Episode 1549 Scott Adams: Sleepy Joe, Skirted Assailants, NFL Slavery, and More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Bill Maher think courts looked at election fraud?
Productive climate summit opinions omitted?
White media chooses Black leadership for America?
Biden at far end of G20 leadership photo?
2nd media HOAX at Youngkin rally?
QAnon believes John Kennedy Jr. is alive?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 ever happened to you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's big all over the world.
Possibly at other planets because I think they're monitoring our activities and if they are they certainly would have picked up on this pretty quickly.
So, if you'd like to do something that the smartest, sexiest people in the world do every day...
And, at least, probably, one or two alien civilizations who are monitoring us from a distance.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen now, and aren't you lucky?
Yeah, you're lucky, because you rate it in time.
Because live, it's the best.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
My goodness, who is contacting me?
And join me now for the simultaneous sip.
It's the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including your antibodies.
I should have said especially your antibodies.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Antibodies going online, firing up.
A few extras, looks like they've joined them.
Yeah, looking good.
Looking good. Well...
Here's something that surprises the hell out of me.
Honestly, I was quite surprised by this.
So I was watching Bill Maher's show, or a clip from it, on Friday, where he was brow-beating Sean Spicer, who had been one of Trump's spokespersons for a while, and was trying to get Spicer to admit that the election was fair and that there was no fraud.
Now, I think Spicer did okay.
You know, he did okay in his answers, but could have done a lot better.
A lot better.
Because it turns out that Bill Maher, and this is amazing, think about how well-informed Bill Maher is compared to the average person.
Average person, how well-informed they are, Bill Maher.
It's literally his job to be well-informed on politics.
It's his job. And he's good at it.
And he is more well-informed than most people.
And I think it's even a hobby, right, following the news.
So if you would expect somebody to be well-informed, it would be Bill Maher on politics, right?
Bill Maher actually seems to be unaware...
That the courts never really looked at anything of substance.
They looked at whether the issue could be looked at by the court, which is different than looking at the issue.
And when they said, ah, you don't have standing, or it's too late, or whatever the reasons were.
But if you took everything factual that courts actually ruled on, and compared it You compared it to all the things that could have been a problem or were discovered later or alleged to be problems later.
What percentage of the factual claims do you think courts ruled on?
What would be your guess?
Of all the claims that were made before and after court cases, you know, did things, Of all the claims, let's say the claims had a little bit of legitimacy to them.
It doesn't mean they're right, but enough legitimacy that a court should decide.
What percentage of the total claims do you think courts actually ruled on?
I don't think it's zero.
Most of you are saying zero.
I don't think it's zero. But it's less than 10%, probably, wouldn't you say?
That maybe 10%...
And then here's another question.
What percentage of all the places that fraud could hide, potentially, in an election, what percentage of all the things that could be checked in a perfect world were actually checked?
40% maybe?
If you did a full audit in places that you suspected problems, what percentage of all the things that you want to check could you actually check?
I don't know the answer to that.
My sort of sense of it is maybe 40%.
It's definitely not 90%.
And I'll tell you what it's definitely not is 100%, right?
Because they had no access to any of the electronic stuff, did they?
I don't believe they had access to the source code.
I don't think they had access to any records about the databases.
Once it left the paper world, I don't think they had much of anything.
So, it is not my belief that there is any convincing evidence of fraud.
I know you don't want to hear that because you want me to say that I've seen it and it's there.
I haven't, which is completely different from saying it's not there.
I'm saying that nobody can know if fraud is there.
It's unknowable.
It's also unchecked.
Nobody checked, and nobody can know.
And really, this isn't even a story about the election.
This is a story about how somebody whose job it is to be well-informed about...
Would you say this is the biggest topic right now?
Can you think of a bigger topic than January 6th and the election integrity?
What's bigger than that?
Climate change, I guess, maybe, depending on your point of view.
But... One of the biggest political stories, and the most...
I would say the central, most important fact is how much was checked.
Would you agree with that statement?
The most central, important fact of the entire story of the election and the entire story of January 6th, the most important fact is what percentage of the stuff you'd want to check was actually checked.
It's the biggest question.
If you don't know the answer to that, even in a general sense, you don't know anything.
You literally don't know anything about the topic.
Am I wrong? If you believe that 100% of the claims had been checked and were disqualified, Nothing like that happened.
Not even close.
In no world did anything like that happen.
And yet, Maher's entire worldview on this seems to be based on an assumption that courts looked at evidence, you know, the best of it or most of it or even a lot of it.
Nothing like that ever happened.
The courts decided they couldn't rule on it one way or the other because...
You know, they didn't have jurisdiction or whatever it was.
Didn't have standing, didn't have jurisdiction.
You know, a bunch of technical reasons.
All right. I've told you before, in my opinion, that of all political pundits, there is one that is dumber than all of them put together.
And his name is Joe Lockhart.
Now, I don't know if Joe Lockhart is smart when he's not on television.
