Episode 1510 Scott Adams: What Do Biden's Dementia and Whale Sperm Have in Common? I Have The Answer
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Whale oil industry branding mistake
FDA experts vote 16-2...AGAINST booster shots
Kaiser study finds no mRNA serious health effects
AZ audit results
Taxing unrealized portfolio gains
Whipgate HOAX
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 the sun isn't out, it's a beautiful evening.
And it's a perfect time for the simultaneous sip, be it caffeinated or be it not.
Now, I think we took care of the YouTube commercials that play before I get going here.
So, if everything is working perfectly, we're about to enter...
An amazing phase.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
You're all going to be part of it.
Yes, yes, you're all going to be part of this, and it's going to be great.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a canteen jug or a 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.
Don't you feel it? Yeah.
Things are getting better right now, and I haven't even sipped yet.
Watch what happens when I do.
Here it comes, the simultaneous sip.
Everybody, go! Now, thank you.
Beverly. Beverly is obviously experienced at the simultaneous sip, and knew in the comments to put the A-A-A-A-A-A-H-H-H-H-H pronounced At exactly the right time.
Good simultaneous expression there, Beverly.
Superstar. Superstar.
Well, let's talk about the news.
First, an update on my cat, Boo the Cat, who is still in the pet hospital.
So she's not quite eating on her own, so she's still got to be fed through the little cat feeding tube.
But she seems to be...
Her nerves seem to be good, and she should be back to me on Sunday.
I'll put her on camera as soon as it's not too embarrassing, because she's going to have a lampshade on her head when she gets back.
Yeah, she's about a $20,000 cat.
Oh, did I tell you that?
That the bill for my veterinarian experience with my cat will be about $20,000.
But I lied.
I said that. I said the cat bill would be $20,000 if people thought, I don't believe that.
That sounds too expensive.
Well, I'm here to tell you that is not real.
It's $20,000 per year.
$20,000 per ear, $40,000.
Now, I don't know if they'll hit $40,000, but the first year is going to be about $20,000.
And she's got one ear to go, because they don't do them at the same time.
Now, was there any doubt that I would pay $40,000 to save my cat?
Nope. Not even a little bit.
Alright, here's the good news, bad news segment.
Good news.
A gentleman who had been missing for some time has been found.
71-year-old was missing, and he has now been found.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that he was found in the stomach of a 504-pound alligator.
The part of this story that I don't understand is if they weighed the alligator before or after the man was in his stomach.
Because if it was a 400 pound, 500 pound alligator, and you added, let's say, a 200 pound man, it should be a 700 pound alligator at least for a while.
So I don't know if this was a 300 pound alligator with a 200 pound man in his stomach, but it feels like more it had to be probably a 500 pound alligator Which maybe has 700 pounds for a couple days.
Let's talk about the world's biggest branding mistake.
I like to talk about current events, so that's why I'm talking about whale oil.
As Dr. Interracial tweeted to me, and that's a really good follow.
You should follow Dr.
Interracial. Just search for it on Twitter.
You'll find the handle.
And tweeted this article to me.
And this is something I thought I knew, but not the details, which was prior to the 1800s, most of the lighting came from burning whale oil.
So they would take the oil from the whale, put it in their little lamps, and that's how they made light prior to the 1800s.
But by the 1850s, we had access to kerosene and oil-based products, and that saved the whales.
So the whales were saved by the fact that the oil industry came online and it gave a substitute for whale oil.
Now, that's one explanation.
As you know, if you're watching any current events in our current day, have you noticed that there are always two movies?
Two completely different explanations for how something happened, or what happened even.
Well, that was true back in the 1800s as well.
And while we don't have access to all of the documents, I suspect that what really happened with the whale oil industry is that they branded it wrong.
Sure. Maybe it was just economics.
Maybe it was just because it was a cheaper substitute.
But did you know that the way they branded this whale oil was not whale oil, but rather it was named after the sperm whales from which it came.
And so they called it sperm oil.
So all of their lighting came from sperm oil.
Now, I remind you that these were unsophisticated folks.
Unsophisticated folks. These were not people who had followed the science.
I mean, today we all follow the science and we get the right answer every time.
Right? Am I right?
We follow the science in 2021 and we all get the same answer and we get it every time and it works every time.
Right? But back then it was harder because they didn't follow the science.
They were primitive people in the 1800s.
They barely knew what a smartphone was back then.
And... It turns out that when they named their product sperm oil and they temporarily ran out of it, well, confusion reigned.
Confusion reigned. Now, some of those people probably said, you know, I'm going to have to find another source of sperm oil, and they went and bought some at the store.
