Episode 1499E Scott Adams: Today I Will Talk About Joe Manchin, Swollen Balls, and Other Horrors
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Safe nuclear energy is the future
J6 prisoners
Instant election audits
CA recall election coincidences
Ice cream for dementia
Nicki Minaj cousin's friend
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 I'll even put it on my microphone so that the YouTube people can hear me better.
Well, do we have good news for you today?
And fun news? And stories that you'll want to hear?
Yeah, we do.
It's gonna be great. Um, but if you'd like to take it up a level, and I know you do, because why would you settle for less?
Don't settle for less.
You can have it all.
All you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, filled with your favorite liquid I like.
Coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine of the day thing makes Everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's going to happen now.
Go! Well, if you made it here on time, you are in for a treat.
Because today is the best, funniest, most entertaining news of all time.
That's a promise.
Let us get right to it.
Top of the news, you've heard of the Pegasus spy software that gets on your phone and gets into all your stuff.
And it's so advanced that only governments have access to it.
But we found out that there was a flaw, or at least a hole, in the Apple phone operating system that this Pegasus software was taking advantage of.
And apparently there are names of people who are allegedly targeted by the software, including a lot of journalists and activists.
That's right. Journalists and activists are being targeted by foreign nations to be spied upon, and everything on their phone is accessible to them.
Everything. Have I told you before that one of the weird things about my life is that you read the news, but I'm often in it.
MacDougals, I see your comment.
Yeah, I mean, you watch the news, but I watch the news and I'm in it.
So I read this news about this Pegasus spy program that's targeting activists and And reporters?
And journalists? Am I on that list?
And if I'm not, why not?
If I were a foreign country, the first person I would want to look into was me because I seem to be influencing things.
Now, I might not be.
It could be an illusion. It could be an illusion.
It could be just that everything I try to influence seems to go my way.
Maybe. Not everything, of course.
Nobody gets everything.
But I immediately dropped everything and updated my phone because I guess there's a fix for it.
But I'll tell you, I've never updated my software so fast.
The moment I saw that, like, okay, drop everything, drop everything.
Because the odds that somehow I've been targeted, just as a person who talks in the media about politics and maybe has some influence, That's some scary shit.
Somebody says Jesse Waters mentioned me last night on Gutfeld.
I have that recorded and I will watch that today.
Well, here's some good news.
Are you ready for the good, good news?
Really good news? Great news?
I'm going to give you the best news today that you've ever heard.
You ready? Now, some of you don't think it was a problem.
Climate change. But suppose you did.
Or suppose you didn't think it was a problem, but you'd like everybody to shut up about it, which would be a different kind of problem.
There are two gigantic happenings that, you know, that can solve climate change.
Number one, a carbon capture plant, the world's first and largest, just opened up.
It's a factory.
This sucks air into it, takes the carbon dioxide out, mixes it with water and turns it into some kind of limestone and sticks it in the ground.
Now, how many factories would you need to suck enough?
Yes, in Iceland. How many would you need?
And the company is a Swiss startup called Climeworks.
Climeworks AG. Now, We know the technology works.
Okay? So we don't have to wonder, hey, will this technology work?
It already works. They built the factory.
They didn't build a prototype.
Hear this clearly.
It's not a prototype.
It's an actual fucking factory that's taking carbon dioxide out of the air.
Now, how many do you need?
I don't know. But how much more efficient What can the carbon capture become?
Well, if it's like everything else in the world, it starts out somewhat barely efficient and it just keeps getting better.
What happens when our technology for carbon capture goes from kind of works to really good?
Problem solved, right?
So when you see that it's already apparently economical in some sense, I don't know, I can't imagine that they have a profit.
And what? They're not selling anything.
So I don't know who's funding it, but it got funded.
So it means that somebody has an interest that's large enough to put money into it.
So if you don't have a technical problem, because it works, there's no question about it.
It's open, right? It's open and working.
You don't have that question. And you don't have a funding problem because many would say it's the biggest problem in the world or whatever.
