Episode 1538 Scott Adams: Don't Miss My Impression of Joe Biden. And I Won't Forget About Alec Baldwin Either
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
My Joe Biden Cornholio impersonation
Alec Baldwin needed firearms training
Who's in charge of a supply chain solution?
The Jones Act and supply chain
Anthony Fauci and gain of function work
CNN doubles down on horse med lie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the best thing that's ever happened.
It's called Coffee with Scott Evans, and I won't always look like this.
Not always. But I'm preparing.
You know what I'm preparing for.
That's right. My Joe Biden impression is coming up.
It's coming up, and it's coming in strong.
But before we do that, let me remind you, in case some of you are not aware of what's happening right now, right now, you have just, either by your own design and clever machinations, or possibly by blind luck, you've all ended up at the best place in the world.
It's it, right here. Coffee with Scott Adams, the best thing that's ever happened to you in your entire life.
And the only way you could possibly make it better is through the simultaneous sip.
What do you need for that? All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or gel, a canteen, a jug, a glass, a vessel of any kind, a vessel, a vessel, a vessel, a vessel, a vessel of any kind.
Fill with your favorite look and I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Really unparalleled. The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including your antibodies.
Go. Boop, boop, boop.
Antibodies coming online.
Yep. 100% participation.
Every antibody in my body is on fire.
Well, I don't know if any of you saw the town hall last night.
Anybody see any clips from the town hall?
Well, the most notable thing that came out of the town hall with Joe Biden on CNN is that for reasons that we still don't understand, Joe Biden was standing...
If you haven't seen it, you have to see it.
For some reason, he was just standing like this for an extended period of time waiting for a question.
Now, clearly...
This caused people to create many memes.
Among the memes, of course, Cornholio, if you haven't seen Cornholio.
By far, that was my favorite.
But... I also added that he was holding two ice cream cones, invisible ice cream cones, and it only took about 30 minutes for somebody to make the video version of him actually holding ice cream cones.
We've seen him. We had jet packs.
We've seen him with ski poles.
It's the most meme thing I've ever seen instantly.
But I would like to add to that I think he was also sending a message to the public.
You know how prisoners of war will sometimes try to send a secret message if they have to do a video from their captors?
They'll try to send something.
Here's the message I was getting from this.
They have me tied to a chair when I'm not on camera.
They tie me to a chair.
Right? This is what it would look like if you were tied to a chair.
I think he was trying to tell us.
He was tied to a chair.
Maybe it's Parkinson's, tremors, somebody says.
I didn't see anything like that, but it's sort of a mystery.
But as I watched it, I imagined Joe Biden asking his staff how it went.
And so I would like to give you a play in one act of Joe Biden asking his staff how it went.
For the Joe Biden role, I will dress like this.
And I'll take this off for the role of his staff member.
Hey, everybody. How do you think I did on the town hall?
Was it pretty good?
And what did the polls say?
Think I nailed it?
Then his staff member...
Saying, well, you didn't exactly nail it.
Some people are making some comparisons of your performance to other notable figures.
Other notable figures?
That sounds good.
Are they comparing my oration to Winston Churchill?
No, no.
Not Winston Churchill so much.
I haven't heard that reference, actually.
Is it sort of a Ronald Reagan thing?
Are they saying I was inspirational?
No, no.
Not Ronald Reagan and not Winston Churchill so much.
No. I have not heard either of those names being mentioned, actually.
Well, who was it?
Who are they mentioning?
Have you heard of Beavis and Butthead?
Yes?
I don't think I like where this is heading.
One word, cornholio.
Now, scene.
Now, I haven't watched a lot of town halls in my life.
And I haven't seen every president's performance.
But there is one thing I can tell you with great certainty.
If you ever give a speech...
And 100% of the public is comparing you to Cornholio.
You didn't nail it.
Nope. Needs work.
Needs work. No Cornholio references.
Next time. You can work on that.
Well, what else did he say?
CNN put their spin on it, of course.