Others, and I won't name names, may have said to themselves...
If sperm oil will power my lamp, just maybe it's worth a shot.
It's worth a shot.
And so I suspect many lighting products were completely ruined by people experimenting at home.
Experimenting at home for a substitute.
But in the end, it turns out that kerosene was a better substitute for sperm oil than making it at home.
So you don't need your butter churn, if you know what I mean.
You know what I mean, butter churn?
Know what I mean? Know what I mean?
You don't need to churn your own butter.
You can just buy some kerosene or just turn on the lights.
It's electricity now. Favorite story of the day that did not involve sperm oil is that, you know the TV show The View?
The View? Well, you have to watch this clip.
I don't often...
I refer you to clips from the view.
But I'm going to do it now.
You have to watch the clip of The View going live and being informed by their producer while they're live that two of them tested positive for COVID and they have to leave right now.
Get out of here! Right now!
And this was right before they were going to do an interview with Vice President Harris, which would have been a big event on its own.
And Harris, quite rightly, immediately cancelled...
To not be in the environment with wherever that COVID had been.
Probably the right decision.
And you have to watch Anna Navarro and who was the other one being escorted out.
Now, so far, they have no symptoms.
Can we be adults for a moment?
Yeah. Yeah, I know.
It's going to be difficult to not mention that Anna Navarro might have a comorbidity.
Now, we don't do fat shaming on this live stream.
I'm very dead set against it, because for all the reasons I explain all the time.
So we don't do fat shaming, but it is a medical fact, which is part of the story.
And so far, neither of you hosts have any symptoms, but let's be adults.
Can we be adults for a moment?
Let's just wish them well.
And leave it at that.
I know you want me to dunk on them and blah, blah, blah.
They were vaccinated and they got it anyway.
Blah, blah, blah. Comorbidities.
But how about we just take a break for a minute?
Because it's health. It's health-related.
You don't have to like Anna Navarro's political opinions, but let's just wish them well.
Speedy, I don't even know if they need to recover, but I hope they get past the situation in the best possible way.
I'm just going to leave it there. Give you a little positivity for the day.
Just a little bit. Oh, I won't make that a habit.
Don't worry. We'll be just as mean as we need to be later.
But for today, let's just say, hope things work out.
Alright, Biden continues to decline in support.
Even Beto O'Rourke wrote a scathing op-ed about the Haitian immigrant situation and how Biden handled it.
I guess Beto wanted all the immigrants just to be let in for humanitarian reasons.
And Biden used the same rule as Trump did to send a lot of them back home.
So Beto was quite mad about that.
Apparently, even the Biden administration's special envoy to Haiti resigned over the way the Haitian situation was being handled.
How many people have resigned from the Biden administration in protest so far?
Didn't we get some...
Were there some resignations about the Afghanistan thing?
Not the generals, but didn't somebody resign about Afghanistan?
Am I remembering that correctly?
So we've got some resignations.
I think Trump had some resignations, too.
So it's sort of in the baseline, I guess.
And there were 15,000 of them.
15,000 refugees.
I guess some number of them made it into the country.
So, when you watch Biden losing the support of the open borders people, you wonder how he could get re-elected.
I doubt he's going to run again, so it probably doesn't matter for him.
Alright, let's talk about booster shots.
You've all heard this story, but it's kind of mind-boggling that it can happen right in front of you.
Do you feel like this is the truth?
There are so many stories that come across, and we're always looking for the new one, and we're more interested in the new one, that you can hear a story that is absolutely wrong, meaning that there's something happening that's just so wrong, and you'll just accept it, just to move to the next story, just to get on with it, just to move on.
And here's one of those.
I think we're just going to move on like it never happened.
That the FDA's vaccine experts, you know, they had a board of people who were going to vote on whether you should get boosters of the vaccinations.
And by a vote of 16 to 2, which if you're doing the math here, 16 to 2 is not close.
16 to 2 is the most lopsided vote you'll ever get.
I mean, it could have been zero.
But 16 to 2...
That's not close, right?
And they voted against the booster.
The experts.
16 to 2.
And then their boss, who is not nearly the expert that they are, decided that she would just agree with Biden and approve boosters, ignoring the experts' view of the science and the data.
What? And what are we going to do about this?
Apparently it'll just be a news story for one day and then we'll just have boosters.
What? We're going to let this go, aren't we?
I mean, I will. You probably will too.
For some reason, I can't make myself make this my big thing.