Yeah, it may be inefficient now, but what's it going to be?
What will the technology get to in 10 years?
That's the question you have to ask yourself.
I don't know. So Adam Dopamine was pointing this out, the story out.
But it also goes to what I call the Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters.
How many of you have heard of that?
Have you all heard of the Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters?
I named it after myself.
And the law states this, that the only disasters you have to really worry about are the ones you didn't see coming.
The ones that sneak up on you fast, like the pandemic.
Well, arguably, we could have seen that coming, but not the specific one.
And the argument goes like this, that whenever humanity can see a problem developing over decades, we always solve it.
Such as, you're going to run out of oil.
Nope. We saw it coming, and we've learned to frack and do other things, and we solved it.
You're going to run out of food, because there are too many people.
Nope. Nope.
We just figured out how to grow more food.
The cars are going to pollute the air and we won't be able to breathe.
Nope. Nope.
We just changed some laws and made the smoggy cars go away.
It's much better now.
So basically, every time you find a problem, how about the ozone hole in the atmosphere?
So when I was a kid the ozone was going to disappear and we'd all be fried by the sun.
But we knew it would take a long time to happen and so we changed some laws and got rid of aerosols and we're fine.
So climate change is the prototypical example of that because we're looking at an 80-year kind of time frame you know and granted it's the first 20 that that might be critical but it's a lot of time.
By human standards.
That's a lot of time. And the odds that we will figure out workarounds for it are really good.
So, am I worried about climate change?
No. Because everybody else is.
If everybody else was not worried about climate change, I might be worried about it.
Because I'd be like, hey, I'm not positive this is going in the wrong direction, but it might, and nobody's doing anything about it.
But if you tell me we've got decades to work on something, and everybody knows it's a problem, or let's say most of the scientists and most of the industry believes it's a problem, some of you maybe not, but that's exactly the situation that makes me feel comfortable.
My ideal situation is there's a problem that will take Decades to materialize and we're working really hard to fix it already.
That's a good situation. Golden age, here we come.
Now, here's the second part of that.
I'm all about the good news today.
Are you feeling better? Do you feel a little optimism today?
All right, here's the second part.
If you've been watching Michael Schellenberger talk about green energy being not as Useful as we hoped it would be and that nuclear energy actually is the only really feasible way to give us all the energy we need in the future.
With other sources, of course, but we can't not do nuclear power and we need it for space and blah blah.
But here's the thing.
In the history of humanity, or at least let's say your lifetime, have you ever heard of a major Let's say a public debate where there are definitely people on both sides.
Like really dug in. Take abortion.
Abortion would be where there's two sides really dug in.
Take socialism.
Two sides really dug in.
Nothing's going to change.
And that defines most of our topics, right?
Somebody says there's three sides in some cases.
Okay, but I'm simplifying for this.
Wouldn't you say that over your entire life, you've never seen a major debate with two sides where somebody just won the debate?
And the other side said, okay, you're right.
Can you think of any case where that's ever happened?
It's happening right now.
Do you see all the protesters protesting against the building of nuclear power plants?
Nope. Do you see all the people going on television and saying we should close all of our nuclear power plants?
Nope. No.
Do you know why? Because the debate is over.
It's the only time a debate has ever been won.
that i can think of you won't even see anybody go on television who's an expert you know i'm not talking about some scared citizen but you won't see any experts on television saying we shouldn't build nuclear power plants because if you've got an expert associated with the right political right they'd say yeah nuclear power plants but if you got somebody associated with the left let's say joe biden he'd say yes on nuclear power plants Have you ever seen this before?
And by the way, I credit Michael Schellenberger for, I don't know, maybe most of this change?
Because he's worked this harder than I've seen anybody work any topic ever.
And more effectively, by the way.
His communication skills are through the roof.
Rarely do you see somebody with that kind of communication skill who, you know, who gets a bite on a topic and just drives it down to ground.
But I think he did.
I mean, he's testified to Congress enough, and credibly and persuasively, that you don't even see politicians railing against nuclear power, do you?