And they sent their attack dog, Stephen Collinson, to write about it.
Now, Stephen Collinson is most notable, I think, for his continuous anti-Trump articles on CNN. But he's also being forced to sort of support Biden, it looks like.
Looks like his orders are to say good things about Biden if he can.
But it was kind of hard to Yeah, that'd be normal.
It was kind of hard last night, but he did his best.
And Stephen Collinson is a soldier.
He's not going to back off when he can say something good about Joe Biden.
So here's how he started his article today.
Talking about the town hall, he said, Joe Biden, showing candor and good humor on Thursday, reminded America why it picked him as president in a dark hour of crisis.
That's pretty much how you would have summarized it, wouldn't you?
If you watched that town hall, you'd say to yourself, you know, my first sentence in the article should be the one that captures the essence of it.
Was the essence that you saw, that his candor and good humor reminded you of why you picked him as president in the dark hour of crisis?
Did it remind you of that, or did it remind you of this?
Which one did it remind you of a little bit more?
How good you feel in your dark hour of crisis?
I feel pretty good in my dark hour of crisis.
How about you? So, not his best performance, but Stephan Golison, to his credit.
To his credit.
He did say that there were some issues with the town hall.
He said that Biden also showed his tendency to send his own White House into emergency damage control as he flipped set-in-stone policy off the cuff and offered gaping openings for his Republican foes.
Well, that's fairly generic, so you probably need a specific.
Let me give you a specific in a two-person act that involves Joe Biden, again...
Talking to his White House staff.
I'll start with Anderson Cooper.
I'm Anderson Cooper.
Have you considered using the National Guard to alleviate the supply chain problems?
Absolutely. Absolutely.
We're looking at the National Guard to fix our supply chain problems.
And now, White House staff.
We are definitely not looking at the National Guard for the supply chain.
By the way, they don't work for the federal government.
They kind of work for the governors and the state.
Nope, nope, nothing like that.
Now, what did that little exchange tell you About who's in charge of fixing the supply chain problem.
So who's in charge of fixing it?
Clearly, nobody.
Clearly nobody.
Because Biden didn't even know that they weren't talking about using the National Guard.
If he doesn't even know whose decision it is or what they're even talking about seriously, he's not in charge.
And we haven't heard that anybody else is in charge.
We heard that Buttigieg is having a good time with his kid.
And I wish him well on that, by the way.
But we are sort of leaderless, aren't we?
A little bit leaderless.
And I don't think we can ignore that anymore.
So, Peter Doocy, let's ask some questions to Jen Psaki and see what's happening here in terms of who is in control of Of this supply chain problem.
All right, let's talk about the supply chain.
Adam Dopamine on Twitter floated a suggestion.
I think probably some of us had thought about it but considered it impractical.
But just for fun.
How impractical is it?
And the idea is this.
To create, let's say, an armada of pickup trucks to help unload the ports.
Now, I know, I know.
As soon as I said that, you said, oh, I got five problems that will stop that from happening right away.
You know, one of the problems might be, you know, regulatory or insurance or whatever.
But remember, it's a crisis.
In a crisis, you can just wipe all that stuff away.
You can just say, all right, the government will insure it and forget about your regulations.
Your truck is fine. So if the problem is regulations or insurance...
That's something a competent government could solve the same day.
But let's talk about the logistics of it.
I asked how many pickup trucks you would need to unload one container.
The answers I got ranged from 33 to 12, and both of those answers came from people who seemed to have experience doing that.
So somewhere between 12 and 33 pickup trucks per container.
But let's take the average, 20.
Again, I'm not saying this is a workable idea.
We're just working through it to see how crazy it is.
So suppose you allowed individual pickup trucks to take a load apiece.
Could you ever do the logistics?
Could you ever do the logistics?
In other words, could you ever track...
Whether the person who took it really delivered it?
Maybe. Maybe.
And I don't know the answer to this question, but let's say that you had a standard that each pickup truck was only loaded with one destination.