It just doesn't feel like where I want to die on this hill or anything because there are so many things that maybe need to be better and things I could complain about or things I know more about so I'm more useful there.
I feel like we're just going to let this happen and then just let it happen.
Am I wrong about that?
Yeah, I see individuals say, you know, Julie says, I will not let it go, but I'll bet you will.
I bet you will let it go.
Are you going to march?
What are you going to do about it?
I feel like we're so beaten down at this point that something as ridiculous as this, where they're all lecturing us about using the science, and then they decide to use politics instead, right in the face of the science, and we're just going to go, ah, it's okay. That's okay.
I'm not even sure what to do about this.
I don't even know what to say about it.
This is such a statement of human beings that we're just going to let this go.
What? I mean, I'm not going to march, are you?
What am I going to do about it?
Nothing. Pay my taxes.
It's just not quite big enough of a problem...
It's not quite big enough and not quite directed at me quite enough that I can't get activated by it, and I don't know why.
It seems like I should, but I can't.
So that's really the surprising part of this story, is that we're going to treat it like it's not that big of a story.
I don't know how it could be bigger.
Oh, let me clarify.
Gary is mentioning...
I'm distorting what happened... They were approved for over age 65.
I think the details were that they were approved for people in the high-risk category.
Right? So I believe the board of people said no in general, but that the approval was only, you know, narrowly for the high-risk people.
But... Shill.
Shill? Skid buff, do you even know what words mean?
Do you have a dictionary and you're just like picking out a word?
Shill. Shill.
What am I shilling for?
Did I not just tell you a story in which the scientists said don't give boosters?
So I'm shilling for the boosters?
Who's shilling for what?
It's a story about how the boosters were turned down by the scientists.
What am I shilling for?
See, there's a thing that needs a name.
It's a phenomenon. I would call it automatic thinking.
A lot of people have some kind of automatic thinking where they just make an association and they're done.
He's talking about Trump or something, therefore...
It's really weird. Anyway, speaking of vaccinations, Kaiser researchers did a deep dive on their own records to find out if there were any serious health effects so far from the mRNA vaccines, the two of them. What do you think they found?
Nope. Nope. So I don't know that you can trust any data ever anywhere, just in general.
I'm not sure that any data is credible these days.
But at least in the way this was collected, There's a little bit of credibility.
Because Kaiser can know for sure who got vaccinated because they do the vaccinations.
So Kaiser can know which of their members got vaccinated and when and which vaccination they got.
And they can then check their records over time and find out how many of those people who got vaccinated came in and had health outcomes that were statistically different from the unvaccinated.
That's a really, really good source of information, isn't it?
Because Kaiser's records, I think, are pretty darn good.
I mean, if you go to Kaiser for a whatever, that word will be in Kaiser's records, right?
Kaiser will have a record if you came in for anything.
So they can very easily match 6.2 million patients.
Remember the biggest problem we seem to have with studies is it's a small group.
They could study 6.2 million people and track them for months and months and months and know for sure if they had more health problems than other people.
What do you think happened?
What do you think happened when Kaiser tracked 6.2 million people and found out how many health problems they had compared to the normal public?
The answer is no difference.
No difference. Now, I'm not so sure, like I said, that you can trust any data.
It just feels like we can't trust anything anymore.
But I would point out to you that Kaiser is really uniquely situated to have exactly the right data.
Right? Right? Kaiser definitely has the data.
So the only uncertainty is whether they analyzed it correctly.
And, you know, I guess we'd like to see second opinions.
But that's the best news we've had in a long time, isn't it?
Even the myocarditis risk for ages 12 to 39, you would think that that would be a big problem, right?
Because you keep hearing the stories, oh, the young people have the myocarditis.
Nope. They did find it.
It's a real thing. It really is in the data.
But it's so small, it's basically nothing.
I think there were six out of a million, and almost all of the people recovered fine in a day or two.
So even the people who got the myocarditis, almost all of them got better right away.
So, I don't know, this is the best thing we've heard.
Now, the remaining risk, if you were to believe these numbers are correct, and that the mRNA has basically zero, zero problematic side effects.
None. Couldn't find any.
After months and months and months, the only remaining risk is the long, long term.
And what are the odds...
That if you can't find a problem in a year, or how long has it been?
Has it been a year? Let's say six months.
If you can't find a problem in six months with a vaccination, what are the odds that you'll ever find one?
Go. In the comments, answer this question for me.
I don't know the answer, by the way, so I want to see what you say.
If you don't find any problem in six months with a vaccination, what are the odds that it has longer-term problems?
I see 25%.
I see zero.
I see 1%.