Because I think it would be embarrassing at this point.
Now, if you're a little behind the information here, the quick version is this.
If you are worried about storage of nuclear waste, basically solved.
They just store it in big barrels right on site, and they don't ship it anywhere.
When was the last time you heard a big story about a gigantic problem of where to store nuclear waste?
It's just not a problem.
They just store it on site.
Problem solved. And how about, I see Fukushima and listed there, and how about the problem of safety?
Because you don't want something like a Fukushima, you know, melting down or something, right?
Were you aware that no modern designed nuclear energy plant has ever had a death or a meltdown?
Fukushima is old design.
Because you don't want something like a Fukushima melting down or something, right?
Were you aware that no modern designed nuclear energy plant has ever had a death or a meltdown?
Fukushima is old design.
You wouldn't build that today.
And even the new designs have been around so long What we call the newer, you know, Generation 3.
Generation 3 has never had a problem.
Those are the only ones you would build.
You wouldn't build a Generation 2.
You wouldn't build a Chernobyl Generation 1, right?
But zero problems with Generation 3.
So if you think that there's a safety problem, you'd have to answer the fact that zero people have ever died.
And there's never been a meltdown in a Generation 3.
So, waste, storage, solved.
Safety, solved.
We're really good at Generation 3.
And by the way, Generation 4 won't even have a risk of melting down.
And Generation 4, some of the designs, actually eat nuclear waste as their own fuel.
So, you know, everything that we were worried about, and then, of course, we've had some breakthroughs in fusion, which is even a bigger deal.
So, if you're looking at climate change, the two biggest things that could possibly ever happen are happening.
The debate on nuclear power is over.
I've never seen this happen before.
I've never seen a debate won.
It's really remarkable.
Can you think of any other example?
I can't. All right, so that's good news.
Rasmussen has a new poll out asking if you believe that the folks who are now in jail because of the January 6th protests at the Capitol, do you believe that they are political prisoners?
I'll ask this in the comments and then I'll tell you what the Rasmussen poll said.
Do you think that the people in jail for the January 6th protests are political prisoners?
Yes, yes, yes. I'm seeing lots of yeses from the, almost all yeses, yeah.
Now let me ask you this.
Let me start by agreeing with you, okay?
So I'm agreeing with you.
We're on the same side. I would say that they're political prisoners too.
Now let me, let's go do a mental experiment.
Suppose we picked one of them to look at.
So you randomly picked one of the people who was in jail for the January 6th.
And you say, what's this one in jail for?
And they'd probably say something like, well, we have him on video beating a cop with a blunt object.
Should that person be in jail?
Yeah, of course, of course.
It doesn't matter what you think of politics.
If somebody beat a police officer with a blunt object, yeah, yeah, jail.
No doubt about it. So let's pick somebody else, because that one's obvious.
So you pick the next person. Next person, why is this one here?
Well, we also have them on video.
Bear spraying a police officer.
Okay, well that one goes, yeah, that one needs to be in jail.
I feel like it's all going to be that, right?
If you ask me, do I think they're political prisoners?
Yes. But if you actually went down to each one and said, well, what about this one?
You know, this one injured a cop.
No, not that one.
But I'm not entirely sure they're not all that.
Are you? Are you sure that the people in jail just trespassed?
Because I don't have that information.
Do you? Do you think that the people still in jail, I'm only talking about the ones still in jail, do you think that their only crime was trespassing?
Now the Viking Horn guy is an interesting case because I don't know that he did anything.
Did the Viking Horn guy do anything but trespass?
So let's put it this way.
If there are people who are in jail for just trespassing, then clearly they're political prisoners.
But I would imagine they would all be out on bail by now, wouldn't they?
So I feel like I'd need to know a little bit more about that.
But emotionally, emotionally and at the high level, yeah, political prisoners.
And you know what? Even if they're not, you know, even if you dug down and found there were specific charges that even you would say, okay, that's a specific charge.
It still feels like political prisoners.
