Episode 1537 Scott Adams: Trump Gets His Own Social Network and Everything is Broken. That Means Good Content Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
President Trump's social network: Truth Social
Who's working on our biggest problem, supply chain?
Mystery surrounds our supply chain dilemma
Did Newsweek stealth promote the Fine People HOAX
Robert Reich extreme bias on "Voting Rights" bill
Jaime Raskin vs. Matt Gaetz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah, what I'm talking about is that you all showed up here on time for what will probably be the highlight of your whole life, today's show.
Yeah, you know, the rest of your life might have had some good highlights, like, let's say, you know, your wedding or the birth of your children.
You know, those are good, too.
Yada, yada, yada. But this...
This is meaningful. This is the best thing that's ever happened in any universe, in any metaverse, virtual, AR, or other.
Period. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and nothing is better than it.
And if you want to go to yet another level, go to another level?
Yeah. Who wants to take it to another level?
All of you. Well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine here of the day.
The thing that makes everything better, especially your antibodies.
Yeah, it's true. One sip of coffee will...
Enlighten your antibodies, give them a little energy.
If you have uncaffeinated antibodies, well, you're just naked.
It's like walking around naked.
Let's give some caffeine to those antibodies.
Go. Mmm.
Can you feel them being a little bit more active?
I think you can.
I think you can. Goosebumps.
Wow. You can feel those antibodies now.
Waking up. It's true.
They go to sleep at night.
But now they're awake. Well, here's the biggest news.
It looks like it's going to rain.
Now, that doesn't seem like big news to you, wherever you live.
Well, I live in California, and it's going to rain.
Oh, God, that's good news.
Apparently, it's going to rain a lot, like a shit ton of rain coming our way, like lots and lots of rain.
Well, we can't get enough, and that's good news.
So I like it when problems sort of solve themselves.
Do we have any? Yeah, oh sure, there might be some mudslides.
Pessimist. Pessimist, like, how about mudslides?
Yeah, there might be mudslides, but I'd rather have water.
Well, here's the fake news.
You ready for the fake news? CNN has a good dose of fake news.
I'll read what they wrote, and then you tell me what is the fake part, okay?
What is the fake part of this news?
CNN says, a booster dose of the Pfizer blah blah coronavirus vaccine was found to have a high efficacy.
Can we all...
I've got to take a little side road here.
Can we all agree on one thing?
I know there's a lot of division in the country.
Might even be a little division on this livestream.
But if there's one thing we can all agree on, please, it's that pronouncing the word efficacy is really fun.
It makes you feel good when you say it.
Makes you feel smart. Try it.
Try it at home. Just say out loud, efficacy.
Yeah. Did you feel it?
It's not like other words.
It's fun to say.
And it makes you feel like you're really on top of your game.
If you can pronounce efficacy, you know, nicely, you look like you're, well, practically a scientist.
Now, you're not any virologist, probably.
But you just learn to say efficacy just right.
Well, anyway, back to my story of fake news from CNN. A booster dose of the Pfizer, blah, blah, blah, coronavirus vaccine was found to have a high efficacy of 95.6%.
And that's in the Phase 3 trial, and the company announced that the efficacy was consistent irrespective of age, sex, race, ethnicity, and comorbid conditions.
Oh, I like this new word.
Comorbid conditions, because I've been saying comorbidities.
Comorbidities is a cool word.
It's no efficacy.
I think we can agree on that.
But I like saying it.
So I'm going to say comorbid conditions now to make me sound smart.
All right, what's the fake news?
What's the fake news?
Anybody? Anybody?
What's the fake news? I'm going to take it as true.
Let's see, I will stipulate that That the 95.6% efficacy is accurate.
But what's the fake part? Where's the fake news?
Come on, you know.
You know where it is.
Nobody? Really? I thought this one would be easier.
All right. Let me tell you.
It's not the day one efficacy that anybody cares about.
Am I wrong? Who is it who is really obsessing about day one efficacy?
It's not a day one efficacy story.
It's a how fast does it wear off story.
Am I wrong? The story is how long it lasts.
And that's not in the story.
Because obviously they can't know that because it's new.
This is just disgusting fake news.
Because they've led you to believe that the thing they told you is the important thing, and it's not.
It's not. I mean, it's great that the efficacy is that high.
It's actually impressive. And whoever came up with this, let's say, COVID shot, I don't like to call it a vaccine for reasons you understand.
But it's still a miracle.
I mean, if it does this, it's kind of a miracle, so it's amazing.
But, you know, assuming it doesn't kill you.
But I feel like they...
They didn't tell us the actual story because that's the part that matters, how long it lasts.
Now, they don't know, but I feel like they have to at least mention it.
All right. How many of you saw me interview Bjorn Lomborg?
So I did that not on a live stream.
I did it on a recorded interview so I could have a proper two-screen situation without technical problems.