I see very, very low, 500 to 1.
Yeah, two to three years would be better.
Right. Longer is better. No doubt about it.
Low? Somebody says 100%?
10%? I don't know the answer to the question.
Certainly less than 10%.
I feel safe in saying that.
Is it less than 1%?
It might be. I think it's less than 1%.
So probably at this point, you're in the well over 99% chance that it's not going to be you who has this weird health impact.
All right. So again, we don't know if we can trust that data, but there it is.
So the Arizona audit came out, and big surprise, big surprise, the Arizona audit, I know you won't believe this, Two movies have formed.
Yeah, I know, surprising in this day and age.
Who predicted that two movies would form?
I did. Was it hard to predict?
No, because it happens every time.
So when something happens every time and you predict it, you're not really a genius.
You've just been paying attention.
All right, so the way it went was that the hand count was about right, So the hand count usually is the big thing you think about, right?
Count the ballots. Did they go through the machines correctly?
Yes. Now, are we done?
The hand count showed roughly the same.
In fact, it showed that Biden had more votes.
But here's the second movie.
Most of the systems didn't balance with each other.
There were like 28,000 ballots cast from different states, they think.
Files were missing. Ballot images were corrupt or missing.
Logs were intentionally rolled over.
Batches not always clearly delineated.
Some originals were duplicated.
And the chain of custody documents were missing.
What's missing from this list is, correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't audit any of the technology, right?
Was there anybody who wanted the software or hardware of the systems and the final database?
I doubt it. So it was a deeply incomplete audit because they don't have access to all the good stuff they need.
And they found lots and lots of problems, right?
Not enough, it seems, that would necessarily lead you to believe that it was a fraudulent election.
I'd say the evidence is not there.
The evidence is not there.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, because as I explained, you couldn't check everything.
And if you can't check everything, have you really done an audit?
No. What good is an audit if the people doing the cheating know what you can check and what you can't?
Let me ask that again, because when you hear it, it'll make you mad.
What is the point of an audit if the people who presumably would cheat know what things can be found in an audit and what things can't?
Why would they do the things that can be found in an audit?
Why would they do those if they could just do the other things?
They know the things that won't get caught.
Let me ask you this.
Did the audit find how many ballots were discarded before accounting?
How could they? How could they find that out?
How is that even possible?
Now, they didn't find any evidence that there were discounted ballots.
I didn't hear of that. But how could you find it if somebody did a good job of throwing it away?
So Flo Art says you are naive.
So Flo, what kind of art do you do?
We have an artist here who would like to criticize my analytical abilities.
And you know, if you're looking for somebody who's got keen analytical abilities, you want an artist.
So don't pay attention to anything I say with my economics degree and my MBA and my 16 years of corporate experience across many industries.
And my...
Deep, deep talent stack, which crosses a number of different business models.
Don't pay attention to any of that, because we have an artist in the house.
And that's how you get your analytical stuff from your artists.
All right, I have this idea for if Trump runs again.
I think he plans to.
You know, short of any surprises between now and the time he has to announce.
But if he runs again, here's what I think the mood of the nation requires as a slogan.
Get your freedom back.
You do terrible research, Scott.
Do I? Do I do terrible research?
I'm just looking at a comment on YouTube.
Do I do terrible research?
I don't think I do any, do I? It's more like I tell you what I've seen and ask you to research it and see if it's right.
So, I mean, the main theme of this livestream is that nobody knows anything.
We're all wrong, and we'd better be fact-checking each other.
So if you're fact-checking my bad research, you're doing the right thing.
If you think my research should be right from the beginning, you don't understand a fucking thing about the world because nobody's research is right.
Do you know whose research you should trust?
Well, how about that fucking artist?
Why don't you trust their research?
How about CBS? You trust them?
Whose research do you trust?
Do you do your own? Do you do your own research?
You should try that. Do your own research.
Because I hear that's a really good thing to do.
Fucking idiot. All right.
So I think if Trump runs again, get your freedom back would be a great rallying cry.
And the beauty of this is that both sides think their freedom has been taken away.
This is the weird thing.
Both sides, and I've never seen this quite before, both sides want their freedom back.
But they want it in a different way.
Very different way. The way the left wants their freedom back, maybe it's not even the left, maybe it's more the pro-vaccination people.
They think their freedom is being inhibited by the non-vaccinated people.
So to them, getting their freedom back means forcing you to get vaccinated.
Because that's how they can go out without a mask someday, get their freedom back.
But the freedom for you is the exact opposite, that you don't want to have to get vaccinated if you don't want to, and you want to go wherever you want, like the old days, just like you used to.