I swear to God, even if you told me the story for every one of those people, you said, all right, look at it.
Here's every one of these people.
Look at their story. You tell me that they should not be in jail, and I'd say, well, maybe they should be, this one.
And yet, still, I think it's political prisoners.
Like, I have two opinions that don't even fit together.
Yeah, they might be actually violent people, and they're also just political prisoners.
I can't help it. I'd love to tell you that I have a consistent opinion, but I don't.
Those two things don't fit together, and yet I hold them both as truths.
So I don't know if you're different.
But anyway, Rasmussen's result was that 49% of the respondents said they agreed strongly or somewhat that the January 6 people are political prisoners.
Let that sink in a little bit.
Half of the country thinks we're holding political prisoners.
Now, I don't know if that's just like a political answer to a poll, because it might be.
You know, people answer polls the way they want politics to bend.
I'm not sure it's their actual opinion that every person there is a political prisoner.
But like I said, I have that opinion.
Even if the facts don't support it.
Like somehow my opinion is completely divorced from any facts and I don't care.
I don't even know what that means.
I don't know what that says about me.
What's it say about me that on this topic I don't care if the facts support my opinion?
Have you ever had that feeling?
Where you didn't care if the facts were on your side?
It wasn't going to change your opinion?
It's a weird feeling.
It's one of those times where you can feel your own irrationality.
All right, I sent a tweet at Joe Manchin today.
I love the fact that I can tweet a member of Congress.
And the odds that that member of Congress will see the tweet are actually really good.
Isn't that weird? Because, you know, and especially because I have a lot of followers and I've got a blue check, I'm pretty sure if you're a senator, you probably see all the blue check tweets about yourself, don't you?
Because it only takes, you know, a minute a day to look at Twitter.
So I feel like he probably saw it or will see it.
But here's what I tweeted at Joe Manchin, who, as you know, is in control of everything because he's the only senator who is willing to vote against his own party when things are evenly split.
So it gives them all the power.
And he's got the power for the infrastructure bill.
And I guess he's also got the power on some kind of voting access bill that the Democrats also want.
So I tweeted this at him.
I said, hey, Senator Joe Manchin, since you control Congress now, how about getting us a law forcing states to have instantly fully auditable elections, including any software or hardware components, in addition to more voting options?
So I don't have any problem with voting options.
I'm certainly not going to be the person who says, hey, let's suppress the hours people can vote or Suppress the way that they vote or anything like that.
Not going to do that. But I think we need the federal government to force the states to work toward some kind of instantly, instantly.
See, that's the key word.
It has to be instant.
We can't wait six months for a fucking audit like we are now.
It's got to be instant. Otherwise, it's useless, because if it's not instant, you're still going to install the public, the politician, and it's just sort of too late.
So it's got to be instant, and we could totally do that.
And fully auditable, meaning the software, the hardware, and everything else.
Now, what's the fastest way to do that?
What's the fastest way to have an instantly auditable election?
How long would it take to make that happen?
One programmer, one day.
Per state. One programmer, one day.
That's the entire effort.
Per state. You know, one per state.
There is a database that says you voted.
Is there not? Or there should be.
You should be able to just check your vote.
That's it. Your vote, Should be registered in the big database in the sky, and as soon as you vote, you know, wait five minutes or whatever, you should be able to hit an app and it should tell you what happened to your vote.
Now, you might say to yourself, wait a minute, ID is the problem, right?
Because you don't want a person's identification matched to their vote.
How hard would it be to fix that?
Add five minutes.
Add five minutes.
Because you want to store in the database a secret code that does identify the person, but only they can unlock it.
You know, they've got the key.
So the person who did the vote is the only person who can identify their own vote on the system because they've got the matching key.
How hard is that? Now, of course, I'm exaggerating.
It's not five minutes. Everything takes a year.
But we should be working toward it.
If you think it can be done, of course it can be done.
Of course it can. I mean, conceptually, it's not even difficult.
I just told you how to do it.
All you need is for people to be able to track their vote.