And that's posted now on YouTube.
So just search for, if you just search for Bjorn Lomborg and my name, it'll pop right up.
And you really should take the time.
You should take the time. Look at the other comments.
You'll see that people enjoyed it a lot.
And very similar in, let's say, in theme to a lot of things you see from Michael Schellenberger.
Sort of the smarter way to look at climate and nuclear energy and stuff like that.
But Lomborg's been saying this for, I don't know, a long time.
He's been on this for a long time.
And he's just a great explainer.
So if you want to see somebody who understands statistics and business and risk management, you've got to see Lombard.
So I don't like...
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
I don't really enjoy interviewing other people.
Because the fun part is when I'm talking.
But I'm also completely aware...
That you're not in it for my fun.
You don't watch this because I'm having fun.
You're looking for some benefit for yourself, quite naturally.
And it does seem to me that especially the author interviews...
Can I give some...
I need some career advice.
Let me take a pause here.
I need some career advice, and this is serious.
This is serious questions, career advice.
I don't love interviewing authors because of the homework.
You kind of have to read the book, right?
I mean, you don't have to, but it's a reasonable courtesy and expectation, especially if it's a recorded interview and you're just going to do that with the author.
You've got to read the book.
So reading books and then interviewing people is, I don't know, ten times harder than what I like to do every day, which is this.
I don't know if you can tell, but I would do this just for fun.
Literally. Literally, this experience is purely fun for me.
But the author interviews take more concentration and work.
However, I think they're more useful.
Here's the part that I can only say in public because I have no sense of shame whatsoever, which is a big advantage in life.
I'm going to say something that nobody should say out loud.
If they had any sense of dignity or shame or self-preservation.
I'm just going to say it out loud.
I think I'm the best in the world at interviewing people.
You're just going to have to deal with that for a moment.
Now, I don't know that to be true.
Right? If I had certainty about it, I'd be crazy.
But based on my experience of just interviewing a few people, I don't think anybody does it the way I do it.
And I think it has more to do with the way I do it than, you know, some natural quality I possess or something like that.
So it's not so much about me being awesome, and that's the part that keeps people from saying something like that in public.
I actually think I might be the best in the world with this.
And I don't know why, exactly.
Could be that I don't have as much partisanship.
Could be that the windows that I use to look at things are a little bit different or something.
Somebody says Joe Rogan is hard to beat.
Let me make a statement and I'll leave no ambiguity here whatsoever.
I'm way better than Joe Rogan at interviewing people.
It's not even close. Joe Rogan is a show in which you've got three hours of content and he's great at it.
Maybe the best ever.
Maybe the best ever.
If you just look at his success and his audience and the impact he has, I think you could say Joe Rogan's show is the best ever of anything in that genre.
But in the narrow question of just doing an interview, you don't do a three-hour interview.
You could do three hours of content Yeah, I mean, and he does that great.
But an interview needs to be shorter, right?
So if you're just going to do one interview, 45 minutes is a lot for an interview.
A narcissist compensates with false bravado.
Oh, you're talking about somebody else, not me.
But you can call me a narcissist, too.
That would be fine. But just be specific.
I'm a grandiose narcissist.
I'm not a vulnerable narcissist.
Well, as far as I know. I mean, I could be wrong about that.
But as far as I know, I'm the kind of narcissist that likes to get stuff done.
And then if I get credit for that, that's great.
I like it. But I need to do things that are legitimately useful for other people, or I don't get anything.
So... Moving along.
Alright, I see your comment.
But what was the answer to that?
Should I do more author interviews?
One question and then I'll move on.
Should I do more author interviews?
Locals Platform says absolutely yes, yes, yes.
I'll wait for a moment. YouTube's a little mixed.
No, no, yes, no.
Yes, yes, yes. No, no, no.
Okay, in a question like this, only the yeses matter.
Here's a little tip for you about how to judge public opinion on entertainment stuff.
This is a really good tip.
Learn this, and you'll have something to take with you.
So I'm looking at the YouTube messages, and it's a mixture of yeses and nos.
So what should that tell me about whether I should do this?
It's an absolute yes.
Based on the feedback.
Because it doesn't matter how many people say no.
This is the key learning.
It doesn't matter how many people wouldn't watch it.
It has nothing to do with whether you should do it.
The only thing that matters is how many would.
Because there's a lot of people.
If 5 billion people hate you, but a billion people love you, You're in a pretty good position if you've got a billion people on your side, even if five billion hit you.
So it has nothing to do with how many people don't want to watch you.
Irrelevant. All right.
Also, I was on Viva and Barnes yesterday.
You should Google that. That was a lot of fun.
If you missed me on Viva and Barnes, you're going to want to at least stay for how I addressed the first troll who had a comment.
Because I might have lost my composure.
So if you like to watch things where people lose their composure, you ought to watch that one.