So both the vaccinated and unvaccinated who want to get their freedoms back, they just have a different idea what that means.
But the mood of the country is...
Correct me if I'm wrong. The mood of the country is, somebody's taken my freedoms.
Like, you feel that, don't you?
Don't you feel that?
That your freedoms are being eaten up?
No matter who you are.
I think you do. I think that would be a strong...
And also, it's like Make America Great Again.
It's generic enough that you can read into it what you want to read into it, and that's a good slogan.
Democrats have a new tax proposal.
Or at least it's being floated, let's say.
And it would cause the wealthiest Americans to pay an annual tax on any gains in their asset portfolio.
And Biden said he's in favor of, you know, looking at that and other things as well.
What do you think of that idea?
Economists or artists?
Are there any artists here who would like to weigh in?
Because artists are really good for analyzing economics.
If there are any artists here, is this a good idea?
To tax how much rich people made just on the gain in their assets.
Any problem with that?
You know there's a big problem with that?
Yeah. Yeah, they're unrealized.
How do you tax unrealized gains?
They're unrealized meaning that they haven't yet sold their stocks so the stocks can still go down.
What happens when they go down?
Do you get your money back?
Do you get a discount?
So what happens if your stock goes up one year, next year it goes down 20%, you don't get a discount, and then the next year it just goes back to where it was?
You get taxed For your stocks going back to where you bought them.
Come on!
This is the worst idea ever.
It's not even an idea you can say is good or bad.
It's so bad, you can't even analyze it as good or bad.
It's not even a thing.
You can't even describe it.
So you can't analyze whether something is good or bad if you can't even describe it in a way that makes sense.
Because the sample I gave you is that stocks go up and down every year.
If it's a down year, if you don't get a discount, this is not going to fly.
And there's no way you could get a discount.
This is not going to happen.
So there's no way, logically and math-wise, you could tax that asset.
And do you want to?
Do you want to tax it?
Most of your investments have been taxed already.
Corporate tax. And those are going to go up too.
So it's bad on every level.
It's bad for incentive. It's bad because you couldn't handle it.
It's unfair. It targets certain people.
It's racist. It's super racist, by the way.
Why are we not talking about that?
How is it not racist...
To tax the wealthiest Americans who are largely in a couple of different demographic groups.
Am I right?
If this were a proposed tax that happened to hit black Americans the hardest, forget about...
Let's just imagine it's a case where there's no difference in economic situation.
If it affected black people the most, it would be racist.
Just by definition. This one affects white people the most, but because these white people are wealthy, we don't give a fuck.
You can totally be racist against rich white people.
You could probably be racist against rich black people.
Couldn't you? Because you can kind of do anything about rich people.
Nobody gives a shit. But we're not talking about this being racist at all.
Even though it's super, super racist.
And anti-Semitic.
Good point. This tax would be not only racist, but anti-Semitic because of its proportionate effect on one group of people versus another.
Is it intentional? Do you think that the Democrats find it intentional that they would tax the wealthiest Americans who just happen to be very white on average?
Do you think that's an intentional choice to tax people of a certain ethnicity?
Sure looks like it.
I don't think anybody says it out loud, but would they be taxing this group if it were a different ethnicity?
Probably not. Now, I'm not even saying they shouldn't do it.
Forget about the argument of whether it's right or wrong, or what's the best way to do it.
I'm just saying that they're targeting an ethnic group, and it's pretty blatant, but we're okay with that, I guess.
We're okay with it, because it's a rich group.
All right, as Jonathan Turley correctly points out, he's another person you should definitely be following on social media.
He talked about whipgate, you know, the fake news that the border patrols on horses were using whips to whip the Haitian refugees back into place so they didn't cross the border.
Now, as time goes by, we find out that the Border Patrol whipping people wasn't so much Border Patrol whipping people, because they didn't have whips.
That's right. It's a story about people on horses with whips, and nobody had a whip.
There were zero whips.
There were reins.
The horses had reins.
And those reins were used to hit the horse, right?
As reins are used.
Not to hurt the horse, but to hit the horse in a way that you'd navigate with a horse.
All right? And so the photos were a little misleading, and it made it look like maybe those reins were a whip or something.
But once the photographer and all the people there weighed in, we realized there was no whipping.
Not with reins, not with whips.
No human was hit with a rein or a whip.
No human tried to hit a human with a rein or a whip.
Nothing like that happened, even remotely.
Do we all agree it just didn't happen?
But once the news had reported that it did happen, how did they back out of that?
