported.
But, and also Project Veritas, I saw they're asking Californians if they see anything that looks sketchy to let them know.
I can report that I have heard reports of something very sketchy.
I'm not going to mention it yet, but personally, I've heard anecdotally a report that sounded sketchy as hell to me.
Don't know if it's true, so I'm not going to repeat it.
Now, the fact that we have these reports, anecdotal and not 100% reliable, does that mean that the election is bad?
No. Does that mean that this election is corrupt or rigged because we hear these stories?
No, it doesn't mean that. I mean, we don't have anything that's like some kind of proof of that.
But here's what we also don't have.
We don't have an election that we can audit fully.
So when it's done, we won't know if we voted or not.
And we no longer live in a world in which trusting our officials makes sense at all.
Now, as I was looking at this, I thought to myself, you know, this is a bad situation, that you've got elections that people don't trust in a way that our system requires them to trust it in order to work.
And I thought to myself, that's bad, and that makes me angry.
But not as angry as this.
We had two years to fix this.
Right? Right? And we've also got time to fix it for 2022.
But as far as I know, nobody's working on it.
And we have...
Maybe Texas made a step.
But even they don't have an auditable system.
Maybe they have a system that's just captured by Republicans instead of Democrats.
So maybe different states are captured by different parties.
But 2022 is coming.
And 2024 is coming.
And nobody's working on fixing the problem.
I'm going to lose my fucking shit.
It's one thing to have a problem, and you can complain about it, but the people in charge have not even made this a priority.
It's not even mentioned.
And so I'd like to say to all of our listeners, Elected officials, and even those running for election who are not talking about this as their top party, fuck every one of you.
Fuck your goddamn asshole fucking useless piece of shit cunts.
You need to give us a fucking election system that we can trust.
I don't even give a fuck who gets elected.
Give us a system that is compatible with With democracy and the republic.
Give us a fucking effort.
I don't even care if it's hard and you can't figure out how to do it.
Tell us this is your top fucking priority.
Because you know what my top priority is?
This. Everything else matters less.
If we don't know who in the country or how they got elected, it doesn't fucking matter what your policies are.
Right? Because you lost your country.
We need to get the fucking country back.
And the only way that's going to happen is to fix the election process so it's fully auditable and instantly.
Somebody needs to be working on that.
If nobody's working on it, we don't have a fucking government.
We don't even have a fucking government if nobody's working on that.
We don't have a government that's on our side.
We don't. We have a government that's, I don't know, working for itself or not working or I don't know what the fuck they're doing, but they're not working for us.
This needs to be our number one topic.
It needs to be bigger than climate change.
Because how are you going to change climate if you can't even run your government?
It needs to be bigger than the defense budget.
It needs to be bigger than fucking everything.
Bigger than Afghanistan.
Bigger than fucking wall.
Bigger than all that.
There is no bigger fucking problem in the country than the fucking election system not being credible to the public.
And if you give me a politician who will say that out loud with some kind of an effort toward fixing it that looks credible, I will be fully behind that politician and I don't give a fuck what party they're in.
I don't give a fuck what their other policies are.
If they can get that one thing done for me...
I would even sign up to vote for the first time.
All right? So how about, hey, tell us about your fiscal policy, Joe Biden.
No. Fuck you.
Fuck your fiscal policy.
Fuck your infrastructure.
Fuck your immigration plan.
Fuck your vaccinations. Fuck everything about you.
Fuck your goddamn dysfunctional brain that's basically a bowl of oatmeal at this fucking moment.
Fuck everything about you.
Fix the election.
Or at least work on it.
At least tell us it's a fucking priority.
President Trump, I got some tough love for you too.
If you run for election and all you're doing is complaining about the election was rigged, and you don't have as your top priority some way to fucking fix it, don't run.
Don't run. You're no good to us.
You have no fucking value.
Mr. Trump, who I like, by the way.
I like him personally. But tough love, right?
Tough love. If this isn't right at the top of your fucking priorities, and all you're doing is complaining about the last time, I don't care.
I don't fucking care if you run.
I'm not going to support that.
It's just going to make things worse.
Wouldn't it? I mean, it's just going to make a, what?
A revolution or something?