Now, the only thing it wouldn't catch is fake votes, right?
Am I right? The only thing it wouldn't catch is a fake vote.
But could you engineer a solution to that by randomly querying people who voted To find out if they're really the real person.
So you'd have to have two ways to look.
One, to make sure that if you are a real person who voted, that your vote got registered the way you wanted it to.
But secondly, if there are votes that are fake people, that you can randomly, not all of them, but randomly you can query the real person and say, your vote was registered, did you vote?
I feel like it's doable.
And I think Joe Manchin might be the only person who has enough power to make it happen.
Stick that in there as a requirement.
By 2024, you have to have a fully auditable system or whatever.
There would be your golden age if we could get that done.
There's a video that I tweeted around that I highly recommend just because it's fun to watch.
In China, they demolished 15 skyscrapers at the same time.
And there's a video of a it looks like maybe a city block or something.
So there were 15 skyscrapers that they built but never had any occupants for and they didn't finish them.
So I guess they got the basements got flooded and maybe they became unsafe or something.
So it was no longer practical to finish them.
So they blew them up.
Now I guess this is not the first time they've done massive multiple building They've done it in other places where they're clearing out buildings.
I think they've done like 36 at one time.
But watching 15 skyscrapers blow up at the same time, you know, because they blow up in a controlled explosion so that they just sink into the dust.
It's really cool.
It's really cool. So look on my Twitter feed.
I just tweeted it this morning, so it's near the top.
Just to watch it for fun.
It's really kind of impressive.
Kind of impressive. Well, let's talk about the California recall race.
The election is today, or the official election day.
And something very odd has happened.
Very odd.
Number one. Well, a few odd things.
Number one, Newsom said, I think it was yesterday, that a vote for Larry Elder is a vote against diversity and racial justice.
That's right. A vote against who would be the first Black Republican governor, Larry Elder, if he wins, voting for him to be the first Black Republican governor of California.
Is a vote against diversity.
It's against diversity.
I don't know how you even say that with a straight face.
Now apparently there is approved diversity and unapproved diversity.
And the type of diversity that Larry Elder would bring is apparently unapproved.
The Democrats do not approve of that particular type of diversity.
There's good diversity and bad diversity, and I guess he's got the bad kind, according to Newsom.
But we've got this match and gasoline situation happening with this California recall.
I don't feel that the mood of the voters is up to a revolution, mostly because Democrats are going to be, I'm sorry, Republicans will be the victims and they tend not to hit the streets so much.
But there's something very bad going on that could be coincidence.
Or something very bad is going on.
I don't know which it is, but I'm open to the possibility it's either one.
So let me give you an example of what's going on here.
You may know that the polling for who's going to win or whether or not the recall would be successful, the polling in August looked like it was too close to call.
It was like within 1%.
What's the polling today?
Not even close. Newsom's going to win like 57% if the polling is accurate.
Now, what happened between August and now that would make it from a super tight race, where it looked like Elder would win, actually, because of the trend line, to not even close?
One month. In one month, it went from too close to Colt and not even close.
Somebody says there's money, something about the way they campaigned, Nope.
It turns out that the explanation given in the news today is that the August polls were wrong.
And that's because they worded the poll wrong and they got the wrong result.
Now, isn't that convenient?
The one race that we think, not we, I'll take myself out of it, the one race which many, many Republicans think will be rigged I'm not saying it will be.
I'm saying that Republicans are claiming that.
That happens to be the same race that the polls suspiciously went from totally agreeing with Republicans to suddenly totally disagreeing.
Exactly the way you'd expect a rigged poll to come out.
Because what would be the problem if the poll said it was super close, but the vote wasn't?
Because we were almost heading for a really big problem, weren't we?
Wouldn't it be a really big problem if the poll said it should be close, but the vote said it wasn't?
And people thought it was a rigged vote?
Republicans would take that as proof.
But suddenly, by coincidence, and by the way, I'm only going to claim it's a coincidence.
Because I don't have evidence of anything else.