Because he might be. You know, sometimes it's hard to tell when somebody's legitimately dumb and when they're just being partisan.
Because when you see somebody acting, you know, purely partisan, they kind of look dumb, don't they?
Am I the only one?
Let me ask you this.
Yeah, I see your comment, Eric.
So, anyway, Joe Lockhart, he tweeted this.
And I swear to God, I'm not making this up.
This sounds like something I made up as a joke, you know, because I called him dumb, and then I'm going to read a tweet that sounds dumb.
I didn't make this up.
I didn't make this up.
He actually tweeted this.
He said, you know who also had coded statements like Brandon, ISIS, the Klan, Nazis, beginning to get the point?
That's right. Joe Lockhart compared the humorous chant, let's go, Brandon, to the same techniques of ISIS, the Klan, and Nazis, and then concluded that they had a lot in common.
And I said, you know, so he thinks that maybe this coded statements thing really tells you what's happening.
Because people who are talking coded statements...
Probably are associated with terrorism or Nazism or ISIS. That's Joe Lockhart's point, and he was proud enough to put that in public.
But I would like to defend him this time, although I've been a critic.
I'd like to defend him in this one case.
So before you judge this tweet harshly, I want you to at least consider that it wasn't a real tweet, but rather a coded statement of his own.
I'm just going to put that out there.
Because if it's a real tweet, it doesn't make any sense at all.
You'd have to kind of at least be open to the possibility.
He's sending you a coded statement, not meant to mean what it looks like it means.
And if it is a coded statement, that would make him no better than ISIS, the Klan, Nazis, and, according to Joe Lockhart, Republicans.
Poor, poor Joe Lockhart.
I hope that's not a coded message.
I hope it's just as dumb as it looks, because if it's a coded message, my God, his soul is in trouble.
Well, what could be more perfect than a president who had been labeled by his competitor, Mr.
Trump, As Sleepy Joe falling asleep in public at the climate change summit in Glasgow.
What could be more perfect?
Sleepy Joe falling asleep at a climate summit.
Nothing. That's right.
The answer is nothing. Nothing could be more perfect than that.
Now, the longer that Trump is out of office, what have I told you?
What was my prediction? The longer he's out of office, the smarter he's going to look.
Right? Now, when he decided, of all the things you could call Joe Biden, of all the possible nicknames, Trump reached into the void and picked out Sleepy Joe.
And damn it, if Joe Biden didn't fall asleep in public.
More than once, right?
How does Trump do this?
Seriously. How could you be so good at this?
Giving people nicknames that stick.
It's crazy, isn't it?
It's crazy how he reached into all the possibilities and picked out the one that was perfect.
And I'll say more about that topic as well.
But I'm wondering this.
So you've got a climate summit.
Does it make sense that the climate summit would have nobody invited who is a climate change skeptic or a doubter?
Do you think you should have a climate summit with no dissenting opinions at your summit?
Is that reasonable?
I think so. I think so.
Because their entire claim is that the doubters should be ignored.
So I would say it's consistent with their overall theme to not invite them.
But here's my further question, drilling a little bit deeper down.
There are people...
Notably, there are people who believe climate change is real, just as they do, but believe maybe the approach to it should be a little different, or a lot different, than what we're doing.
Michael Schellenberger, for example, believes that climate change is real, that the science about it is directionally correct, but that from an economic and logical standpoint, we may be approaching it in a suboptimal way.
Was he invited? No, I don't think so.
How about Bjorn Lomborg?
Also believes that climate change is real, directionally speaking, but doesn't believe that the panic about it is warranted and has some ideas about that.
Was he invited? No.
You know, it's one thing to not invite people that you consider not credible, but who doesn't think these two are credible?
Seriously. Who are the people who are criticizing either Bjorn Lomborg's approach, which is mostly the sort of business economic way of looking at the risk and reward, or Michael Schellenberger's deep dive into the fact that some of the green technology is overrated and has its own problems and that you really can't help poor people without energy.
You know, some basic points about how to manage this if the this is what they agree on.
Why don't they get invited?
It's because they don't fit with the panic narrative.
So this isn't really a climate change summit, is it?
It's a manufactured panic summit.
Because if it were about the climate, they would invite credible people who have, let's say, I'm not even sure I would call them opposing opinions.
They're almost additive opinions, I would say.
Or almost clarifying opinions.
Or at the very least, they're productive.
Let's just call them productive opinions.
Could turn out that maybe their opinions are off in some ways.
But they're productive.
I mean, they're bringing up the things we should be talking about, and we should know if they're reasonable and sensible.
So I would say that you almost can't call the Climate Summit if they have not invited voices of that type.
It doesn't have to be those two people, but they're the most successful, I'd say.
So it's just a panic.
I think you'd have to call it propaganda, wouldn't you?
Just propaganda if they don't have that.
All right, Robbie Suaves, I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name right, S-O-A-V-E-S. Anyway, he writes for a reason, and he's got an article about the Loudoun assault.