So, no fucking Trump.
No fucking Biden.
We want an election system.
I don't care who it is that runs on that platform.
Andrew Yang? Andrew Yang looks like he might be joining a third party or something.
If you come up with a plan to fix our election system, I don't even care what the other stuff is.
Don't even care. Just fix the election system.
And I will give you my full support if you can have a credible idea and some actual chance of doing that.
So here's where I am on all that.
Nothing else matters.
And you're doing this right in front of us, politicians.
See, I guess maybe that's the part that made me snap.
It would be one thing if things happened and you go, oh, God, I didn't know that was happening.
Man, that happened without me noticing.
Afghanistan, for example, snuck up on me, right?
If you had asked me, hey, Scott, a month ago, do you think that's going to be a disaster, the withdrawal?
I would have said, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
Who knows? It was just sort of opaque, right?
But the election problem is not opaque.
I know exactly what the problem is.
The problem is it can't be audited.
It's very objective.
And you're not working on it.
And it's our top problem.
Number one problem.
And you're not fucking working on it.
Nothing. All right.
Well, I'm disgusted. Here's a thought experiment.
I'm changing topics a little bit here.
Suppose there were two groups of humans...
And the only thing you knew about them that was different is that one group was told they're valuable just by existing.
Hey, you group, you are valuable.
You just have to exist.
Just be healthy, be whatever you are, just exist.
You are valuable. Then there's the second group.
You're told that their value is only from what they do.
They have to perform.
They have to be useful.
They have to make something work.
They've got to build something. They've got to make some money.
They've got to go do something. Then you check back in 20 years, which of the two groups excelled at making money and success?
Was it the group that is told that they are valuable just the way they are?
You don't need to do anything.
Or would it be the group that's told they're worthless unless they do something, succeed?
So which ones do better?
Well, as I've said before, women are biologically more valuable just by existing, because they can have babies and men can't.
And you'll need one man to impregnate lots of women.
So we're not very valuable men from a biological standpoint, unless we do stuff.
And Mark Schneider, who had this very...
Interesting tweet.
I'm just going to read it to you.
He said, the fact is that as men we are expendable until we can prove we are not.
My father, stepfather, and grandfathers instilled this in me.
And I thought to myself, that sounds about right.
I remember being I was told quite explicitly that I had to do something.
I had to succeed by doing something.
I'm not exactly sure my sister got the same message.
I'd love to ask her that.
I don't know that she...
Because I was told explicitly that success was my goal.
I had to succeed.
I don't know if my sister was told that.
I mean, not in direct language.
I mean, she did succeed.
She put together a very successful life.
But, I don't know.
It could be different. I'm a middle child, by the way.
And so I wonder if that's a part of the difference in outcomes.
Obviously, there could be biological differences, a million other social differences, but I would think that this would be at least one of them.
That if you don't think that your human value is much affected by accomplishment, why would you try?
I mean, it's got to be a factor, right?
All right. China, they've got this 21-day extreme quarantine situation they use.
So if you've been exposed or if you came from another country back into China...
You'd have 14 days of compulsory hotel quarantine.
You'd have another seven days in some kind of centralized quarantine at designated locations.
And then before returning home, you'd be health monitored, and then I think you have to...
and you've got all kinds of testing even before that stuff happens.
And still, an infection got into the country.
So they think they know who it was.
I don't think so.
It doesn't sound like they know who it was to me, but they think they know who it was.
And they say that this fellow had come in from, I don't know, Malaysia or Indonesia or someplace, and he had tested negative for the virus nine times during 21 days of quarantine before testing positive on Friday.
37 days after entering China, he tested positive.
What's going on? It doesn't sound like they know exactly what's going on.
It sounds like there's still a mystery here.
But here's my question.
Is any country intentionally infecting any other country?
Do you think that's a thing?
Because it would be horrible, of course.
But are you telling me that there's no natural enemy countries that haven't thought, you know...
It would be kind of evil, but if our rival were more infected than we were, that might be good for us.
Does anybody think that way?
I wonder, because I think that way.
I mean, I'm not saying I would implement that plan, but I would think of it.
I would certainly think of it.
Do you think that nobody is intentionally infecting China?