Like, what do you do if you're a news organization and you just reported it happened but it didn't happen?
How do you correct yourself?
Well, here's CBS News taking a run at it.
Look at this exact phrase.
It said that they have footage of Border Patrol quote, using horse reins on migrants.
Using horse reins on migrants.
What's that mean? Because they took the whip part out.
But now they're using the horse reins on migrants.
But they're not actually touching the migrants with the horse reins.
We know that now because we have better information.
So if no horse reins have touched any migrants, are they using the horse reins on the migrants?
Well, in an indirect sense, because they're using the horse reins on the horse and the horse is being used on the migrants...
So it's sort of like it's almost on the edge of, knocking on the door of, on the welcome mat of, something that's true.
But it's not true.
I mean, it's basically written to look misleading without being as fake as it used to be when they said it was a whips and they were whipping the migrants.
No, they're just horse reins and they're being used on migrants.
Is using the horse reins on the migrants the same as hitting them with a horse rein?
Because it doesn't say they hit them.
It says they used them on the migrants.
Yeah, pretty weaselly writing there, isn't it?
But as Jonathan Turley pointed out, and I forgot to mention, got all excited about this other part, is that when Biden weighed in and said that he was going to make these people pay, the people who allegedly were whipping migrants, but in fact were not, so Biden, basically the boss, says he's going to make them pay.
Now, there's going to be an investigation into it.
Are the people who investigated it Going to be worried about the fact that their boss already concluded the answer?
If you are assigned to investigate something that your boss has already concluded the answer to, what answer do you give your boss?
Do you give your boss an answer that's going to make your boss look like a turd?
An idiot? No, you don't.
You give your boss whatever the hell the answer gets you paid.
And that's a problem.
As Jonathan Turley points out, it's a big problem.
The reins are not to be used as whips.
Why are they so long?
The reins are long because they have some whipping action, right?
Isn't it the whole point of it that the horse can detect the long rein and it does hit the horse, right?
Am I wrong about that?
There would be no reason for them to be so long, would there?
They seem to be, you know, manipulating them.
So, no, I'm not a big horse rider, but I don't think any of that matters to the point I'm making.
All right. Has Biden apologized yet for being so wrong and blaming his employees and throwing them under the bus?
I don't believe so.
I believe Biden, but I believe Biden should be on the phone to those very people on the horses and saying, my God, I'm sorry I said that once we know that you weren't doing that.
I apologize profusely.
And my question is, is Trump already trying to get the phone numbers of those guys?
I hope so. Don't you think Trump should call the guys on the horses that were being blamed and personally talk to him and say, look, if I were president, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yeah. Ted Cruz was challenging a professor in a congressional hearing about voter ID laws and what about them is racist.
And I guess there were two experts there who had the same take, which is that the voter ID laws can be racist because the intent is to be racist.
Do you buy that argument?
That if the intention of tight voter ID laws is to reduce voting for one team, and that team happens to be mostly black, or a lot of black people on that team, it would look racist.
What do you think? It's the intention.
The intention matters, not the thing.
No. Now, the courts have ruled...
That apparently in the past these have been done for the intention of changing the vote in a particular way.
So the courts have found that, but does it matter that it's your intent?
Doesn't it matter mostly that it's a good idea?
Because if you implement a good idea that everybody would agree with, and it changes the mix of who votes, and it was your intention, Is that wrong?
So let me give you the scenario again.
You make a change that everybody agrees needs to be done.
But, unlike the other people who also think it needs to be done exactly the way you did it, the way you're thinking about it is, ooh, my secret plan is to win the elections by changing who votes.
But the other people who don't have that secret intention just want a more accurate vote with voter ID. So, is the fact that one group of people wants to do it for nefarious reasons, does that make it something you shouldn't do?
Because the other people who don't have nefarious reasons also want it for their own reasons, because it's just good hygiene.
I don't know. Feels to me that you could have any intention you want.
Because you know what's not illegal?
Thinking about shit.
Not yet. I mean, in the...
I guess in the domain of a crime, your intent to commit the crime can be a factor.
But if you're just deciding what is a good law, and law is a good law, but also it might help somebody, the fact that it's a good law should be enough.
The fact that other people have nefarious intent, I don't think you can manage to that.
That's no precedent you'd want.
So the...
One of the examples given was that Texas restricted the types of ID that they would accept.
For example, allegedly, they don't accept federal, state, or student IDs for voting.
And the effect of that would be lower-income people and a lot of minorities would not have the regular IDs, but they might have a student ID, federal or state ID. Have you ever heard that before?