Now, I'm going to talk about the skirted boy allegedly assaulting the student in the woman's bathroom.
Now, that's the story, and then there are details below the story, etc.
When I heard the story, I said, there's something BS about this story.
This is fake news.
And the reason I gave is that it was too on the nose.
Oh, really? There's a trans student attacking somebody in the bathroom exactly when that's, like, in the news.
When we're talking about those bathroom policies, exactly then, that's when the attack happens.
So I said it was fake news.
I said it was fake news.
Was I right? Well, let's do a deep dive, and the answer is yes and no.
So don't get too excited until you hear my full explanation.
You might be satisfied with the full explanation, but until I get to the full thing, you might be unhappy.
So here's what I understand.
So the Daily Wire had a story, and then that story got enlarged to the larger right-wing media for the most part.
And you need to make a distinction between how the Daily Wire covered it And how it was later interpreted by social media and Fox News hosts, etc.
Can you make that distinction?
One is the Daily Wire story.
Was that accurate or not accurate?
And then there was how the public interpreted it.
And then the other media.
My understanding is that the Daily Wire story was factually correct.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Does anybody disagree that the Daily Wire story was factually correct?
It didn't have as many details as we've learned.
Now, I'm seeing somebody say, I'm moving the goalposts.
Hold that thought.
Hold that thought. That's a good thought.
So that's exactly where your brain should be right now.
You should be asking if I'm moving the goalposts.
That's the right thought.
Okay, but hold that thought. All right.
So, I'm not aware of anything in the Daily Wire story that was incorrect.
Are we good? Now, what Robbie Suave says is that the right-leaning media got it wrong.
So when he says the right-leaning media, He's not talking about just that one outlet that started with the story.
He's talking about the larger interpretation of it, etc.
I agree with Robbie that the larger interpretation of it is misleading.
And I'll tell you why.
Which is different from, did The Daily Wire cover it correctly?
In other words, the things that they knew at the time, are they accurate?
As far as I know, yes.
Is there any disagreement on that?
As far as I know, I don't believe anybody has criticized the accuracy of it.
Just that we've learned new things since then.
So here's what we know.
The alleged assailant was not trans.
He was not trans.
He did have a skirt. And he was known to wear a skirt.
But he was not trans.
I think he was gender fluid or something.
The bathroom policy was not in effect when it happened.
That's important. So the fact that he wore a skirt had nothing to do with his access to the bathroom.
Does everybody know that?
Did you know?
Did you know that the fact that he had a skirt did not give him access to the bathroom?
How many of you knew that? Because it was two weeks before they would even make a decision about trans access to the bathrooms.
How many of you knew that?
That wearing the skirt had nothing to do with his access to the bathroom.
In fact, the two were, they were either something like a couple or a thing, because they had used this exact same woman's bathroom in the past for hookups.
So this was not a random assault.
It was somebody who had a relationship, a sexual one, with the person who allegedly was assaulted.
Still makes it an assault, right?
The fact that it's a relationship, or had been a relationship, isn't related to whether it was an assault.
It's just context.
So the skirt had nothing to do with it, and he was not trans.
But, as the Daily Wire...
Wait, hold on.
We'll get to your criticisms of me in a moment.
But the Daily Wire did not claim the kid was trans.
Am I right? The Daily Wire story never said the kid was trans.
It said it was about gender fluidity and that maybe the decision about the trans access to bathrooms...
The accusation is that the administration didn't want to mess up that question...
And so they hid the...
They might have tried to hide the assault so it didn't interfere with the separate question.
Because people would confuse the issues.
Right? Now, I don't know about that, nor did I have an opinion on that.
Now, those who have been watching my opinion, did I ever express any opinion about the policy change, or anybody hiding anything about the policy change, or the fact that the administration should have done more?
You've never heard me talk about that, right?
You've never heard me talk about the details.
The only thing I said when I heard the story is, This is not a story about a trans assault in a bathroom.
The part that I will say was correct is I knew the narrative of it was wrong.
That the story of a trans student assaulting somebody in a bathroom didn't happen.
So that was my take.
My take is that the central belief of it, that a trans person had assaulted a, let's say, a random person in a restroom, wasn't true.
So I could tell that that wasn't true.
I did not have an opinion about the cover-up, which apparently happened.
I did not have an opinion about the father's behavior.
I have an opinion, it just wasn't important to me.
It wasn't important enough that you hear it.
I didn't have an opinion about gender fluidity being important to the story, because it was.
I didn't have an opinion about most of the parts of the story.
So if you're saying I'm moving the goalpost, remember, I wasn't even talking about most of the story, nor did I have any criticism or objection to it.
I had one and only one objection, that on the face of it, it probably wasn't a story about a trans attacking a random person in a woman's bathroom.
Um... Now, how many want to disagree with my characterization of my own opinion?
Go. Because I know you will.
I want to see how many of you think I moved the goalposts.