So one destination for one truck, to keep it simple.
You load up the truck, and then you have the driver of the truck show you his license for the truck, the full truck with the license plate, And the driver's face, you just take a picture.
Boop. And you send that to the end customer and say, this person is bringing this truck with these items.
If it doesn't show up, you know who took it.
Or you know what the problem is.
And if it doesn't show up, talk to the government at this phone number because you have an insurance claim.
Now, whoever receives it should probably take a picture of the truck, too.
In case the load looks different or reduced on the way.
But I think you could probably get something like a process going with just take a picture of it.
That would be not so bad.
Because you don't need to enter a lot of data if you just take a picture.
You've got the license plate, you've got their license, you've got their face, and you've got the truck to show the evidence.
So, could you make the paperwork short and easy?
Maybe. Maybe.
It would depend on what the mix of stuff is.
Now, somebody said, but wait, Scott...
You couldn't load large items on a pickup truck.
So some items would be larger than even one item you could put on the truck.
To which I say, you don't do those.
That's the solution.
Don't do those.
Just leave them for the cranes and the regular trucks because there's still enough of those.
If you can take the burden away from the small stuff, the smaller items, you would have enough capacity for the big stuff.
So you don't need to worry that some stuff is too big for a truck.
Yeah, and frozen items as well.
You'd need the specialty trucks for those.
But if you're just getting rid of the excess stuff, you could do it with the smaller items that you could break up and put on a truck.
All right, how about would you need to load them with cranes, the pickup trucks, which then would be using up a lot of cranes, so that seems like it would be another problem, or would it be smaller items that you could load?
Now, if somebody sent me an estimate that said it would take...
Yes, this is not my talent stack.
You're right. So somebody said it would take an hour to load the equivalent of a pickup truck.
But I don't think an hour applies if you back the truck right up to the container.
Am I right? How long would it take to load a truck if you literally just backed it up right to the container?
So you've got people in the container handing it to you and you're just putting it on your truck.
Ten minutes? I think ten minutes.
If somebody's handing it to you while you're on the bed of your truck and all you're doing is turning around and stacking it, I think ten minutes.
Right? So you can load it in ten minutes.
What about paying all the labor?
Right? Well, the labor is the truck driver.
So the truck driver charges something that would cover the labor as well as the gas as well as the driving time.
So there's some free market rate that would get the drivers to do the labor as well as driving.
Are there enough trucks?
Are there enough trucks?
Don't know. But there might be enough just to take the edge off.
Suppose you could take 10% off the congestion.
What percentage would you have to take from the congestion to make it start moving somewhat smoothly?
Because it's not 50%.
You don't have to do 50% of the load.
Probably closer to 10%.
Right? I mean, just if you've lived in the world long enough and you kind of conceive what it would take to make a traffic jam, think of what stops traffic in the real world on a highway.
What is it that causes a traffic problem?
Usually one accident.
So you don't have to fix all of the traffic to make traffic flow freely.
You just got to get rid of the 10% that's causing the problem.
You know, the last 10%.
It might be 20%.
Maybe it's 30%.
But there's some number that we could work toward to at least take off the excess, maybe.
All right. How much fun would it be?
Well, I feel if it turned into a Trump armada with Trump 2024 flags on the back of every pickup truck and, you know, using ships and planes and trucks, it could be kind of fun.
It would be kind of fun, wouldn't it?
Because we already see that there were Trump armadas in the ocean, and they did it because it was fun.
They liked seeing other people doing it, et cetera.
I feel like you could do a Trump armada of trucks and just take 10% off the top of the load.
All right. How many of you know what the Jones Act is?
Have you heard of that? The Jones Act?
Now, I don't know enough about it to speak intelligently.
But what I know is that it's some kind of act...
That was put in by some kind of special interest that's not good for the world, but it was good for whoever the special interest was, that prevents ships from...
What is it?
Picking up stuff if they go to multiple ports or something like that.