You might like it.
Well, the big news today is that Trump is launching a social media network called Truth Social Media.
They're saying that so far they're opening it up for beta users...
So Trump's network will be open for beta users.
There is some suggestion that later conservatives will also be able to use it.
But for now, apparently, you have to be a beta to use it.
So I assume it's just all mostly Democrats.
Am I reading too much into this?
Oh, oh, oh, a beta.
I'm sorry. I misinterpreted this.
The technology is the beta.
It's the technology that...
Okay. I thought it was just for betas.
One of my weirdest predictions might be about ready to come true.
I'm not sure yet, so I don't have confidence in it.
But here's one of my weirdest predictions.
Trump would lose money as president and make it back after he was out of office and ten times more.
So when everybody said, I think running for president is really bad for your company, and it was.
It was terrible for the Trump company.
I assume, you know, it's a private company, but one assumes looking from the outside it was just terrible for business.
But now he's launched this new media platform.
I assume he has equity, right?
Has anybody seen any reporting on the degree of equity that Trump has versus his partners?
I don't think I've seen that. But one assumes he has, you know, a good chunk of equity.
And what is the best way to become a multi-billionaire in the United States?
It's this. Somehow, Trump managed to have equity in the type of company, now we don't know if this one will work per se, but in the type of company that makes you a multi-billionaire right away.
He could be one year away from being one of the richest people in the country again.
And I always assumed that he would find a way to monetize his reputation and everything else.
And maybe this is it. You can't really bet on any newish platform succeeding.
I think the odds are always against it.
But he's bringing something that nobody ever brought before, which is himself.
And if people just sign up just so they can see what he's saying, imagine if he runs for president, which seems likely, and the only place you can see the good stuff is on his platform.
You have to sign up, right?
If the only place you can see his, like, extra good stuff is on his own platform, every reporter has to sign up, basically every pundit, everybody who watches, you all have to sign up.
So he does have kind of a perfect set-up, Which doesn't mean it's going to succeed, but the setup's kind of perfect.
I've already put in my name, so there's a site where you can go to sign up to be invited or not, so I put in my name.
I was looking at a Michael Schellenberger tweet talking about Greta Thunberg, who was quoted in the past as saying, quote, I want you to panic.
So... Greta, and of course other people, literally wanted people to panic about the climate change stuff.
And unfortunately, I think they succeeded.
It looks like they succeeded in getting people to panic.
So it's sort of a be careful what you wish for situation.
Because... I've said the best situation if climate change is really as dangerous as people say, or any version of it is...
You need a little bit of panic, don't you?
Like, there's some productive amount of fear that gets you to do the right things so you're not in trouble in the future.
But maybe we overshot the mark.
We may have overpanicked.
It's hard to know what is the exact right amount of panic.
Well, I think it's time to fire Pete Buttigieg.
And I'm reasonably pro-Buddha Judge.
And I'm also reasonably, not reasonably, I'm pro-paternal leave.
Wouldn't want to threaten the idea that people can have parental leave.
But at the same time, it is maybe the biggest problem in the country.
And I don't think anybody's in charge.
Are they? Is anybody in charge?
I saw on Twitter somebody saying that the Secretary of Transportation is not really the person who's the right person to fix the trucking slash problem.
Is that true? Can somebody tell me, just the first question is, is Buttigieg, does he even have the portfolio and the power to be in charge of this problem?
Because that's a good question.
Right. And if it's not him...
Who is it? And if we don't know who it is, and it's the biggest problem, and it's not the president, the president doesn't seem involved in any way, who is working on the biggest problem?
I feel like Buttigieg has taken some responsibility for it, hasn't he?
Somebody says, power, yes, but portfolio, no.
I think that's the right answer. I think the answer is that Buttigieg could take control of it, I'm sure he could get Biden to assign him the job of...
Transportation czar of trucking and logistics or something.
So I think you're right that maybe his job description is not exactly on point, but in a crisis, it seems like he would be the one that you'd pick.
Now, let me ask you this.
If Trump were president, how would this supply chain problem look different?
I feel like Trump would have solved this by now.
I also feel a hashtag coming on.
It's a little too long, but something along the lines of, Trump would have solved this by now.
Because, you know, look at the border problem.
Trump would have solved that by now.
There are a few things that we see that just look like, obviously, Trump would be the better choice.
If only because he would be engaged, and Biden doesn't seem to be.
Look at what Trump might have done.
We're just speculating here because we don't know.
But here's something he might have done.
Trump might have fired somebody.
Right? He might have fired somebody.
I don't know if that's Buttigieg or somebody else, but I think you have to fire somebody.
Like... I feel like it.
Now, maybe there's nobody who's quite on point to be the right one to fire, but if there's nobody to fire, then at least you need to pick a czar to be in charge so you have somebody to fire later, right?