I don't think you said that.
B.S. You originally said no skirt.
Correct. Okay, that's a good comment.
So I originally said I doubted there was a skirt involved.
And there was a skirt involved.
But the larger context was doubting that there was a trans involved.
But the skirt part, I'll take that as wrong.
All right? No, you didn't disagree?
Okay, looks like your comments are not very productive.
They're sort of generic.
But I'll move on.
So I'm going to say that I sniffed out that story as being incorrect the way it was interpreted.
So what I did not criticize, and in fact I never read, is the Daily Wire story.
So a couple of the reporters, one investigative reporter, and somebody else associated with that, defended their reporting, I think either from Robbie or defended it against my tweet, but I don't think they need to.
I don't think they need to defend their story because I don't think the story was incorrect.
It was what we knew at the time.
All right.
Colin Kaepernick has a special in which he compares the NFL draft to slavery.
May I make a criticism?
Anybody? Would anybody like to hear me criticize?
Not just Colin Kaepernick, who I think has some good qualities, by the way.
I've said good things about him in the past.
And I like the fact that he's a...
I like the fact that he's got balls of steel.
I like the fact that he's not afraid of anything, apparently.
There's a lot to like about this guy, even if you don't like his larger deal.
Can we agree? And by the way, I like to do this as often as I can manage it, to say good things about people that I'm also going to criticize.
Because I think it goes down better, right?
So he's talented and...
And he's brave, and I think his topic is important, even if you disagree on the details of it.
But here's some other stuff I think just has to be mentioned.
As someone who identifies as black, that's me.
I don't know if you know that, but I self-identify as black.
And so that gives me a little bit of something in common with Colin Kaepernick, because I believe he identifies as black.
And like me, some people might quibble about his self-identification, but guess what?
It's not up to you.
That's the beauty of self-identification.
Kaepernick can say that the black part of his identity is his main identity, and we accept that.
And I can say that I identify as black for the benefits I get from that, and you're going to have to accept it.
It's just up to me.
It's not up to you. That's just the rule.
Sorry. So I relate to Colin in that way, because we're both probably criticized for not being black enough.
But here are some of my comments about black leadership.
Why is it that black leaders in America are so bad at it?
Is it the media is promoting the wrong people?
Because people become famous because the media decides they're famous, right?
Do black leaders become black leaders because the black population wants them to be leaders?
Or do they become leaders because the media sort of appoints them?
Because I feel like the white media is appointing leaders for the black public and doing a terrible job of it.
Like a really bad job of it.
Here's the problem with Colin Kaepernick.
I don't think he understands that he's supposed to be influencing white people.
Right? I mean, primarily.
He'd like to influence everyone, but don't you get the biggest bang for the buck if you're looking to fix, I don't know, whatever, structural racism, violence by the police, whatever you're trying to fix, you're going to need to influence a bunch of white people to get anything done.
And I'm not so sure he's the best choice for that.
Number one, you should not...
Keep your name Colin if you want to be taken seriously.
Because Colin makes me think a colon every time I read it.
Am I the only one? Let me check on this.
In the comments, when you see somebody named Colin, C-O-L-I-N, do you not immediately think of an asshole in the comments?
Go. Am I the only one?
Let's see. Okay, I'm seeing some yeses, some noes.
Same with Colin Powell, yeah.
Colin Powell, every time I heard the word, like, colon, asshole.
Oh, interesting. So a lot of you, I'm seeing yeses, but a lot of noes.
I guess it's just me.
There are enough yeses that I think my point stands, which is you should change your name immediately if you're trying to be influential.
I'm only half kidding about that.
I probably would have changed my name if that was my name.
If that were my name.
All right. The other thing is, if you want to be taken seriously, don't have clown hair.
Now, I know Trump has unusual hair, too.
But Trump's unusual hair seems still within the realm of haircuts.
He just has an unusual one.
Whereas Collins is clearly a branding, trademark kind of thing.
He's gotten out to enormous size.
Now, on one hand, it's really good...
For standing out.
It's really good for, if you want to stay in the public eye, to be different in some way visually.
Visually being different is actually a pretty good strategy.
So, being different is good.
But here's the thing.
What do white people think when they see that?
Do white people, when they look at Colin Kaepernick's hairstyle, say to themselves, wow, he's really...
He's really done a good job of standing out.
I like the fact that he's making himself interesting and different and it's a style question.
I don't think so.
I think that it makes him look less credible.
How many would you agree with that?
Now remember, I'm not saying the hair is good or bad.
It has nothing to do with my opinion of his fashion.
I'm saying how do people receive it?
The people he's trying to persuade...
Do they look at that? Do the Republicans in North Dakota, they look at that hairstyle and say, there's a man I'm going to listen to?
No. It reminds you of Bozo the Clown.
And it's hard to take him seriously.
Now, I think Trump had a little bit of the same problem.
I think that Trump had problems being taken seriously because of his hair.
