Episode 1551 Scott Adams: Today I Will Talk About the Complete Self-Annihilation of the Democrat Party, Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The employee vaccination mandate
The Middle Party
Natural antibodies, the vaccination, booster shots
Hiding behind the definition of CRT
Defining CRT versus specifics of what's taught
GOP, the "Party of Parents"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 an experience that I think will be unparalleled, at least until tomorrow, and it's called The Simultaneous Sip and Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't think there's anything better in this reality or any metaverse whatsoever.
But if you'd like to take it up a notch, I think you do.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better except for the Brandon administration.
Go. Oh, yeah.
Yeah, the antibodies just coursing through my body.
Whoa! Whoa!
Got a little extra antibodies in my shoulder.
Got to work it out. Work it out.
Spread it out. There we go.
You don't want all your antibodies in one part.
You need to get moving.
Shake them around a little bit.
Well, you all saw that Ron DeSantis is once again following in President Trump's shadow and footsteps, came up with his own sticky nickname.
Yes, he calls it the Brandon administration, as I borrowed his joke just a moment ago.
The Brandon administration.
Always gets a big laugh from the partisans.
Well, let's talk about the things that are happening.
Things that are happening.
Let's see, vaccination mandates going into effect January 4th for big employers, over 100 people.
Uh... What is there to say about that?
You know, I could say I don't like them.
You could say you don't like them.
But here's the only thing I'm going to add to this.
If you think it's the government that is mandating this, you're completely wrong.
That's probably what most of you think.
You think the government is mandating it.
And... I would argue that that's only technically true.
It is true that the government is mandating it and they have rules and whatnot.
But I remind you, as Rasmussen reminded me today, they've got a new poll, Rasmussen poll.
52% of the public surveyed support workers refusing vaccinations.
But that means there's a whole bunch of people who don't.
So just slightly more than half of the country is in favor of not doing these mandates.
Here's the thing you need to know.
If that were 75, it wouldn't be happening.
How many disagree with me?
So here's the point.
Right now, 52% of workers support not making people have to get vaccinations.
So they're opposed to the mandate.
But only 52%.
Hypothetically, if it were 75%, would it be happening?
Anybody? Does anybody think it would happen if it were 75% were against it?
I don't think so. I don't think so.
Now, you could disagree where that number is, 75 or 90 or whatever.
But my point is, the only reason the government can do this is because the public, by enough people, are on board.
Just barely. It feels like it's sort of a slim majority.
But you're not dealing with the government.
You're dealing with your fellow citizens.
If you could convince half of the remaining people who are for mandates to take your side, you'd have 75% people against mandates and they just wouldn't happen.
Does anybody doubt that?
That's my take on it.
So I think that we often mistake where power is.
Power is with the people completely.
In this country, that will just always be the case, at least for anything long-term.
If we need quick decisions, such as a war situation, then we actually prefer the government to do it because it has to be quick.
But for these longer-term considered topics, we really have the power, completely.
But we have to be on the same side or we have nothing.
So that's the difference.
I suppose if the government can keep us confused and ignorant, they do have the power.
There are effectively three political parties now.
Would you agree? Two of them are called Democrats.
You've got your progressives and then your standard Democrats, I guess.
But then Republicans are more of a unified.
So it's like three different parties.
And let me make a suggestion...
This has opened up the door, very much so, for a new party.
Maybe for the first time.
I don't think that a third party really had a choice or a chance.
And maybe they still don't.
But it's the biggest opening I've seen.
Here's how I would do it.
This is me running for president as an independent, starting my own third party.
Or fourth party, depending on how you count them.
I would call it the middle party.
I would call it the middle party.
And I would say I oppose the extreme right and the extreme left, and most people do.
Unless you're wed to the name on your registration, consider the middle party.
Because I'm going to give you stuff that makes sense.
I might raise your taxes, a little, but not a lot.
And I would do it with the support of economists and lots of support that it makes sense economically.
I might do something that would benefit the black population of this country.
But it will make sense.
It won't be stupid.
So, don't you think that the right candidate, you'd have to be the right person, but don't you think that the middle party and the name of it is very important?
If you say you're some other party, then people say, eh, why do I want to be that?
But if you say you're the middle party, guess what?
You can stay Republican.
You can stay Democrat.
You're just voting for the middle.
A lot of people like the middle, but they prefer to be a Republican.
They prefer to be a Democrat.
But they might vote for the middle.
So give them something to vote for.
And then every time somebody says, you know, what side are you on, you just stake out the middle, the sensible middle, and say, look, this is where the people are.
The people are in the sensible middle.
Take any topic. Take any topic.
The school system.
You could say, yeah, we're going to keep our public schools, but we're going to keep the option open for a competition.