Really? Because that would be amazing restraint.
Now, maybe it's just hard to do, but it seems like it would be an amazing expression of restraint to not intentionally infect China, if you thought China was the source of it and you thought China was evil and everything else.
So China has this plan of trying to basically stamp it down completely.
And they've done an impressive job trying to do that.
But since we know it's going to be an endemic and not a pandemic, isn't their strategy a failed strategy?
Because aren't they all going to get it just the way we're all going to get it?
Just a matter of time?
Now, it could be that the reason China is taking an extreme position is, wait for it, that their health care system wouldn't be able to handle any extra stress...
The way an American system can.
Because we managed to expand and, you know, do some impressive stuff when we had to.
But what happens if China's healthcare system gets overloaded?
I mean, I assume that the cities have pretty good healthcare systems.
But in rural China, what happens when you're sick?
Do they all have good healthcare in rural China?
I don't know. So I would wonder if China has potentially a gigantic problem, which is that they can't handle any level of infection similar to other countries because it would crash their country.
Right? It might be just a way bigger risk in China than it is in other places.
It could even... It could even threaten the government, I would think.
The stability of the government would fall if their healthcare system collapsed.
Am I right? If China's healthcare system collapsed right in front of the whole world, even the leadership would be in trouble.
Right? So it seems to me that China is only a few super-spreaders away from falling.
Potentially. I mean, that's...
You know, it's not the odds on.
But... A non-zero chance.
There is a non-zero chance that high infections in China would crash the government.
Because I think the Chinese people would start to see their government as the problem, if they believe it originated there.
The propaganda is trying to tell the local citizens it didn't originate in China.
But if the healthcare system crashes, they're all going to know it.
They're going to know their relatives couldn't get that heart transplant and everything else.
Somebody says, it's wild conjecture.
The U.S. has a worse health care system.
Here's my speculation.
So it is conjecture, you're right.
But the speculation is this, that our rural health care is far better.
I think if you looked city to city, it might not be that different.
Maybe even China's is better.
But if you looked rural, I feel like we'd have a big advantage.
Now, that's the part you'd have to fact-check, right?
So we'll see. So...
China...
There's also a thought that China might have to vaccinate the rest of the world to protect itself.
So imagine that the United States continues on its current path.
We should have enough...
Vaccinations plus herd immunity, normal infections, that we're going to be something back to normal, even though we might be masked and boosted and that for years, we'll be able to have an economy and something like a life.
But China hasn't gone through this.
And I don't know if their low-quality vaccinations are going to be good enough if they have to go through this.
So what happens if we go through this and get to the other end...
Turn it into an endemic where it's a problem but doesn't stop anything from happening.
And they just start it.
And they just get taken out by the virus.
I think that could happen. And the only thing that they can do to try to prevent that is to try to vaccinate everywhere else in the world so that they can travel and do stuff and not get it back in their country.
China is going to have to vaccinate the rest of the world.
The United States apparently isn't looking to do that.
And our vaccinations are the good ones.
So their vaccinations might not even be good enough.
So keep an eye on that.
So I would say that China has at least 10 gigantic problems that don't even look solvable.
China's in big, big trouble.
Now, what about the question of business in China?
I can't imagine that we're going to be moving more American factories into China.
Didn't that stop?
Can somebody tell me what was the last time a major American company made a decision to move into China with a factory?
Has it happened in the past year?
Probably can't because of the pandemic.
But... Well, Tesla's plans were older than that.
But has anybody made a new plan in the last six months or less year to move into China?
I haven't heard of any.
Yeah, I think it stopped completely.
Now, it could be the pandemic is what stopped it, because you can't travel, so it's impossible to do that sort of thing.
Yeah, I think it'll end up in Vietnam.
All right, and China's stocks are getting hit.
So there's a thought that China's plan, their Marxist plan, I'd never heard this before.
Tell me if you've ever heard this before.
That Marxism, this doesn't make any sense.
I read this, but it's got to be wrong.
So ignore the next things that come out of my mouth.
But the idea is that Marxism requires you to have money to do it, and you have to have some capitalism first.
So that China's plan is to be capitalist, make a bunch of money, which will cause inequality, and then to introduce socialism, which will suck some of that money away from the richest and give it to the poor.