Have you ever heard that Texas had that restriction and other states do not?
Is it a big problem that people are using fake, I don't know, student IDs or federal or state IDs?
Is that a big problem?
Do we have some sense that a lot of people with fake IDs of these lesser kinds, you know, federal, state, or student IDs, are people voting with a lot of fake IDs like that?
Paul says, I live in Texas, and it's BS. So I'm seeing in the comments people saying that none of this is true.
Which part is not true?
Apparently they can use state-issued regular IDs, driver's license and regular IDs from the state.
Oh, are these cards that don't have pictures?
Is that the distinction?
Because students have pictures.
Lots of students have fake IDs, somebody says.
But lots of people have fake driver's licenses.
Um... Texas will provide free state IDs, but, yeah, Texas will provide state IDs, but apparently the access to them is something that's hard to navigate if you're in a low-income group.
So you can get them, but we know that a lot of people, it's too much of a barrier.
They don't. I don't think those same people were voting, so I don't know if it makes any difference.
Lots of people are fake students voting.
Can't get into a federal building without a real ID. So this is one of those cases where both things can be true.
It can be true that the voter ID laws are just good laws, and it can be true that they had racist intent.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Can't both be true?
The intention could be racist, and it could still be a good law that a reasonable person would want.
It just happens to have a racial outcome.
Just like taxing the wealthy.
Taxing the wealthy is racist as fuck, but it's probably not the reason they're doing it.
I mean, it might be one reason, but it's also where the money is.
You have to go after the money. I heard yesterday that Alex Jones has some scoops on Biden that, if they're true, are going to be really interesting.
Now, I don't want to tell you the exact nature of the scoop, but Alex Jones claims that he has some insiders and security details that have some Some stories about, let's say, Biden's dementia.
And I don't want to give you details, because I don't know that they're true, and he hasn't revealed them yet, so he revealed some, and I'm not going to tell you those.
But you know the story with Alex Jones, right?
The beautiful thing about him is that he does get stories right, and he gets them before other people.
Now, has everything he's ever said panned out?
No. No.
Has everything that anybody has said in public panned out?
No. No.
Name a person who does the same job as Alex Jones, you know, talks about politics in the news.
Name any. Is everything that they said panned out?
Is everything that the hosts on CNN say true?
No. Fox News?
You know, the opinion people.
We're talking about not the news people, but the opinion people.
I don't know. I feel like if you're going to criticize Alex Jones for getting stuff wrong, you've got to put it in context.
Everybody doing what he does gets stuff wrong.
There's no exception. Have I gotten things wrong?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We get stuff wrong. It's the nature of the job.
But he also gets some things right that you didn't see coming.
And this is a big one.
If he gets this one right...
So this is just sort of a heads-up, wait-and-see.
As soon as it drops, let's talk about it.
All right, so I guess Biden talked to Modi from India, and Modi was in the United States, and apparently Biden was heard saying to him when they were in the situation in front of the press, he said the Indian press is much better behaved than the American press, Biden said.
Chuck Ross, an investigative reporter at the Washington Free Beacon, did a little research and found out that the Indian news business is ranked 142nd in the world in press freedom.
them.
Russia is 150th.
The U.S. is 44th.
That's nothing to brag about, right?
The U.S. is only 44th in press freedom.
What? Don't you think we should be in the top 10 in press freedom?
I mean, really? Really?
Here's something that Trump could run on.
Trump could run on this statistic that the U.S. is 44th in press freedom and just say, look, we need press freedom to get into the top 10%, or the top 10, let's say.
I think people would agree with that.
No matter what side you're on, you want your press to be in the top 10 and of the world.
But he also said, Biden said, and apparently this was Maybe not reported in the readout.
But he said to Modi, I think with your permission, the president said to Modi, you could not answer questions because they won't ask any questions on point.
Now, of course, that's true that they weren't going to ask any questions that were on point.
But that's always the case.
Why is this the first time that you don't have to answer questions?
They always ask off-point questions on these events.
Anyway, that is your news for the day.
Let me take a look at your comments and see what you liked the most or hated the most.
Can anyone point out things are better after months of Biden?
Yes, yes. Things are much better.
For example, have you noticed that your pulse is down?
And that your hair isn't on fire as much?
I have to say...
That while I'm bored to death with the Biden administration, they are less stress.
Can anybody say that they have more stress this year from politics, just specifically?
I know life is kind of hard at the moment.
But from politics specifically, do you have more stress or less stress without Trump in office?
I'm seeing yeses.
I'm seeing more stress. A lot of people in locals say more.