The quick version of this is that there is an act, some legislation, that if you got rid of it, would instantly make everything more efficient.
Now, I don't know if it fixes this problem immediately...
Because maybe there's too much that's already there in the ports.
But in the long run, apparently it's...
Oh, this is U.S. flagships only.
Only if it's a U.S. crew, somebody says.
All right, so I don't know the details of this Jones Act, because I literally was exposed to it five minutes before getting on here.
But there's something there that a Trump could take care of that maybe a Biden can't, because it's about removing regulations, it's about executive orders, it's about being a leader, really.
The Jones Act is protecting our shipping industry.
Okay.
So the special interest is U.S. shipping industry?
Okay.
He tried and hit a buzzsaw, somebody says.
Unions are the problems. Yeah, well, we have a crisis, so a crisis is a good time to test the limits of what you thought was a barrier before.
All right, so... So let's see, what else is going on?
Rasmussen has a poll.
Says, they asked, how important is it that Democrat senators oppose the president?
You know, the Democrat president.
So, I'm paraphrasing, but the question was, do people like it that Democrat senators are thwarting the president, or at least having some pushback?
And weirdly, 59% of Democrats said yes.
So let me say this again.
Democrats are happy that they elected Joe Biden, or at least they were, but they're also happy that the Democrat senators prevent Joe Biden from doing the job and vice versa.
So they like Democrats as long as the Democrats aren't doing anything.
Now, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I think it's funny that 59% want Biden to be in charge and also somebody else to stop him from doing too much.
That's not crazy. It's just as funny when you say it.
It's completely reasonable to want to have a check and a balance.
Joe Manchin gets the Good Persuasion Award for the Morning from me.
Apparently, Joe Manchin is alleged to have said in a closed-door meeting with Bernie Sanders, when Bernie, I guess, was getting on him about trying to stop the $3.5 trillion bill, and Manchin wanted maybe $1 trillion, and it sounds like Bernie was getting on him about the fact that if they don't compromise, they're going to get zero.
So apparently Bernie said something like, if you don't compromise with us, we're not going to get anything.
And what was Joe Manchin's response to, if you don't compromise, we'll get nothing?
Quote, how about zero?
I'm comfortable with that.
How about zero?
That is exactly the right answer.
Now for negotiating. I'm not saying the right answer is a zero bill.
Because maybe the trillion makes sense.
I don't know. It's hard for me to know.
But I like the way he handled that.
The only correct answer is, if somebody says, I'm going to shoot you if you don't do that, the only correct answer for negotiating is, here you go.
Shoot away. Let's get this over with.
If you're not willing to go to zero and you can't sell the fact that you'll go to zero...
You're not really going to have much leverage, right?
He has to sell the fact that he would take zero over what they're offering.
And I think he did.
I think he sold it.
So, good work, Joe Manchin.
In the narrow question of persuasion, that was good work.
Apparently Terry McAuliffe, who's running for...
What the hell is he running for? Governor of Virginia?
Is that what Terry McAuliffe is running for?
I barely watch state politics.
But apparently in his TV ads, he's using the fine people hoax as if it's real again.
Unbelievable. There's still people using the fine people hoax today.
The most debunked hoax in the history of hoaxes.
All right. And I was thinking, what would his opponent do to debunk the fine people hoax?
What would you do?
If you were the opponent and you thought it was necessary to address that, maybe it isn't, but if you thought it was necessary to address that he was pushing that hoax, how would you do it?
Here's how not to do it.
Tell everybody it's a hoax.
That's how not to do it.
Because people are already primed to believe what they're going to believe.
So it would just make him look like he fell into the trap.
So if Terry McAuliffe's opponent, I don't even know his name, if he decided to push back and then say, hey, that's a hoax, that never happened, It would just look like he was a racist.
You can't push back on it.
That's the diabolically wonderful thing about it.
You can't really defend it if you're running for office because you'll just immediately be painted as a defender of that speech.
That didn't happen. Here's how you do it.