And it wasn't until he served an entire term as a president that people stopped talking about his hair.
Have you noticed that?
When was the last time somebody mocked Trump for his haircut?
Think about that.
Think about the fact that Trump made his haircut go away.
Just by performing for four years.
Because when Trump was somebody who was talking about being president but hadn't done anything in that domain, you can mock him for everything.
Ah, look at that clown hair.
He'll never be president.
But then when he is president for four years and you get a result that many would say, many would say, in fact a majority of Americans at this point did a better job than Biden, well suddenly you don't make fun of his hair anymore, do you?
His hair isn't so funny now, is it?
Now, Colin Kaepernick has that same problem.
Until he's done something substantial, I don't think he can get away with that hair.
I think it's a risk. So I think that's a bad judgment.
But talk about bad judgment.
He's got this special in which he has compared NFL to slavery, and I guess there's a scene in it in which he's contrasting visions of slaves put on the block and chains with NFL players, all black, in the special, who are lined up to be examined by the owners of the teams.
So NFL, it's like slavery.
Um... Problem.
Problem with the analogy, if I may.
Has anybody ever heard me mention that analogies are not as persuasive as people think they are?
Have I ever said that?
Yes, every single day.
Every day I tell you analogies do not persuade.
I also use them.
You can use an analogy to make a point.
And that's good. But they don't persuade.
Because people just argue about the difference.
Well, that's not the same. Watch me do it.
This is why you don't use analogies.
This guy, Colin Kaepernick, in public, spent a lot of money and time to create a piece of art...
In Persuasion, that compares the NFL to slavery, but there are some differences that I think need to be pointed out.
I'm no historian, so I need a fact check on this, right?
Are there any historians here?
A lot of people watching.
I bet some of you must be at least one historian.
Can somebody fact check me on this?
Because my education on this domain is not complete.
But I don't remember seeing a lesson...
About people begging to be slaves.
Were there people who tried all their lives to become slaves who were not slaves, not born slaves, but they worked really hard and they trained and they trained and they trained until they could become slaves?
Was that in history?
Because I don't remember that. Because that does apply to the NFL. The NFL is someplace where people train for years and years, and it's their greatest dream to become an NFL player.
And by the way, can somebody else do a fact check on this?
I need another fact check.
Are white people allowed to play in the NFL? Because I'm a little confused by the documentary.
It would seem to suggest that white people are not allowed to play in the NFL. Are they still allowed?
Can you be white and be in the NFL? Because if you can be, I'm a little confused, because do the white NFL players have a different process?
And maybe only the black players are lined up in front of the owners.
Do the white NFL players, and I know there are not many of them, but do the white players, they get picked down to go, oh, hold on, hold on.
We only do the slave thing with the black players.
Is that what's happening? And then the white players go to a fine dining place and just have dinner with the owners.
You know, have some drinks.
I need a fact check, because Colin is indicating that only the black people get in the NFL. He doesn't say that, but that's sort of the implication.
Do you see the problem with the analogy?
And I'm also...
I need another fact check on this.
But how much...
What was the average pay of the slaves?
Can somebody give me a fact check?
Because, again, I remember it as being kind of low...
Slaves were not paid millions of dollars a year, right?
Am I wrong about that?
Because, again, I'm confused.
Yeah, right? Below minimum wage, exactly.
Somebody is saying the slaves were actually paid below minimum wage, and that's not good.
I mean, some people are saying it was zero.
Zero. Oh, yeah, that's what a slave is.
Oh yeah, oh yeah. Slaves get paid zero.
What does the NFL get paid?
It must be zero because he wouldn't have used this analogy.
Do NFL players get paid zero?
Can somebody fact check that for me?
So anyway, I feel as though...
The black population of this country is absolutely getting screwed by their own leaders being incompetent, really.
Because imagine what a capable black leader could get done.
Just think about it.
Just think about a capable black leader who just said, you know, I don't like the Republican thing.
But I'm going to work with them.
I'm going to find some things we have in common.
I'm going to make that happen and see if we can get some momentum going.
I mean, that would be effective.
That would be effective.
That's what a good black leader would look like.
Yeah, Larry Elder, somebody like that, could pull that off.
But I think as long as you have CNN, a bunch of white people, deciding who they're going to, and I'll just use CNN as a stand-in for the left, as long as you have the media picking your leaders and deciding who gets attention and who gets a documentary and who gets a big article about them, who gets to be on the cover of the magazine, as long as it's a bunch of white people making those decisions, it's white people picking black leaders.
Because attention is what makes you a leader.
As much as anything. So, I would call that systemic racism, where your white media gets to pick your black leaders, and they don't do a good job of it.
Wouldn't that fall under the category of white supremacy, supported by CNN? I think so.
I don't really think that's too far, is it?
If you knew, if you were some ethnicity and you knew that different ethnicities decided who your leader was going to be, would you consider that okay?
I don't think so. All right.
Did you see the G20 photo?
I don't know if this is Photoshopped.