Totally in the middle, totally supported.
And, you know, you could just go right down the line on different topics.
Now, how about abortion?
If you're running for president, you have to talk about it.
But here's how I'd handle it if I were the head of the middle party.
I'd say it's not a federal government decision, and I'm not going to make it one.
Because I think the authority for that should be pushed down to the lowest level you can get at the state level, ideally.
And I just say, I'm out.
I'm in the middle. Whatever the country wants, state by state, it's fine with me.
I think that could win.
You'd have to have exactly the right candidate, though.
Everybody's talking about, why did Youngkin win?
Have you noticed that whenever anything happens, there are lots of explanations?
When Trump unexpectedly won in 2016, what was the news all about the next day?
It was all about why he won.
And all the reasons were different.
It was all over the place.
I think CNN had 14 different reasons he won.
But here's the thing.
With a big, complicated thing like an election...
It's never one thing.
It's all of the things.
Every one of the things had to be the way they were for him to get the result he did.
If any of those things had been different, we're lost.
So is it sensible to say there's one thing?
Not really, because it's sort of the haystack thing.
It might be the last straw, but it's just one of the straws, right?
Is the last straw the special one?
No, it just came last.
So there might be something that, you know, breaks the logjam there.
But it's not special.
There's nothing about that one straw.
So here are the things people are saying about Junkins.
Number one, it's just a historical pattern.
I said this yesterday.
It turns out that this is exactly the result you could have predicted based on historical pattern.
That if you have a president in one party, Virginia will go to the other party.
And eight times in a row it's happened.
So that's one way. The other, of course, is that the focus was on critical race theory.
But I have a... And, you know, of course, Youngkin ran a good campaign, etc.
And I think he did a good job of keeping some distance from Trump...
And it helped that he didn't have any history as a politician.
So those are all good.
Again, you can't say there's one reason you want.
It's all of those things had to happen.
But I would like to add another variable.
Just speculation. I have a hypothesis, and maybe somebody's...
I haven't Googled this. Maybe it's already been tested.
But I feel as if I've seen a study...
Where you can show people who don't know who the candidates are.
Could be some other country where you're not familiar with the candidates.
And that people can guess who would win the election by looking at their photographs.
Did you know that? That the public...
And I need a fact check on this, but I read this a long time ago.
I think that people can tell...
Who's going to win an election by looking at the photographs, even without even knowing the names of the candidates or what they're running for?
Can somebody confirm that's true?
I think that's true.
Now, I would add a second factor.
I would bet that I... Now, I don't know if this is generalizable, but probably it is.
I'm just going to say it about myself.
I believe that if you gave me audio clips of each candidate...
In a close-ish race.
So it'd have to be a race where you think that both have at least a chance of winning, you know, not blowouts.
But in a close race, if you gave me just the audio of each of their speeches for 10 to 15 seconds, it wouldn't matter what part of the, what topic it was.
10 to 15 seconds of just hearing them talk, I can pick the winner.
That's my claim. Now, not every time, of course.
But I'll bet I could get it 75% of the time, plus.
What do you think? Do you think I could get that right 75% of the time?
I don't know. But if you heard Obama talking and compared him to whoever he ran against, I think you could have picked him.
And... And when I heard an audio of Youngkin talking, compared to Terry McAuliffe talking, I said to myself, if this is close, Youngkin's going to win.
Because there's something in his voice or his presentation or his confidence or I don't know what it is.
I don't exactly know what it is.
But there's definitely such a thing as command voice, wouldn't you say?
Nobody's going to argue with that, right?
There is such a thing as command voice.
And women have it too, right?
It's not a gender thing. Women can have a command voice.
If you've ever worked for a really good female boss...
Oh, they have it. They have command voice.
It's just the female version of it.
But it's command voice.
And I thought Youngkin had command voice.
And I thought McAuliffe was weak there.
So when I heard it, I thought, whoa, that doesn't even sound close to me.
It looks like one good candidate and one not so good.
Just on that. 15 seconds of voice.
And I said to myself, I think this guy's going to win.
And I wasn't even following the race.
Command presence.
I guess that's the better phrase for it, right?
All right. We have some more fun stuff going on.
AP did a fact check today.
See if you agree with this fact check.
What do you think?
AP says posts continue to circulate online falsely claiming that COVID-19 survivors don't need vaccines because of natural immunity.
In fact, says the AP Fact Checkers, that protection is variable and not long-lasting.
So vaccines are still recommended.
Here's our recent look at the blah, blah.
So here's my take on that.
Here's the exact claim that if you've already been infected and recovered, that your protection is variable and not long-lasting.