You put it on a list of hoaxes.
And you make sure that you have a link to the explanation of it as a hoax.
Maybe a link to all of them.
Do it on a list.
Say, here are the list of hoaxes.
You know, we had everything from Jesse Smollet, Smollet, is it?
To the bleach hoax, the drinking bleach, the goldfish hoax, the, you know, the, what is it, the kids hoax, what you call the kids, right?
And you just put it on the list.
If you put it on the list with other hoaxes, and you link to the description of why it's a hoax, Covington Kids, thank you, the Covington Kids thing, the mini noose, etc.
If you put it on the list of hoaxes, then you diminish it by putting it in this body of hoaxes.
Then you can do it. Now, it's not a strong attack, but it's the only one you can do.
Because if you just talk about that, then you're just a damn racist, or it'll look like it.
But if you call it out as a list of hoaxes, that looks different, doesn't it?
My opponent can't tell real news from hoaxes.
How does that feel? My opponent, Terry McAuliffe, wants to be your governor, and he can't tell the difference between real news and a hoax.
Look at this list. He picked this out of a list of hoaxes and he's trying to sell it to you.
Russia collusion hoax, thank you.
The obvious one. Right.
Well, Alec Baldwin finally killed someone.
I feel like that was only a matter of time.
I don't know how to talk about a story that's horribly tragic and funny at the same time.
It's a tough one. It's a tough one.
Because, you know, you want to be a decent human being and there's innocent people who got wounded and in one case killed.
And that's not funny.
That's not funny. But Alec Baldwin was the person who did it.
And, you know, we're hearing some unconfirmed reports of what he was doing prior to that.
It looked like he might have been telling a joke because he thought the gun had blanks or something.
But let me say the obvious.
I think Alec Baldwin was an anti-gun guy, right?
Am I right? Alec Baldwin was an anti-gun activist.
Do you know what would have prevented this accident, among other things?
The number one thing that would have prevented this accident if he had firearms training was Literally nobody with firearms training, let's say NRA training, literally nobody with firearms training would have done that.
None. Zero.
I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
How many of you have taken gun training?
So let me know. How many of you have taken any firearms training?
Do you think you could take firearms training and walk away with that thinking you could ever, ever, under any condition...
Point a gun that's a prop gun, a fake gun, a toy gun, any kind of gun, one you think is unloaded.
Do you think the NRA or any firearms training would let you point any gun at any person ever?
No. No.
That's an absolute. There's nothing more absolute than that.
No, I don't think it's loaded.
No. No, it has blanks in it, I'm pretty sure.
No. No. Never.
Because, by the way, the blanks can kill you just at a shorter distance.
Because the blanks have gunpowder.
It's shooting some, you know, at least gas and forces out.
So you can kill somebody with a blank.
That's a thing. Now, and of course, you never...
And by the way, even if it was a plastic gun...
Even if it were plastic, should he aim it at somebody?
Not if there's somebody else with a gun anywhere around, right?
If there's somebody else with a gun, they're going to pull it.
If somebody sees somebody pointing a plastic gun at somebody and it looks sort of real, you're going to unload, at the very least.
You might not shoot, but you're going to deholster, right?
If you think it's a real gun.
So we don't know if he was killed by a blank or an actual round.
Do we know the answer to that yet?
Was there an actual live round in the gun?
Because it's hard to believe.
But I don't think we know that, which is weird that we don't know that.
So here's what we've learned.
Owning a gun is dangerous, but not owning a gun is dangerous, too.
A different way. But had he been a gun owner, almost certainly would have taken some kind of training.
This would have happened. If he had been a gun owner, it wouldn't have happened.
Irony is just screaming here.
There's a question of why he shot two people.
So that's sort of an open question.
One possibility is that it was one bullet that killed one person and grazed another.
The other possibility is that he's been in enough movies that he knows that if he accidentally kills somebody, he's got to get rid of the witness.
Got to get rid of the witness.