I think Trump would have written some executive orders to override any state regulations that were slowing things down.
Now, I've heard things such as there are not enough trucks because of environmental concerns of old trucks in California.
Do you think Trump couldn't solve that problem?
One EO just says, well, temporarily, you can use any truck you want.
Just temporarily, because it's a crisis.
You don't think Trump would have done that?
Just signed something that says, temporarily, we're not going to worry about California's regulations.
Now, it could be that the trucks just don't exist.
Maybe the older trucks have been decommissioned and whatever else.
So maybe there's just no play there.
I don't know. But why don't we know that?
Because nobody's in charge.
There's nobody in the government who says, I'm in charge, let me give you an update, here's what we're doing, here's what's wrong, we've identified the problem, here's the solution we're working on.
It might take us a little time, but we've identified the problem, somebody's in charge, and here's the solution we think will work.
Where is all that?
Right? Where is all of that?
At the very least, I think a Trump administration would be keeping you up to date on what the hell is happening, or even tell you what the problem was.
So I've been asking everybody for days now, describe what exactly is the problem.
And luckily, people who are well-informed, a number of people who work in the field, And are involved with logistics.
Some of them, you know, have interviewed employees at the docks.
And with all this information, finally, finally, I got really clear, detailed answer to why things are slowing down.
Unfortunately, all of the really clear, detailed answers of why the supply chain isn't working were different.
That's right. Lots of experts weighed in.
People really know. They're actually working on it right now.
The people in the field doing logistics, doing the shipping, unloading them.
The people who are close to it, they really know.
And so they told me what the problem was.
Lots of them. All different.
What's that mean? What's it mean when everybody knows the problem but they all have a different answer?
What's that mean? Well, the smallest amount it means is that there's something going on.
You know what it feels like?
I don't think it is, so don't take this as a conspiracy.
Let me tell you what it feels like.
Actually, see if anybody else says the same thing.
What does it feel like is the problem?
Not really. There's no evidence of this.
But what's it feel like?
Boom.
Tim Amaka on Locals got the right answer.
Thank you.
War. It feels like when the Twin Towers got hit with airplanes and you didn't quite know who was doing it or who was behind it, it feels like war.
Specifically? Let's see if you can take it to the next level.
So war is the right answer. Take it to the next level.
Give me another detail on that.
Somebody says China.
Give me another detail. I'm not alleging this.
There's no allegation.
I'm just saying how it feels.
There's one thing I'm looking for here.
I haven't seen it yet.
There we go. Somebody got it.
I knew you'd get it.
David? I think David said it first on Locals.
It looks like a cyber attack.
I'll even take it to another level.
I'm accepting cyber as close enough.
It looks like an AI attack.
Yeah, what did that just do to your brain?
Right? First time you heard that, I don't think anybody else has mentioned it.
This feels like an AI attack.
That's what it feels like. Now, I would not allege that, because I think you'd have to have some kind of direct evidence to say that.
But if we ever get an AI attack, what's it going to look like?
It's going to look like a whole bunch of things seem to stop working right at about the same time.
It's going to look like we can't quite identify the source of the problem, but our systems aren't working.
The things that used to be smooth just stopped being smooth, and we don't know why.
Now, again, let me be very clear.
I'm not alleging that this is some kind of an AI attack.
I'm only alleging that it would feel and look exactly like this.
I don't think you'd know you'd be attacked.
When you think of an AI attack, you think they're going to turn the lights off.
Or you think they're going to, you know, break the hydroelectric dam or something.
You know, you think of it like a terrorist attack.
But I think AI would attack without telling you they're attacking.
What's the point of having artificial intelligence if it's dumb?
Right? You don't want dumb AI. That's no good.
A smart AI wouldn't tell you it's attacking, would it?
It'd be a sneak attack.
So an AI attack that was worth anything would be a sneak attack because you don't want some kind of a response.
What did I do to your brains today?
Because the first time you realize that, and again, I'm not saying this is an AI attack, the first time you realize that this is what it would look like and how it would feel is pretty disconcerting, isn't it?
Pretty disconcerting.
Now, let me add a little meat to that.
The way an AI tech would work would be just to hit enough systems that are related to the same process, in this case the supply chain, to have enough misinformation and enough persuasion just inserted at the right points There's several things seem to be breaking at the same time, and you wouldn't know why.
Everything's just a little bit broken.
You know, nothing exploded.
Just everything's a little bit broken.
And then the supply chain just goes crazy.
All right. Newsweek had a story today in which they referred to the fine people hoax, but linked to an article that seemed to treat it like it was true.
Now, I was informed that Newsweek did, in fact, put the clarifying statement in there that Trump said he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis.
But in its entirety, and with the link, they're still spreading the fine people hoax in 2021.
The most debunked hoax of all time, still being at least couched in a way that they're making it look like maybe it was true, based on the linked article.