But as coincidences go, I don't think it could be worse.
It's a coincidence of a match being dropped in gasoline.
Because if the polls are bullshit, and you already don't believe the vote itself, your credibility is just shot.
And credibility is the only thing that holds our system together.
That's it. Credibility.
You take the credibility away and it all falls apart unless you use force.
So how many, let's say, irregularities are happening in the vote?
Well, if you're following Dave Rubin, and you should, follow Dave Rubin on Twitter and also on Locals.
He and a number of other people are sort of, you know, getting into the The details of what's happening there and there's a lot of tweets in which people are responding to what they've personally observed.
Now it's all anecdotal.
Anecdotal means it doesn't mean it necessarily represents a large trend.
It's just people having specific experiences and reporting them and you don't even know if they're real people, right?
So whatever credibility you want to put on these next claims, lower it a little bit, right?
Remember, I've told you that all election fraud claims, if you looked at the whole body of all claims made about all elections everywhere all the time, at least in the United States, they're going to be wrong 95% of the time, right? So 95% of all election fraud claims, at least big ones, big claims, turn out to be wrong.
At least 95. Could be 100%, but at least 95.
So keep that in mind. And when I tell you that there are all kinds of reports of irregularities in the California election.
So you got people who got mailed, you know, two ballots, one for the person who used to live there, one for them.
People who got two ballots for one for their maiden name and one for their old name.
People who got ballots at a state when they haven't been in the state for a long time.
And I won't go through all the examples, but it's just lots of examples uh people with a specific um complaint now are those specific complaints enough or even credible enough to imagine that there's some massive problem going on i don't see it yet it looks like just a whole bunch of individual complaints of various credibility um but boy is it a red flag if you're asking is Fraud proven,
I'd say no, no, there's no fraud proven.
And I don't see evidence that necessarily will be proven.
But damn, there's a lot of questions.
And can you have a system that doesn't have credibility?
Because there are so many questions.
And if Joe Manchin had done the job that we'd love him to do, wouldn't we already have an election where you'd say, well, there are lots of irregularities, but thank goodness you can check to see if your vote got registered correctly.
Can't. All of these problems would go away.
It wouldn't matter how many claims you heard of irregularities.
As long as you could check your own vote, you'd be pretty happy.
Yeah. Please provide data for your 95% false claim.
That's observational.
It's not based on data.
So I observe over the years That if you watch the claims and then you just wait long enough to see if they get proven or disproven, 95% of the time they'll be disproven.
So that's exactly the experience we had with the 2020 election.
I mean, I haven't seen any that were proven, but certainly were a lot of claims.
All right. And apparently there's one story that 70% of the voters somewhere were being turned away because the system said they had already voted.
And then there was a claim that it was a software problem.
But then there was a clarification that it was more about an out-of-date poll book.
I don't know what an out-of-date poll book is or how that fit into the story, but let's say that they do know that was a problem.
It turns out it was more like a handful of people and they figured out what the problem was and they fixed it.
I think it's being reported as a massive problem, where it might have been just an anecdotal thing that one area screwed up a little bit.
So I wouldn't be too worried about that.
Anyway, There are massive, let's say, reports of individual problems, but I haven't seen enough of the same kind of problem to suggest massive fraud.
Now, what are the odds that Republicans will believe there was massive fraud in the California election?
It's 100%.
Because even Trump weighed in on this and said, he said, does anybody really believe that the California recall election isn't rigged?
That's what Trump asked.
Now, notice how cleverly he words it.
If he claimed it was rigged, then he'd be in a little bit of trouble.
But if he says, does anybody believe it isn't rigged?
He's talking about what you think.
And that's fair, because that's a fair statement.
He accurately is calling what we think, which is different from knowing what is actually happening.
So I don't know if anything's going to blow up based on the result.
It does look like Newsom might win unless there's massive Republican turnout, which I suppose could happen.
Here's a story that I've been noodling about all day because I didn't think this was true, but I googled and I think it is true.
Did you know that ice cream is highly recommended for people with dementia?