Now, I'm not saying that's what happened.
I'm just saying, we don't know what happened.
All right. Have you heard of buyer's remorse?
Oh, and by the way, on this Alec Baldwin thing, I swear it looks like there's an anti-Trump critic curse.
Is it...
Oh, it could be shrapnel, yeah.
Is it my imagination, or do people who are prominent critics of Trump end up with bad futures...
It feels like it, right?
Anyway, let's talk about Biden remorse.
This is a hashtag I made up yesterday.
Sounds like buyer's remorse, doesn't it?
I feel like we're getting some of that buyer's remorse from Biden.
Let's call it Biden remorse.
Um... I guess I didn't have much to say about that, except Biden remorse sounds funny to me.
How many of you, if you heard the term Biden remorse, how many of you would know that's a play on buyer's remorse?
Is it close enough? Because I don't know if it's close enough.
Oh, you would? Okay. All right, you all picked up on that.
Okay. I wasn't sure if that was obvious.
All right. Thank you to...
Twitter user and follower of my material, Brian Keith.
I guess he's COO of Fractional.
And he wrote a long tweet today about his experience consuming my material from Dilbert through the live streams.
And it was really well thought out, and I appreciate it a lot.
So I'm just going to say thank you.
If you want to take a look at it, I tweeted it this morning.
Almost every day somebody says, why aren't you talking about that evil Fauci and his lying about his gain-of-function stuff?
And I'm just not seeing the same story you are.
Now, is Fauci lying about gain-of-function?
In the intentionally misleading way, I suppose.
I mean, I think you could make that argument.
Because there was gain-of-function work, and apparently it did get funded, directly or indirectly, through something that he was associated with.
He did deny it, and it is fairly conclusively demonstrated that it was happening.
So if you hear that he's denying it, but it really happened, what is your conclusion?
That he lied, right?
The obvious conclusion is that he lied.
I'm not seeing it. And by the way, I'm not a Fauci defender, so it's not like I just side with him and I'm trying to defend him.
Here's why I don't see it.
Because his explanation is that they used a different term.
That the term gain of function, I think he's trying to weasel it as being maybe more military than it was.
And the question is, what goes into that definition of gain of function?
So to me it looks like he's just using a definition thing, saying that's not how I define it.
So by my own definition I didn't do it.
And then other people say, well, by our definition you did.
So what is there to talk about?
By his definition he didn't do it.
By somebody else's definition, he did.
We're only talking about the definition.
We're not even arguing about what happened.
If you're not arguing about what happened, what are you arguing about?
The what happened part is important.
Now, here's what I understand from my light reading of the topic.
That there's some kind of things that you would call gain a function that would just be smart to do.
Let me ask you that.
Give me a fact check on that, because that's more opinion than fact, right?
Is there something that somebody who is an expert in the field would call maybe one sliver of gain-of-function that would be not only worth doing, but might reduce your risk in the long run?
Yes or no? Is there any gain of function that would have been justifiable?
Not building a weapon.
So I'm not talking about building a weapon out of a virus.
I'm talking about tweaking a virus to see if it can change its characteristics, which might give you some insight about what other people are doing in other countries, and also some insight about what things to be ready for, you know, for vaccines and stuff.
It's playing with fire.
Okay. But is every kind of testing playing with fire?
Is every kind?
I think...
Here's my assumption, and until I'm proven wrong, I'm going to stick with it.
My assumption is that when you use a phrase like gain-of-function, it's a pretty big label.
And that Fauci did do things that would be under that category and has denied it.
But maybe defining it differently as in, no, no, the gain of function you're talking about is turning a less harmless or more harmless virus into a dangerous one.
We didn't do that.
Maybe he didn't.
Now, maybe somebody did it that they didn't know about.
Maybe there's a rogue. Maybe there was some confusion about what got funded.
But it could be true that by his definition, it didn't happen.
By his definition. But you'd have to buy his definition of it.
And I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable.
If it's true, and here's my big assumption, if it's true, Shiel Adams at his best.