And then there's a third phase, which is communism, which is apparently if you've made enough with your capitalism, you've made it more equal with your socialism...
That somehow there's this good thing called communism at the end?
I don't know how that could possibly work, but maybe somebody smarter could explain the details.
However, it does look like Xi is trying to rebalance things and is trying to take money from the elites and give it to the public through various social policies.
And that is a gigantic change, if it works.
So China's got another gigantic challenge, which is that capitalism would destroy it because the inequality would become too enormous at some point, and they would fall just from the inequality, some say.
And trying to fix it seems like an enormous problem, too.
So good luck to them.
So do you think Texas's economy will suffer because of their new anti-abortion crisis?
Well, Salesforce, a gigantic company, is going to offer to relocate employees and their families from Texas if they want to move because of that.
So, does Texas win because the godless liberals move out and then you've got more Republicans running things well?
So does Texas come out ahead and Because these mostly tech companies, I think, decide to boycott it.
Or does Texas come out behind because companies won't move there to do their business?
My estimate is that Texas will come out behind.
Now, it's just a guess.
But here's why. If Salesforce did not already have facilities in Texas, would they move there?
No, clearly.
Clearly. Salesforce moved there because they could move there when they did.
And now, you know, they're there, so it's too hard to move out.
But they are moving their employees out if the employees want to go.
I don't think many will take that.
But I guarantee that the next big tech company can't move into Texas.
I guarantee it.
I guarantee that no billion-dollar tech company will move into Texas while that abortion law is happening.
Does anybody want to take that bet?
So it's got to be at least a billion dollar tech company.
And I'm saying that not one of them will move in that hasn't already made the plans.
I know Tesla's made their plans, etc.
But people who have not made any plans from this point forward, no new tech company will move into Texas.
Now, the counter-argument is, yeah, but Texas gets to attract all these Republicans and they manage things well and they'll be fine.
Maybe. But I think if you...
If you make it too hard for tech companies to move in, eventually you're going to suffer, I think.
And especially because Texas is a tech state.
Trump is saying that Democrats disparaged the COVID vaccine while he was president, and now they wonder why some are hesitant, says Trump.
Do you buy that?
That the reason people are hesitant...
Maybe in part because the Democrats disparaged it?
What do you think? I don't know.
Maybe a little. But I can't believe that the Democrats would have influenced Republicans, right?
Democrats influence Democrats, but Democrats are getting the shots.
Now, the two populations, the black Americans and Republicans, are the ones that are having the most hesitancy.
So it's in both parties.
I don't know. I'm not so sure that would have made a difference.
Business Insider, which is interestingly owned in part by Jeff Bezos, is printing a leaked tax plan from the Democrats.
So this is not official.
It's just a leaked draft.
It could be real different. And, of course, it's showing gigantic tax increases on the rich.
What are the odds that that's going to get passed?
Do you think there's any chance that the elites who run everything are going to massively tax themselves?
Because if you think the elites run everything, there's no chance that this is going to happen, right?
No chance. So, and I almost think that the size of the plans that the Democrats are pushing are designed to fail, right?
Right? Doesn't it seem that the Democrats are asking for so much in their spending package, you know, the trillions and trillions?
It seems like they designed it to ask for so much they can't possibly get it passed.
Because the elites, it's the last thing they want.
The last thing they want is a giant spend and tax plan, because they'll get taxed.
So I'm just going to put that out there.
Is Nancy Pelosi smart enough to push a plan that can't get passed because she doesn't want it to get passed, or her backers don't want it to get passed?
I wonder. I doubt it.
I doubt it. But you can't rule it out in today's world, can you?
It's terrible that you can't rule it out.
But I'm going to predict that getting a tax bill through that would rape the elites who actually run the country feels unlikely.
Unless they don't really run the country.
I guess we'll find out, won't we?
If you believe that the elites are running everything, no matter what party they're in, it's just the elites, then the tax plan won't pass.
Right? Because follow the money.
The money predicts, totally predicts, that that tax plan won't be implemented.
It totally predicts that.
So, how often is it wrong when money predicts?
Not often. Money usually does predict.
But we will find out if the elites are in charge.