Is that true? So before we get to all of it, the bigger picture, is the limited claim correct that natural immunity is variable?
Well, first of all, we'll just ask you, is it variable?
Do you think there are people with good natural immunity and some with not so good?
It's true, right? So I would say that's true.
People have a variable.
It's variable. And it's also not long-lasting.
Well, what's that mean?
What does not long-lasting mean?
Well, it means anything they want it to.
So I'm not going to say it's false, because wouldn't you like your immunity to last forever?
You would, right? So the standard that would make you happy is it will last forever, because there are other immunities that seem to last forever.
And they're saying that this doesn't do that.
So it's not long enough to make us happy.
Is that fair? Is it fair to say that unlike other...
Types of natural immunity, it wouldn't be as good.
But, now let's talk about the vaccination itself.
Yeah, you're getting ahead of me.
The vaccination itself, is that variable?
Yes, it is.
Same as natural immunity.
Has everybody been on the same page so far that there's great individual variability...
Both in natural immunity and in vaccine immunity.
We're all on the same page on that, right?
Variability. So no difference there in the sense that they're both variable.
It might be a different variability, but plenty enough to say that they're similar.
How about whether vaccinations themselves are long-lasting?
Well, no. That's why we get boosters.
So you've got vaccinations that are very variable, They're variable, let's say.
Vaccinations are variable and not long-lasting.
Natural immunity is also variable and not long-lasting.
So do you say to yourself, therefore, I should not get a vaccination, because these are two things that are the same.
They're both variable and they're both not long-lasting.
Is that good thinking?
Now, we're going to talk about vaccine side effects, but for the moment, is that good thinking?
It's not good thinking. So I'm going to just help you on the thinking part of it here.
Your opinion is your own, and none of us are going to have enough information, in my opinion, to have an informed opinion.
There's a little bit of guessing.
Here's what the difference is.
If you get the vaccination, do you have the option of giving yourself natural immunity on top of it?
Well, accidentally, or I suppose you could, but generally that's not going to happen, right?
You're not going to intentionally get infected.
Most people aren't. Some might.
Whereas if you get natural immunity, you could make the decision to get vaccinated or not.
So they don't work equally in both directions.
Are we okay so far?
They're not equivalent, because in one case you can get both, in a logical, rational way.
In the other case, you wouldn't get both.
Because you got your natural immunity and you say, no more.
I don't need any more. Okay?
So there's a little bit of difference.
But here's my argument.
When it comes to antibodies, aren't more better?
Does anybody disagree with that, that having more antibodies would be better?
Now, we will talk about the risks.
So hold that.
I'm not going to forget about them.
But when you say more antibodies are better than fewer...
So what would be the argument not to have both?
Both gives you more antibodies, right?
So whether you have good natural protection or not, you get a little extra, a little turbo boost.
So is the government wrong in saying that being naturally immune, since they can't tell if it's a good one, you know, good immunity or a weak immunity, and they can't tell how long it'll last, would it not be good risk management If the vaccines were perfectly safe, and we'll talk about the rest, but if they were perfectly safe, wouldn't it make sense to do both?
And that's not the case.
There's no such thing as a vaccine that's perfectly safe.
But if it were, wouldn't you say that getting a little extra would help you?
I would say that's just math.
That's just addition.
You can't argue that this much immunity...
Is better than this much immunity plus a little extra?
There's no argument for that.
That's just math. It's like money.
What's better, $20 or $100?
There's no argument.
$100 is better than $20.
With antibodies, I don't think there's an argument, is there?
I mean, I'm open to it, but I haven't heard one.
Isn't more antibodies better?
Right? So it really comes down to the extra risk, doesn't it?
Wouldn't you say? The extra risk of the vaccination.
And I would think that a person who has natural immunity should make their own fucking decision about whether they get vaccinated.
Because the government can't tell you what your extra risk is, nor can they tell you if you have enough immunity that you're in good shape with or without a vaccination.
They're not testing your antibodies or how long they're going to last.
They don't know. And you don't know either.
If the government doesn't know what's up with you, and you don't know what's up with you, because you don't know if your natural immunity is the good kind or the bad kind, you don't really know if those extra vaccinations would give you any protection, but you do know there's a risk.
You don't know how big it is, because nobody knows.
But you've got to risk.
Right? All right.
So I would say that the argument is squarely on the side of letting people with natural immunity decide for themselves whether they want vaccinations.
And AP Fact Check might be technically true, but I feel like it's leaving out some variables here.
All right. So there was a Twitter user, WardQNormal.
I don't think that's his real name.
Maybe it is. I don't know. But he says, I will pay you $1,000, he was replying to somebody else, if you can define critical race theory and point to a single K-12 school in Virginia that has ever taught it.