So all the people doing all caps are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
So here over on...
You can see an example over on YouTube.
Skidbuff says in all caps, shill atoms at his best.
That's not really a comment, is it?
You know, here would be a comment with a functional brain.
A functional brain would say, I challenge your assumption.
I don't think there's a difference of definition.
That would be a smart comment.
Something worthy of your time.
Do you know what wouldn't be?
In all caps...
Scotts the shield!
Scotts the shield! Yeah, it doesn't help.
It doesn't help. All right, for those who challenge my assumption, that's fair.
You still did it in all caps, though.
All right, is there anybody here who would agree with my assumption?
Right? Is there anybody who would agree that it looks like there's a difference in definition going on here, that that's the heart of it?
Seeing one yes, mostly no.
A few yeses. Nope, nope, nope.
I'm seeing almost all noes on YouTube.
Over on locals, mostly no.
But some yeses.
If this were a criminal prosecution, and you had to achieve a standard of no reasonable doubt, and you saw that a lot of people are watching the story and saying, I think it's just a definitional difference.
Does Fauci have reasonable doubt?
There are a lot of people watching this story who have the same opinion I do.
Minority. There are more people who disagree than agree.
But there are a lot of people who say, yeah, it just looks like a definition thing.
Doesn't mean I'm right, but if this were a court case, you would not be convicted.
Because there are enough people looking at this saying, no, it looks ambiguous to me.
I don't think that's enough to put him on fire.
All right, so don't take that as a defense of Fauci.
That is only an explanation of my observation.
All right, I don't defend him.
I don't have a sense that he's done the best job.
But I'm not terribly sure that this is the right attack vector.
All right, Biden's approval level is down to 37%, according to Quinnipiac.
And 78 in the same poll said, 78% of Republicans want Donald Trump to run again in 2024.
78% want him to run again.
Do you think anybody else is going to win the primary?
I'll tell you, nothing could make Trump president better than Biden's performance.
It's just crazy how bad it is.
60% of independents on the same poll said they disapproved of Biden's performance.
How could you possibly keep Trump out of the White House with this?
Now, I don't think he'd be running against Biden, but he's going to be running against somebody that Biden beat.
It sounded funny when I said it.
So 60% of independents disapprove of Biden, which would clearly be a number that he couldn't get re-elected.
But anyway, I thought I had a good point, but maybe I didn't.
I think I'll bail out of that one.
All right. Randy Weingarten, who you might know, is the president of AFT, which is probably American Federated Teachers, the teachers' union.
So she's president of, I guess, the biggest teachers' union, or is there a teachers' union above teachers' unions?
What exactly is her role?
I don't know if she's head of the biggest teachers' union, or is there something that's on top of all teachers' unions?
Can somebody explain that?
Is she...
NEA is the biggest.
So she's just one of the big ones?
Is that the actual situation?
All right. So...
The loudest one?
Anyway, she's a leader in the teachers' unions.
And she tweeted that kids were very damaged by the lockdowns.
That's right. A leader who stopped kids from going to school wants you to know that the kids were very damaged mentally, psychologically, developmentally by the lockdown.
The person who is singly most responsible for causing it wants you to know that, gosh, it sure looks bad for those kids.
Un-frickin-believable.
AFT is higher education than NEA? Well, we're confused about some of these roles, but maybe we'll sort that out.
So what she said was in her tweet, I think a lot of people forget that our children are also facing immense trauma as a result of the pandemic and the isolation of quarantine and school via Zoom.
The things that she caused, many of her did.
Or at least was very persuasive in...
All right. The funniest statement, and I'll end on this because I've got to leave a little early today, is that CNN has, and I love doing this, I love using CNN's own biased language against them.
Do you know how when somebody does something wrong and then they try to support it later, and CNN always says they're doubling down?
Oh, Trump doubled down on his bleach drinking or whatever.
Usually it's fake news. So I'm going to say they doubled down.