Is this real? This looks unreal, so I want to say I'm not sure I believe it yet.
But you remember the story of Trump, was it the G8 or the G20, the famous thing where he shoved himself, you know, sort of humorously shoved himself to the front of the line, or the middle, central part?
And that became a famous thing.
It's like, oh, God, our president's a bully.
He's shoving around these people and putting himself in front.
And then we see the Biden picture, if it's real, it might be photoshopped, because I can't even believe it.
And the group is together, and then he's like standing off to the side like he wasn't really invited, like he was sneaking into the picture or something.
Was that even a real picture?
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
I guess I should have Googled it more.
Somebody says it's real.
Now, remember I told you, let's say it's real, because it's more fun.
This is yet another thing where I think you appreciate Trump.
Because when Trump literally bullied his way to the front of the line, that did make people mock him.
True. It did, you know, make you think of ugly Americans.
True. But what's the other thing it did?
The other thing it did is made everybody think, sheesh, you've got a strong president there.
Maybe too strong.
And he's bullying himself to the front, he's putting himself in front of everything.
If you don't think that that bullying his way to the front actually gave him more power, you don't understand power.
Let me say it again.
If you don't understand that literally bullying himself to the center of the picture gave him more power, If you don't understand that, then there's a lie you don't understand.
I was going to do maybe a micro lesson on the locals platform.
It's a subscription platform where I put my lessons, two to four minute lessons on how to be more effective, basically.
I was going to do a lesson on some people understand energy and some people just look at cause and effect.
And that sometimes misses the energy thing.
Trump is an energy monster.
There are other people who are energy monsters, too.
And energy monsters see energy, almost.
They almost feel it.
And they move toward it, and they control it, and they focus it.
But they're energy movers.
And then there are other people who are just looking at the surface facts.
The people who are looking at the surface facts will never understand the energy movers.
The energy monsters are invisible, in terms of their technique, to people who are not tuned into energy as the major way to understand the world.
When I said there's something big brewing that's coming in the world, it's an energy observation.
That the world has all this pent-up energy, largely from the pandemic.
And it needs to go somewhere.
The energy just doesn't disappear.
It just transforms, it moves, but it doesn't disappear.
There's just a ton, a ton, and I think you feel it too, of pent-up energy.
It's going to go somewhere, and I don't know if it'll necessarily go somewhere good.
It could. Might be something excellent coming.
But there's too much energy...
That's my observation. So if you say, what does that exactly mean?
I don't know. I just know the energy is going to go somewhere, and that usually means a war or something big.
I hope it's not a war.
Anyway... There was a...
Youngkin had a rally today's election day for the Virginia governor race.
And there were at least three different tweets that involved different photos of the same guy who attended it, who had a Confederate flag patch on his jacket, like a really big one, on the back of his jacket, so that you could take a picture of him standing there.
You could get his jacket, but you could also get Youngkin in the background so you could associate him with the Confederate flag.
And everybody took the hint, took that picture.
Now, that is your media lying to you.
Now, I don't know if that gentleman with the Confederate flag patch was a real Youngkin supporter, but it is the most obvious kind of political hoax.
It's the most obvious kind, where the other team sends the wrong person to your rally so that it looks like the wrong people attend the rally.
It's exactly what the Lincoln Project did.
They sent actors to look like white supremacists at a Yunkin thing.
It's the single most common political trick to send a fake person to a rally.
So, it worked.
As tricks go, It's a pretty good one because it works.
The photos were there.
They got published. Probably makes a difference.
So that was a good trick, I guess.
Are you wondering what my opinion is on who should win the governor race?
Do you think I have an opinion?
What do you think my opinion is?
You've seen me talk about it a number of times.
Who do you think I want to win the governorship?
You probably think I'm going to say McAuliffe, right?
Because he's... I'm sorry.
Sorry, you probably think I'm going to say Youngkin, because he's a Republican, and you imagine that I support him.
All right, here's my answer.
Here's my answer.
I don't have an opinion.
Here's why. Now, I would like...
I'd love the news to deal with the fact that it looks like some momentum for Trump.
To me, that would be sort of an excellent outcome.
If the media thought, oh, this is a referendum and it looks like Republicans are doing better, I would like that to happen.
But in terms of which person would be a better governor, here's why I'm not giving you my opinion.
Because a huge part of the decision is about abortion.
Would you agree? I mean, the school system is maybe the biggest part.
But a huge part of it is the abortion question.
And, no, I'm not a Democrat.
I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
And, yeah, I know, you think that it's weak to not have an opinion on abortion.
And I will accept your characterization because that's subjective, right?
Your subjective opinion of me is always valid because it's subjective.
But objectively, you think it's weak to not have an opinion on abortion?
Well, first of all, I do have an opinion.
I have an opinion that it is an undecidable issue, meaning that the public will never agree.
And if the public will never agree, then you default to the system.
Because that's how everything works.