And so I said to myself, how could you not know that in 2021?
So I Googled it. Google, just use Google, and Google find people hoax and put a plus in front of hoax so you make sure that an article comes up that says hoax.
Do you know what will come up?
Articles that say it's true and don't have the word hoax in them.
Now, I only did this quickly, so I didn't confirm this, but I think that's true.
I think the top searches for the thing that requires the word hoax to be in it don't have the word hoax in it.
You have to go down pretty far to get something from Politico or from me.
Right? Try it yourself.
Can somebody confirm that?
So this is an unconfirmed claim.
I'm claiming because I didn't open all the articles, but I doubt those articles had the word hoax in it.
Kind of doubt it. It feels like they're artificially pinned to the top.
Not sure, but it looked like it.
All right. So, do you know Robert, everybody know Robert Reich, economist and Democrat?
And he's a super partisan, you know, tweeter and pretty active on social media.
Here's my problem with him.
I think it's because he's an economist that I have more problem with his bias than I do with other people's.
You know, if you see a politician or somebody who's working for a politician or clearly an activist, and they say things that are just amazingly biased and one-sided and basically just looks like a lie, you say to yourself, well, they're a politician or they're working for a politician, and you sort of discount it as being just ridiculous.
But when a famous, you know, at least notable economist says something, you try to think, well, you know, at least maybe he's right about that.
But he is so insanely biased that it just disgusts me when I see his tweets.
Because I hate to see somebody who's an economist, like, throw his entire profession under a bus.
If you're an economist and you can't treat things objectively...
You need to give your degree back, right?
You should just give it back, because you didn't earn an economics degree if you can't even attempt to be a little unbiased.
All right, so he tweeted, he said, there's something talking about the bill to strengthen the voting rights that got rejected.
So Congress rejected it, but there were enough people to have gotten a majority, but not enough to beat a filibuster.
I think most of you are well-educated on the process, but if anybody isn't, most bills you could get passed with a simple majority, you know, 51% or whatever.
But for some things you need more than that, you know, a supermajority, if you're trying to beat a filibuster.
And a filibuster is just one party, usually, I think always, the minority party, just trying to use the procedural right to talk forever, to delay things until, you know, you can't get anything passed.
And Reich is saying, he says, he tweets, God, he's so slimy.
He's so slimy.
All right, here's the problem with this.
How many of Americans actually understand what's in the voting rights bill?
What do you think?
He says 70% are in favor of this bill.
How many of you think know what's in the bill?
Zero. Zero.
Because Democrats always make complicated bills that you can't understand.
The infrastructure bill, $3.5 trillion.
How many Americans knew what was in that?
Zero. Zero. How many people know what's in the voting rights bill?
None. None.
Nobody. So, Robert Reich, you slimy piece of shit.
You know, suggesting that somehow 70% of Americans wanting this, or wanting voting rights in general, is somehow in favor of this specific bill.
That's just not the case, and you know it.
So when I see somebody lie, I mean, this is just a...
Well, lies may be the wrong word here.
Let's say, persuade in such a biased way, it just discredits economists, and I hate that.
You know, the economists are certainly not right all the time, but they don't need this.
All right. So it appears that Democrats have a two-pronged strategy.
And that's pretty interesting.
The first prong is to get rid of the filibuster.
Now, you're hearing a lot of talk about that, right?
So Democrats are the party in power, but they can't get things done because of this darn filibuster that Republicans keep using.
So step one is a lot of Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster.
Step one is their clever plan.
Step two of their plan is to botch one thing after another until the party in power is the Republicans.
So step one, give whoever the party in power is all the power by getting rid of the filibuster.
Step two, make sure that the other party's in power and has all that power with no filibuster.
Isn't that what's happening?
Am I wrong? I'm not wrong, right?
That they explicitly have those two goals?
Well, the first one is explicit, get rid of the filibuster.
But it does look like every single force is suggesting that the Republicans will retake power.
Right? I mean, at least Congress in 2022.
So shouldn't getting rid of the filibuster be really close to the last thing they would want right now?
I don't know. How can you support a party that has this as their plan?
To give all the power to the other side.
I'm not making this up.
You're seeing the same thing I see, right?
There's no debate on these two facts.
Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster.
Many of them. The ones we see talking in public.
At the same time, it's pretty clear that the performance we're getting at the Democrats will put Republicans in power.
They know that too, don't they?
Don't they know that? Maybe they don't.
All right. So here's CNN helping the public understand what's in the bill.
Finally. You know, it's a complicated bill with a lot of stuff in it, and I'd like to understand it better.
And so for the benefit of my viewers here, I'm going to read CNN's description so that all of you will finally know what's in this complicated bill.
Are you ready? This should answer all of your questions.
As written... The current compromise version of the bill would establish national rules for running elections.
Sounds good. Limit partisanship in the drawing of congressional districts.