Apparently they're defending their network's coverage of Joe Rogan and the many references on it that he was taking horse medicine, which, of course, he was not.
It's fake news.
And CNN, instead of saying, you know, you're right, we probably shouldn't have couched it that way or framed it that way, sorry about that, but, you know, it was opinion.
I think CNN had a perfectly good defense.
And the defense would be, yeah, sorry, that was probably a little misleading.
It came out of our opinion people.
And we would have thought that you would have known it was hyperbole.
That wouldn't be a bad defense, you know?
I mean, not complete defense, but it would be better than what they did.
So they decided not to apologize and went hard and said the only thing they did wrong was hurt the ego of a celebrity, Joe Rogan.
That's all they did wrong. They hurt his ego.
Well, I'm not so sure about that.
Um... But even, I guess, the Washington Post had an article by Eric Wimple who just eviscerated CNN's treatment and their integrity.
Because this was just a clear fake news.
I think most people would say it's a clear example of just the media being despicable.
And they decided to double down.
But maybe that works.
I don't know. Wouldn't it depend on the hoaxer's definition of bleach?
Nope. Nope.
I don't think anybody would call light therapy bleach.
Disinfectant, yes. So it does depend on your definition of disinfectant, but not on your definition of bleach.
Bleach is a pretty clear word.
Yeah, they doubled down on lying.
All right. And that is pretty much what I wanted to talk about today.
So, did I miss anything?
Are there any stories that you wish I'd talked about that I didn't?
How's Boo? Boo's looking good.
We still have to figure out if the cancer diagnosis is real.
It's a little ambiguous still.
Um... Yes, Trump could own the definition of disinfectant.
Crypto and Bitcoin.
I think Bitcoin is down today, right?
Let's see how Bitcoin is doing.
Bitcoin, Bitcoin. Hey, Bitcoin.
How you doing? Yeah, it's down today.
Oh, Trump Social, we talked about that yesterday.
You know, I signed up for information on it, early sign-up.
We'll see if I get invited. U.S. patent, blah, blah.
Pfizer says the COVID vaccine is more than 90% effective in kids.
Beta Vegas.
Sorry.
I'm just looking at all your comments now, so anybody who wants to bail out at this point, it wouldn't be a bad time to do it.
Yeah, if you haven't watched my video with Viva and Barnes, just Google that.
Viva, Barnes, Scott Adams.
It'll pop right up. I'm seeing a lot of good comments on the Locals platform from people who saw it.
They enjoyed it quite a bit.
And it does have some drama in it toward the beginning, so you won't want to miss that.
But also catch my interview with Bjorn Lomborg on climate change craziness and the things we get wrong about that.
The people who watch that are pretty impressed, actually, because you're going to get a ton of Of information you probably didn't know about climate change in just a few minutes.
All right. I'm going to take off in a moment.
And... Oh, my God.
So, I just have to read this.
The Alec Baldwin thing is just...
There needs to be some word for something that's a tragedy that's funny...
Because, you know, it's funny if you don't know the victim, I suppose.
And, of course, we're all bad people.
But I have to read this because it's just horrible humor that we can't be proud of.
I won't know if you're laughing.
I won't know if you're laughing about this.
So, you know, you're okay.
You're safe. All right? The tweet says, it's from somebody named Dan on Twitter, it says, Alec Baldwin now has a higher body count than the entire January 6th armed insurrection.
Wow. Yeah, the irony is here.
Oh my goodness.
Alec Baldwin actually had a tweet, somebody's retweeting, where Alec Baldwin said of some other accidental shooting in the past, he tweeted, I wonder how it must feel to wrongfully kill someone.
Wow. I feel like this simulation...
Yeah.
I'm seeing the word simulation go by.
This looks...
Doesn't this look scripted?
Does any of this look like it naturally happened?
You know, the obvious explanation is that coincidences happen all the time, and when they don't happen, you don't notice them, and when they do happen, you notice them, so you think they're happening all the time.