Oh, we've got lots of disagreement on this.
More stress. Yeah, it's a different kind of stress, though, but it's not a stress about Trump saying something and now you have to defend it or explain it or talk about it or something.
More stress. Well, there's definitely more stress in terms of things going wrong.
That's a different sense.
Nuclear suitcase stress.
You know what? I don't think the nuclear suitcase is even connected.
If you were the person who designed the nuclear suitcase, would you put a timer in there that just turned it off as soon as you released it so that even if they tried to launch a nuclear war, the suitcase wouldn't work?
No matter how many times you tested it, it would look like it works.
But if you were the actual programmer, you'd put in a little code in there that if you actually tried to use it in the real world, not just the test, it just wouldn't work.
Because what's the point? What's the point?
All right. I'm not saying that's a good idea.
I just wonder. Some people are saying they just gave up.
Don't give up. We're just entering the golden age.
It's going to be great. Any input on Evergrande?
So there's some big Chinese company that, what, defaulted on their debt or something?
I don't have any special input on that except that China is in trouble.
And let me make this offer again.
If there are any companies considering starting to do business in China, I'm not counting the ones who are already there and they have a big financial commitment, so they've got a different situation.
But if there's anybody who's a big company who's beginning to do or considering doing business in China, let me know.
Because if there's one thing that the creator of Dilbert can do, it's embarrass a big company.
And if you'd like me to embarrass a big company for even considering moving into China to do business, let's say for manufacturing, I would like to know about that.
I will take that quite personally.
And I will make sure that they get embarrassed in public.
Because the one thing I can guarantee you is that when the guy who created Dilbert targets your company, you hear about it.
It gets back to you pretty quickly.
China's also cracking down on economic freedom.
Yes, they're moving to more of a socialist model, but also there's a lot of corruption there.
So they do need to get the corruption under control.
Yep, fentanyl, we'll talk about that another time.
You won't go after Tesla.
Oh, go after Tesla for having production facilities in China?
Tesla, I think, is an example of businesses that were already committed.
So I'm not going to make the same comments about anybody who already committed gigantic amounts of money.
Agreements were made.
Maybe you need to live with those.
But you don't need to move new business in there.
All right. Show description visual of the whip and the Biden and the sperm.
China sold banks' initial license that led them to open up offices.
That's all. Okay, I don't know the details of that story.
All right. Quit shilling for Adam Schiff's gold company.
I don't know what that means. Are U.S. corporations still outsourcing jobs?
That's what I want to know. I haven't heard of any lately.
Thank you. Once you drive a Tesla, other cars are boring?
Could be. Oh, Peter Schiff...
Peter Schiff, not Adam Schiff.
Yes, that's a big difference.
All right. Can you do a micro lesson on paying attention?
That's a good question. I've actually gotten multiple requests...
From people who can't pay attention to boring things, and it's way worse than it used to be.
I mean, it's always been hard to pay attention to boring things.
But because our attention span is so segmented now, and our phones have ruined us for anything that's long form, I can't watch a half-hour TV show, because half-hour is just way too much to commit to anything.
And a movie is just out of the question.
Can you imagine watching a three-hour movie now?
It feels like churning your own butter at this point, watching a three-hour movie that's really just the director's masturbatory take on things that has nothing to do with the audience's enjoyment.
Yeah. Anyway.
I don't know if I have a secret for how to concentrate on things, but let me give you a I do have a series of things which I have trained people individually on.
So yeah, I'll do that. I'll do a micro lesson that'll only be on the Locals platform, subscription platform, on how to improve your ability to pay attention.
I do have some ideas on that, but you're not going to love them.
They work, but they're not as easy as you hope they will be.
You almost tried Paula Deen's...
Okay.
The Ford F-150 will be able to charge your home if the lights go out.
Yeah, that's... Watching energy being moved to automobiles is a real interesting experiment because it seems to me you could get to the point where if you had a major outage...
You could have a bunch of electric cars that are fully charged just pull up to a building and plug in and power the building for a while, for a few hours or something.
I feel like there's something we could be doing a lot more of with the fact that we're putting energy in automobiles, and those automobiles can take that energy wherever they want.
Singularity-level military power coming.
It has to. It's inevitable.
How to lose fat.
Well, I would recommend my book, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
If you want to get your diet or your fitness or your career or anything that requires a system under control, that's the book that tells you how to create a system for yourself.
one that works for you.
Carbs or poison?
To a large extent, yes.
And monkey exercises.
That could be a good micro lesson, too.
Alright, that's all for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