Looks good. Looks good.
And force the disclosure of many anonymous donors who spend big to influence elections.
I like that. Pretty good.
Pretty good. Other provisions were aimed at alleviating concerns from local election officials who worried that the original bill would have been too difficult to implement.
Okay, so they simplified it.
Good. And some new additions were aimed at insulating nonpartisan...
I don't know what that means.
Blah, blah, blah. It also included a number of changes sought by Manchin.
Blah, blah, blah. Including a provision that would limit but not prohibit state voter ID requirements.
Do you think you know enough about the bill now to have an opinion?
No. No.
Not even close. Basically, CNN is just sort of like brushing the top of it.
They might as well have named the parts of the bill Awesome Things That Everybody Loves.
How would you like a bill?
We're going to fill it with awesome things that everyone loves.
Oh, don't ask the details.
No, don't ask about the details.
Don't ask how it will be implemented, what the cost of it is, what the side effects will be, and how it will distort anything.
Don't ask that. It's just called the awesome bill that everybody loves with things in it that you want.
That's all you need to know.
Don't give us all these details about what's good or bad about it or all that.
It's just the awesome bill that everybody loves.
And then Democrats can get everything they want.
So, there is a reason that our system is a republic.
Do you remember what it was?
Anybody? Anybody?
Why is our system a republic and not a pure democracy?
This. This.
This is why.
Because the public can't understand this stuff.
So if our elected officials go in there, they have a better chance of understanding it.
That doesn't work so well either.
But yeah, there's a reason we're a republic.
Did you see the video of Jeremy Raskin, a democrat, interrogating Republican Matt Gaetz about the January 6th stuff?
It's a pretty good clip.
So if you get a chance, I think I tweeted it today.
So Raskin is really going hard at Matt Gaetz, challenging him to, does he believe that Trump won the election or not?
Now, to his credit, Matt Gaetz is...
I don't know if you know this, but I think he was like a state champion on his high school debate team.
I may have the detail of that wrong, but something like that.
Like, Matt Gaetz is super good at debating things and holding his own in exactly this kind of situation.
However, I think he blew his chance on this.
He did better than most...
Probably a top 5% answer.
Better than most.
And certainly showed that he has the chops to be in that situation.
But... I feel like here's how I would have answered it, okay?
So Raskin, I'm going to paraphrase, you know, the thing.
But essentially Raskin was saying, you know, all these courts rejected the evidence, so how can you say that maybe the election wasn't fair when so many courts rejected all the evidence?
Now what Matt Gaetz tried to do was suggest that courts are not the right tool for evaluating the claims because most of them were rejected on...
Grounds of whether it was an appropriate...
What's the right name?
Appropriate... Whether the courts were the right vehicle for the complaint.
What's the word? Standing.
Yes, standing. So the complaints did not meet the legal standard for standing, meaning that it wasn't the right people taking the right complaint to the right court.
Is that close enough?
It wasn't the right people taking the right kind of complaint to the right court.
So we never had a situation where the right people took the right complaint to the right court, although sometimes I think they did.
But in general, a lot of things were rejected by standing.
So Matt Gaetz tries to give that answer.
How was that answer? True.
So Matt Gaetz's answers were accurate and right on point.
Also a complete failure, persuasion-wise.
So being accurate and being right on point and being confident in all the things he did right, because he did a lot right, not even close to being good enough.
Here's what good enough would look like.
You ready? Put me in Matt Gaetz's chair.
Jamie Raskin says, you know, Scott Adams, that no court...
And he lists the number of courts and the number of claims, and they've all been turned down.
He says, what do you think about that, Scott?
No court. No court.
Here's the right answer. I'd like to understand your question better, Mr.
Raskin. There seems to be an embedded assumption in your question, and I just need a clarification.
Can I get a clarification on the question?
Are you suggesting... That the courts would be the right place to evaluate the claims.
And Raskin would say something like, um, um, you know, all these courts rejected it.
They all rejected it. He'd probably just repeat himself.
He'd say, yeah, I know, I heard that part.
And I agree with everything you're saying.
But I'm looking for your assumption.
Is your assumption that the courts were the right vehicle to evaluate claims?
Because the courts said they weren't.
You know all the ones you're mentioning?
Are you aware of that, Mr.
Raskin? I just need a clarification.
You're aware that the court said they're not the right vehicle for this, right?
So I'm a little confused why you're asking the question.
Were you not aware of that?
Right? You could basically end Raskin right there.
But you have to do it by asking him for clarification.
Because you need to put him on his heels.
Here's what Matt Gaetz got wrong.
He entered Raskin's frame.
He entered his frame.
Raskin painted a box and then invited, you know, linguistically, he painted a box and then invited Matt Gaetz to get into his box, which was a kill box.