Because if the elites are in charge, they won't get passed.
At the press conference, Rose McGowan said she's no longer a Democrat because they're the ones who harassed, stalked, and stole from her in her time in Hollywood.
Interesting. And...
I would also add to that that Republicans are better people.
Republicans are...
Well, let's say conservatives. Conservatives are better people.
Now, that's just an opinion, of course.
It's subjective. Now, I don't identify as conservative.
I identify as socially, you know, super liberal.
Not crazy liberal, not...
Not woke to the point of crippled, but socially liberal, for sure.
So I'm not a conservative, but I can tell you that if I have to spend time with a certain group of people, the conservatives are just, on average, on average...
They're just nicer people.
Now, I'm not talking about anybody who's, like, full-out racist or something.
You know, both parties have, you know, people who are just shit.
But on average, Republicans are nicer.
They're just nicer.
That's my experience.
Now, again, it's purely subjective, right?
Yours may differ. All right.
I believe... Scott, do you think abortion at eight, five months is okay?
So I've been asked a question about abortion.
I'd like to answer that question by dropping my pants and showing you my penis.
I won't do that.
You're welcome. I won't do that.
But the point is, I have a penis.
It does not produce babies.
If my penis produced babies and the vagina did not...
Do you think I would care about a woman's opinion about whether I should be able to have an abortion if only penises made babies?
Fuck no. I don't want a woman's opinion about my penis at all.
None. I barely want a man's opinion.
But at least there would be some credibility if it came from a man.
Likewise, do you think women want my penis opinion about their vagina?
No. I don't think so.
It doesn't make the decision better.
It doesn't add any credibility to it.
So it's not my question to solve.
Whatever women as a group want to come up with, make it legal, make it illegal.
If women are okay with it, I'm going to back it.
And I would ask that same standard in reverse.
Should there be a topic in which it's really a man's question, because it doesn't apply to women for one reason or another?
I don't want to hear your opinion.
At all. I don't want to hear your opinion at all.
Unless you're an expert. I mean, if a man is an expert on some element of biology or abortion, then yeah.
But I'm not an expert.
Somebody says, weak.
It's weak. Is it?
I would say that's pretty subjective.
Four to five skins agree.
Abortion is a human rights issue.
That's an opinion.
Because you start with the answer.
So when you say abortion is a human right, I think what you're saying is that the fetus has a human right.
I think that's where you're going with that comment.
But you've started the argument with your assumption.
If your assumption is it's human, well, there's no debate to be made.
So you haven't really debated.
You just put an assumption in there and said you're done.
And this is another reason why I don't get into the actual debate, because you can't win in the debate.
The only thing you can do with abortion is make sure that the right person makes the decision.
How many of you are fans of Thomas Sowell?
If I pronounced his name right, I hope I did.
Thomas, you know, the famous black economist...
And because it's 2021 and we're all assholes, I have to throw in the black part, like that mattered.
It didn't make any difference to the point I'm going to make, that he's black.
But it's 2021, so you have to throw that in there.
Someday, we'll just be able to say economist.
We're not quite there yet.
Like, we hope we'll be there.
But someday... Anyway, one of the things that Thomas Sowell says that I love is that it's not so much what the decision is, it's who gets to make it.
Now, he's using it in a different context.
But same thing with abortion.
I'm less concerned with what the decision is because there's no right decision.
It's awful either way.
It's just awful in different ways to different people.
So what I care about is the decision was made by the right people.
And the only thing I know for sure is I'm not one of them.
I'm not one of the right people.
So the best thing I can do for the system is to take a shower when you're deciding what to do.
And then I'll back it.
Now, I'd be a jerk if I say, you make the decision, but I'll criticize you for it.
Nope. You make the decision, you being women, or any men who want to because you have a right, you have a right to be part of the decision.
I'm not arguing that.
All men have a right to be part of the process.
But after you make a decision, I'll back it, whatever it is.
Yeah, 80-year-old women also have a say.
Women who can't produce children have a say.
Because they're all in the same pot.
Meaning that their lives are most affected by this, even if they can't have children.
They're seen as people who can have children.
Or did, or could.
Alright, yeah, I don't care about whether trans are part of it.