When an opinion in the country is close to 50-50, we let the government take care of it.
Because we can't decide.
And we need the system to give us a decision so that we can live together.
Because if we couldn't ever somehow delegate the hard decisions to some entity that we have a little bit of trust in, then we could just never get past anything.
We'd just be at war with each other all the time.
So it is important that when you have a really big issue, like abortion, and you can't agree and you're not going to agree, it's important that you can offload the decision, offload it onto the government, so we can have some credibility and somehow live with each other when we decide.
In my opinion, the most credible deciders are women.
They have more skin in the game.
Of course men have skin in the game.
Of course it has to do with the money aspect.
Then men should absolutely be involved.
Absolutely. And I have lots of opinions on that, if you want to hear them someday.
But on the terms of just whether it should happen, forget about who has the rights to the kid, forget about the question of who pays for what.
Those are good questions and separate.
But just the question of whether it should be legal at all has to be women collectively deciding.
Separate from the decision of getting one or not, but the decision of whether the law should be this way or that way, the most credible situation is that women have most of the influence on that.
And by no means would I want to take the influence away from men who want to participate.
If you want to participate and you feel strongly about it, absolutely.
Sandra says that's cowardly.
Sandra, you fucking cunt.
Let me be as clear as possible.
I'm not afraid of you.
I'm not afraid of any fucking person on here.
I'm not afraid of my reputation.
And I'm not afraid of what you think about my fucking opinion about abortion.
You're a fucking cunt for calling me a coward.
All right? And you should leave my content immediately.
I don't want you here.
Just fucking leave.
All right? Now, am I worried about my income?
Well, this just got demonetized.
I just guaranteed that I lost...
I don't know.
I won't give you an estimate.
But since the YouTube part is monetized, that was very expensive for me to call you a fucking cunt.
All right? That cost me about 10% of my audience who just said, oh, I can't watch this anymore.
Kids were watching. I can't recommend this.
Got demonetized instantly.
And fuck you.
All right. So, I have very little tolerance for the tiny-minded people who think everybody's making political decisions based on fear.
You're all making your fucking decisions on fear.
All of you.
You just fear different things.
Some of you fear big government.
Some of you fear the vaccination.
You're all afraid.
All the time. All of your decisions are based on...
You might not call it fear.
You might call it risk management.
I prefer to call it that.
I prefer to call it risk management.
But if you act like bravery is a quality, no.
You fucking idiot.
Bravery is not a quality you want to encourage in me or in anybody else about their fucking opinions.
The lowest level of intellectual quality is to say that the other person is afraid.
It's the lowest level of intellectual debate.
All right. So fuck you, and let's move on.
Rasmussen has a poll.
It says the race...
They were asked whether the race was a referendum on Biden or more of a local issue.
36% said it's a referendum on Biden...
You know, that's just an opinion, of course.
And then 30% are not sure.
But if you add them together, you've got 66% who are at least open to the idea that this means something bigger than Virginia.
And I think that means that the media gets to control the narrative.
If 66% are open to the idea...
Or at least not close to the idea that this is a referendum, then the media will get to tell them it is.
And they'll say it was.
And that will actually have an influence on the election.
Now, I assume that if McAuliffe wins, they'll say, yeah, that's a referendum.
The left will say it is.
Basically, the media will play with this.
Anyway... I don't think there is such a thing as a referendum.
I think that we can be led to believe something's a referendum.
And then it does have some persuasive effect.
So the media will turn this into some kind of a club.
The left will be different than the right.
There's something happened with the QAnon group that I have a little suspicion about.
Oh, more than the normal suspicion about QAnon.
And it goes like this.
Apparently, QAnon is now promoting the idea that John Kennedy Jr., who we believe died...
It was reported in the news that he died in a plane crash years ago because unlike my wife, he was not a good pilot.
By the way, Christina is probably going to get certified for her IFR. I don't know if you call it license or certification or whatever it is.
So she'll actually be able to fly the plane that John Kennedy died in without dying.
So it wouldn't matter if the clouds came, if she were flying, because she knows how to fly a plane by instruments alone.
That's what that means.
Flying by instruments instead of just looking out the window.
So if John Kennedy could have done that, he'd be alive today, maybe.
Unless it was mechanical failure.
Don't know. Anyway...
QAnon is pushing the idea that the allegedly dead John Kennedy Jr.
is really alive and attending QAnon events, and there's somebody who, like, doesn't look at all like him, but people are saying it is him, and that he will be named as Trump's vice president.
Now, what does this tell you about QAnon?
If the first thing you say to yourself is, oh, it's just more BS from QAnon, it's just like everything else they've said, I'm not so sure.
You know what this looks like?
It looks like somebody's trying to end Q and QAnon.
Because it looks like somebody's taking the prank to its obvious end point.
Doesn't it? You know, as crazy as all the Q stuff was up till now, and largely debunked, I think, as crazy as it's been, has anything ever been this crazy?
Because this one's a little...
I don't know.