How many people knew that?
That ice cream, specifically ice cream, is highly recommended for people with dementia.
Apparently what it does is if your dementia is causing you to get worked up and angry about stuff, which is, you know, the most common or one of the most common side effects of having dementia, Apparently, the ice cream just puts you in a different head.
As soon as you start eating the ice cream, your brain just says, ooh, ice cream, and then you relax.
And all of your extra anger from the dementia just seems to go away.
Now, I didn't think this was a real thing until I Googled it and saw it's actually recommended.
Now let's talk about Joe Biden.
They literally send him out for ice cream.
And he loves his ice cream.
Yeah. All right. So I think this ice cream thing...
How can we ignore his dementia at this point?
It's kind of obvious, isn't it?
Kind of obvious. All right.
There's a lot of... I see a lot of chatter about personal choice and vaccines.
And some people saying, you know, Whether or not the vaccinations are a good idea or a bad idea, it should be a personal choice whether you take them.
To which I say, no, it never is.
These things are just power.
There are a lot of issues that we act as though if we made a better argument, we could win.
It's never about that.
The vaccinations are about power.
If the people who want everybody to get vaccinated have more power, then maybe it'll happen.
And if they don't have enough power, it won't happen.
It has nothing to do with what's right or wrong.
We should just figure out who has more power and just go with that.
Let's talk about your balls.
So the big story is that Tucker Carlson did a segment talking about Nicki Minaj's tweet in which Nicki said that her Cousin's friend's testicles swelled up after getting the vaccination, and it made him unable to have children and caused his planned wedding to be canceled.
Now, there are many funny things about this story, and I don't know where to begin.
Number one, as some doctors pointed out, Nicki Minaj, I think you just outed your cousin's friend for having chlamydia.
Because that's what makes your balls swell up.
And that may be.
But it made me wonder, what would be the side effect if this is actually a side effect of the vaccination?
Now, and let me remind you, if a billion people get a vaccination, someone in that billion people It's going to get swollen balls the next day.
Not necessarily because of the vaccination, but if a billion people do anything, somebody's going to have something happen the next day.
It doesn't matter what it is.
You'll have everything that could happen.
Somebody's going to have it.
So the fact that one guy's balls got bigger after a vaccination doesn't mean it was caused by the vaccination.
But on average, wouldn't you expect I don't know how they measure this exactly, because on average, wouldn't you expect that the people who did get the vaccination and were not afraid of it, on average, wouldn't they have bigger balls?
Because they're the ones who were not afraid of the vaccination.
So the people who are not afraid, on average, wouldn't they have bigger balls?
What? No. Doesn't work that way.
Don't hate me. It's just a joke.
So, here's the other funny thing, is that Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend with his swollen testicles, I know a little bit about him.
I did some research. Turns out he wanted to be famous.
He wanted to be famous.
And by the way, if you go over to the Locals platform, you can see it fine.
He wanted to be famous, but he fell a little short.
So instead, all right, fuck you, I'll just turn off YouTube.
So this guy with the swollen balls wanted to be famous, but only his balls are.
And so that is the story of Nicki Minaj's cousin's balls.
Now, if you wanted people to take the vaccination and you want to persuade them, what would be a good way to do it?
Well, one way to do it is to tell people that COVID itself would make your balls shrink.
If I heard that there was any chance at all that COVID would make my balls shrink, what are the odds that I would go get that vaccination?
Pretty good. Pretty good.
Because I would take a 1 in 100 chance of dying, but I wouldn't take a 1 in 100 chance of my balls shrinking.
Am I right? Now, I know that's not logical.
I'm not saying it's rational, but men, men back me on this.
You would take a 1 in 100 chance of dying, if it meant doing a sport or doing something you like, but wouldn't you take a 1 in 100 chance of your balls shrinking?
Yeah, you might not.
So persuasion-wise, yeah, persuasion-wise, telling people that COVID would shrink your balls It's not true as far as I know, but if you could tell people that and make them believe it, they'd probably go get the shot.