And Matt Gaetz walked right into the kill box, well-armed, well-armed, because Matt Gaetz is really, really good at this stuff, but he walked into the kill box.
Don't walk into the kill box.
Never. Never.
Don't enter his frame. You've got to break his frame.
He offered a frame.
You say, I need a clarification on that.
Because there's an assumption embedded in your question that I need to understand, because my assumption wouldn't make your question make sense, but maybe you can explain it to the public why the courts didn't think they were the right vehicle for this, but you still do.
Is there something that you know that all those judges don't know?
Jamie Raskin? I mean, or Jeremy?
There were, what, 60-some judges Who all think that they were not appropriate vehicles for this question, but you still think they were?
You better explain that.
See where I'm going? Okay, how many of you think my answer would be better?
You know, you can be brutal.
You can be brutal if you think it isn't.
It's not even close, right?
Now, let me ask you another question.
Except for the part where I would never run for president because, you know, I don't want them looking into my life and tearing me apart and it would be a suicide mission, I could be president.
Because there is a skill set for this sort of stuff that I possess.
Matt Gaetz has that skill set, like, really, really good.
But, you know, he got taken down by the media so far.
I don't know if he'll recover.
But... But he doesn't have my level.
I would put Matt Gaetz as an 8 and a 10 on communication, which is higher than almost everybody.
But I am a 10.
I am a 10. There are 10s.
I think Trump's a 10.
Trump's a 10. Absolutely.
And let me be clear.
It's not because of some genetic quality I possess.
I'm not saying I'm good at this because I'm somehow born with talent.
No, it's a skill.
It's literally just a skill you can study.
I've studied it. Anybody who has studied it as much as me could do what I do.
Let me give you an example.
The same problem.
Let's take Mike Cernovich.
By the way, if you don't know, I use him for all my examples.
For some reason, he fits every example-like story.
I don't know why. But there's something about the nature of him that he fits lots of stories.
If Mike Cernovich wanted to be president...
Again, you'd have to subtract out whatever things the press would talk about in his past.
So neither he nor I are really legitimate possibilities for the president.
But does he have the skill set to do what I just told you Matt Gaetz should have done?
Yeah, he does. How much would you like to have seen Mike Cernovich answer Jeremy Raskin's question in public?
It would have been different.
It would have been different.
Yeah, you can talk about all the reasons that he or I are unqualified for other reasons.
But communication-wise, he's a 10.
Supply chain. Yeah, Trump would have fixed this by now.
I feel like there could have been a warp speed version for trucking.
I do think that the number one reason I get for the supply chain problems is that there aren't enough trucks and truckers.
You don't think Trump would have already spun up a warp speed for trucking?
And how hard could it be?
How hard could it be to do warp speed and say, well, we've got a problem here, but in three weeks you're going to have a shit ton of trucks and truckers?
There are definitely enough unemployed people who want jobs.
You could definitely temporarily give them, you know, emergency pay to make it worthwhile.
You could definitely get people who would be willing to be trained, because, you know, maybe the training is free.
Because right now, I think you have to...
Oh, correct me if I'm wrong.
I need a fact check on this.
Everybody? I need a fact check on this.
Trucker school costs money.
That people don't have.
In other words, there are a lot of people who would want to be truckers, but they can't afford it because the trucking school costs money.
How do I know that?
How does Scott know that trucking school costs money and the people who might want to be truckers don't have that money?
The reason I know that is I once paid for somebody to go to trucking school.
Do you know why I did?
Because there was no way in the world that he ever could have gotten the money together.
That's right. So I've actually paid.
I don't know if he went.
I remember I offered. But offered to pay for somebody to go to driving school because it wasn't a problem he could solve.
Couldn't figure out how to make money to make money.
So I thought, well, I could get you kick-started.
And I don't remember how much.
In the few thousands?
Does somebody have a number for that?
While we're here, can somebody do a little research and put it in the comments?
What does it cost to go to trucking school?
I see 3K, I see 15, it wasn't 15, and I see 5K. My memory was 5K. I'm seeing 5K more than anything else.
How many truckers can spend, how many people who are unemployed or looking for a new job could spend 5K to get a job that might be temporary and doesn't sound too good in the first place?
How hard a problem is that to solve?
Not hard. It's one executive order, and it's one emergency funding.
In the short term...
Now, seriously, let me back up and ask the question.
You don't think Trump would have solved this by now?
I mean, I'm not sure I quite understand the problem, which is also part of the problem, but if any part of it is that we don't have enough trained truckers...
I'm pretty sure that would be solved by now.
Just pay them to go to school, and that would probably do it.
Just pay for the classes.
Now, there is a secondary question of enough trucks.
California has some kind of environmental rule that sort of mothballed a bunch of trucks.
Could any of those trucks be put back in production temporarily?
Probably. You know, maybe they have to steal parts from one truck to build a good truck, you know, one good truck out of three.