This one's a little like whoever's running Q is trying to see how far they can take it.
Maybe to destroy it.
In other words...
Is the person behind Q pro- or anti-Trump?
What do you think?
Is the current person behind Q, because we don't know if it's the same people or person, but is the current person behind Q pro-Trump or anti-Trump?
Go. I see anti-Trump.
QAnon does not exist.
Anti... keeps people interested, yes.
Anti? Yeah.
But what if they're pro-Trump?
What if they're pro-Trump?
What would be the most productive thing they could do?
If Q was now being run by somebody pro-Trump, what is the most clever, productive thing they could do?
Destroy themselves.
And out themselves as a prank.
If Q is actually pro-Trump, the smartest thing they can do is take their message to such an extreme that even the most ardent supporters say, oh, screw me.
I get it now.
It was always a joke.
You have to take it so far that even the most dedicated believers say, okay, you got me.
And maybe that's happening.
Now, that falls under the category of too clever, doesn't it?
Like, that's assuming people's a little too clever.
We don't see that level of cleverness usually.
But if there's an Intel component, they are that clever, right?
So here's what you should look for.
It's crazy enough that people have been convinced, actually, that it's true, that the dead John Kennedy is really alive, John Kennedy Jr., and that he'll be Trump's vice president.
Now, if you believe that, what's coming next?
So here's how you can test the theory.
I'm not going to say that I believe my own theory yet, but here's what I would look for.
What I'd look for is if the one after this...
It's even crazier.
Like one that you know can't be true, right?
One where you could check the DNA or something.
So, I don't know.
Keep an eye on that. There's a fake Trump statement about Alec Baldwin.
So Trump did not say this, but it's being reported on social media.
So somebody wrote a fake version of a Trump statement about Alec Baldwin.
And here's how you know it's fake even before it was debunked.
So it's already been debunked.
We know it's fake.
But here's how you could have told.
At the very first part, he referred to himself as, quote, a great president.
Would Trump ever write that he himself, in a written statement, not out loud, but would he ever write that he was a great president?
Yes or no? So I hear a yes.
I see some no's.
Okay, I see somebody who's upped their game a little bit and says greatest.
Would he ever say he's a great president or would he say he's the greatest president?
Well, you're both wrong.
Here's what he would say.
Your favorite president.
Trump would say, your favorite president.
That's how you know it's him.
He would never say, a great president.
That's just not his words. Now, why do I say that?
Here's the most mind-effing thing you're going to hear in your whole life.
You ready? Trump got criticized for not being the actual author of The Art of the Deal.
Correct? So he had a ghostwriter, which is common for pretty much everybody at that level.
Very uncommon for somebody at that level to write their own book.
And wasn't the implied assumption there that he needed a ghostwriter because he wouldn't be able to write it himself?
Don't you sort of assume that?
That he needed a ghostwriter because he wouldn't have the skill to write it himself?
You kind of think that, right?
Well, I'm here to tell you that Trump is a better writer than that ghostwriter.
By far. Not even close.
The ghostwriter, probably very good.
I would imagine, you know, I would imagine very good at his game.
But he's not this good.
Trump's writing ability is crazy good.
I do this for a living.
I write for a living.
And I would say he's better than me.
I hate to say it.
He does write better than I do.
Because he writes in a way you can't look away.
I mean, you're just glued to it.
When Trump says, your favorite president, that is so deliciously, perfectly complex.
You can't stop thinking about it.
But if you just said, I'm a great president, there's nothing there.
Great? Great is just like an empty, common, useful word.
But when he says your favorite, your brain just catches on fire.
Like, I'm not sure he's my favorite.
I've got to think about this.
Well, okay, he's in the top ten.
So one of them is just engineered perfection.
Your favorite president.
That's kind of perfect.
And this fake writing was obviously not a good writer.
I mean, Trump's writing just jumps off the page and slaps you in the face.
So that's my mind F for today, that Trump is...
And this is an opinion from a professional humor writer, right?
In this one area, I do have some credibility.
I can pick out good writing.
I mean, that's my field, right?
And Trump is great.
He is a great writer.
He's unconventional, but he is a great, great writer.
You'll never get credit for that, by the way.
All right. I guess in New York City, there were threats of 10,000 police officers quitting.
The real number looks like it's going to be 34.
I'm going to end on this because I've got to run, but I will give you this general statement.
Whenever people are saying, I'm going to quit, and you think it's going to be a problem, it hardly ever is.
Hardly ever. You should usually bet against it.
When anybody says, I'm going to quit, and if I do, even if they quit, I'm not saying they won't quit, the quitting part might be real.
But the fact where something bad happens, usually not real.
If your best employee leaves, what happens?
Not much. If the founder leaves, what happens?
Often not much. The difference would be a Steve Jobs, a Bill Gates, that sort of thing.
That makes a difference. But usually people can threaten to quit and quit, and you're actually going to be fine.
Just in general. You should bet against that being a problem.