But I feel like these are all things you could do with an executive order and a big wallet.
So, you know, there's no way to know that Trump would have done a better job on this, right?
But here's the things we do know.
He would have probably fired somebody's ass by now, right?
And the country would feel good about that.
Because we kind of need to see somebody get fired.
It's not like I have some kind of bloodlust, and I don't even have a bad feeling about Pete Buttigieg.
I think he has a lot of talents.
He has a lot to offer, I think. But I think he probably needs to get fired if he was the one, really, who should have been doing any of this, or recommending it, or writing the EO for Biden to sign.
Nobody's even writing an EO for him to sign.
Do you know how... The Trump executive orders got written.
Different ways, right?
But generally, people who understood things and needed something and said, all right, we'll write you a first draft.
Obviously, you know, lawyers look at it.
But we'll just write you the first draft.
It needs to look like this.
Lawyers look at it. President signs it.
Who's doing that for Biden?
Who is giving Biden executive orders, first drafts, that says, look, this could be good if we put this in good order, get it lawyered up?
All right. I think we're going to see a hashtag that says Trump would have fixed this by now.
That's what I think. All right.
That looks to be what I wanted to talk about today.
Why can't more women be truckers?
I don't know if there's any issue with that, is there?
I mean, you can think of all the usual reasons why they might not want to get into the business.
Fake news. Truckers can be trained in two weeks.
I think that's true.
Somebody said that truckers can be trained in two weeks is fake news.
Coming from me. What is the right amount of time?
If anybody has been trained or gone to trucker school, what would be the amount of time to train a trucker?
I say two weeks.
In an emergency, two weeks.
In an emergency, two weeks.
Yeah. I'm saying three to four weeks is normal.
So how many people would disagree with me?
Six months? Three months?
Do you actually know what you're talking about?
I think most people are saying four weeks, and that feels right.
I think it's a four-week course that in an emergency you could do in two.
I think there are probably a lot of people who maybe have some experience and it doesn't take them the full four weeks.
Convoy. Convoy.
I also wondered...
Let me just throw something out there.
Your housemate trained with UPS a couple of weeks ago.
Yeah, slightly different problem.
Let me ask you this.
We've got all these products at the ports.
I guess they're unloading a lot of the products from the shipping containers and putting them in temporary warehouses until they can get enough trucks.
Is there a play where we could discount those goods and just sell them at the port?
I don't know. I mean, it's probably impractical.
But I just wonder. Let's just work through this.
Let's say you heard that there were a whole bunch of shipping containers with, I don't know, televisions.
A bunch of new 4K TVs.
And there's a whole shipping container, and they just can't get it on a truck.
And let's say that the company who purchased them, for whatever retail purpose, says, look, can you let us sell it?
We'll sell it right out of the container.
If you let us sell it out of the container, like we'll just stand there with a credit card reader, you just take one out, take one out of the container, I'll just put your credit card in here, you just put it on your truck and take it home.
Give you a 30% discount.
30% discount if you put it on your truck and take it home.
It would be a total bottleneck traffic nightmare.
Probably. Probably.
Probably. All right, let me open it up again.
Is there no way to get those containers to some place where it wouldn't be a bottleneck?
Such as putting a container on one smaller ship?
No, you probably can't do that.
I don't know. I'm just brainstorming.
I'm sure people have thought of all these things and rejected them for one reason or another.
But I think we've got to get creative.
And I'm not sure anything's happening.
So here's my main problem.
Everything else is just speculation.
The main problem is that the Biden administration has no lead face telling us what's happening every day.
And we need somebody to tell us what's happening every day now and be right about it.
Use FedEx and UPS offices.
Well, I don't know how that would work.
The highways are the bottleneck.
No, I don't think they are.
Well, maybe just around the ports.
That could be true. No trucks in California because no independent contractors in California.
Yeah, I've heard that issue.
There's something about you have to be an employee to drive a truck in California because they don't want independent contractors to be cheating on their taxes or whatever.
Again, how easy would that be to fix with an executive order?
Right? It's an emergency.
Every one of these problems don't apply in an emergency.
You know, I was saying that during the pandemic when, you know, Trump was doing EOs.
A lot of people would say, well, you can't do that, you can't do this, you can't do that.
And I kept saying the same thing.
In a crisis, you can do anything.
There are no rules in a crisis, except that whatever you're doing makes sense.
The only rule that makes sense in a crisis is, does this look like it'll work?
That's it. Everything else doesn't matter.
You can get rid of that stuff. Yeah, you have to be on war footing.
Exactly. Yeah, you'd have to suspend OSHA. You'd probably have to suspend a whole bunch of stuff, but temporarily?
It's all doable temporarily, it looks like.
Alright. Why is everybody talking to user Eslax?
Apparently there's a troll over here that people are taking seriously on YouTube.
Alright, that's all I've got for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