So there's $1,000.
If you can define critical race theory and point to a single time it's been taught, do you think you could do that?
Well, every Republican thinks they can do that and get that $1,000.
Do you think he'll pay? No, he will not.
Because no matter what you point to, what's he going to say?
That's not critical race theory.
You'll say, well, but look at this.
Here's the book. It's, like, totally based on critical race theory.
And what would Ward Q Normal say when you asked for your $1,000, having proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Ward Q Normal would say, no, that's not critical race theory.
No. No, you're mistaken.
That's just history. You're just reading history.
So we have this weird situation where we have this thing that can't be defined by ordinary people.
I do believe experts could probably define it if they study this thing.
But for ordinary people, they seem to be confused.
And therefore, there seems to be some issue that the Democrats are arguing, no, no, it's imaginary.
It's not really there. Well, let me tell you what people are really good at identifying.
People are not really good at identifying...
If something fits a definition.
So we're kind of arguing the definition of critical race theory.
We're not good at that. But I'll tell you what we are good at.
We are good at knowing if the curriculum is anti-white.
I think we'd be good at knowing if it was anti-anything.
Because that's pretty easy to spot.
I don't care what it's called.
You can call it critical race theory if you want.
Call it anything you want. But if it's anti-ethnicity, it doesn't matter which one, you've got to get rid of it.
There's no wiggle room there.
If it's racist, it doesn't matter which race you're targeting, you've got to get rid of it.
That's not debatable.
So... Here's how CNN refers to it.
They say the term critical race theory refers to the academic concept that racism has been systematically ingrained in American society following centuries of slavery.
And I would say that most people would agree that that's what critical race theory is.
Would you agree? The big picture, that's what it is.
But the issue is, when they try to break it down into its lessons...
What's it turn into? And what it turns into is something else when you turn it into action.
And conservatives are claiming that critical race theory teaches children to think the United States is racist.
Now, isn't that true?
These are two sentences, both from an opinion piece on CNN Today by Manu Raju, Alex Rogers, and Melanie Zenona.
And see if these two sentences, and they're both right together, make sense to you.
They say the term critical race theory, blah, blah, blah, means that racism has been systematically ingrained in American society.
And then they say, but conservatives...
are claiming it teaches children to think the United States is racist.
But isn't that what they just said?
They just said that critical race theory says that we have systemic racism, and then they're blaming acting like conservatives are dumb for saying it teaches you that the United States is racist.
Isn't that exactly what they just said?
I mean, you could say it's the system, but then that's the United States.
It doesn't mean every person is necessarily racist, but...
All right.
We'll get back to that in a minute.
So Biden doesn't think he influences gas prices.
Or no, Paul Krugman. So Nobel winner, Nobel in economics.
Winner Paul Krugman says voters shouldn't be mad at Biden because he has no control over the price of gasoline.
What? You think the president has no control over our energy policy?
Pretty sure he does.
As Michael Schellenberger noted, the U.S. is the world's largest producer of oil, and Biden froze new oil and gas leases in January, and he may be opening the strategic petroleum reserve to lower prices.
So he certainly has control over Some control, not complete control, of course.
And then I would think that any push toward green and penalizing oil would have an impact, etc.
Well, we got a great, I think it's a drunk tweet from Cher, performer Cher.
I want to show you, you can see her, these are the all caps craziness.
And I'm going to read her tweet, that again is in all caps, but I'm going to read it in the character of a drunk person.
Because I don't think you can read this sober.
I think it needs to be drunk.
Allow me to get in character for a moment.
And now I read this as Cher after five martinis.
Tweeting in all caps, Joe works tireless to, to, number two, work with Kong and Pespils to help everyday Americans.
And he's here from right and left, they cause gridlock.
Well, GOP says some plans how to pick our bones clean if we fail GOP or Nazis in lockstep.
It's different between them and Congress.
I assume she passed down toward the end of that.
I don't know. But never drink and tweet.
Don't be a share. Here's some fake news that you think is true.
And it turns on the word considering.
Let me give you a little primer story.
One day, in the context of dealing with some medical issue of no consequence, my doctor just somewhat routinely asked me if I ever had thoughts of suicide, or had I ever considered suicide.
And I said, sure, every day.
And I didn't realize that was the wrong answer.
Because it turns out if you say that, Which, of course, is true.
I do consider it every day.
And then I rule it out.
Do you know what else I consider?
Jumping off the roof just to see if I can fly under my own power.
I think about that every day.
And then I rule it out.
I consider everything.
What the hell do you not consider?
Do you remember when Trump famously was asked if he was considering firing somebody in his administration at some press release?
And Trump quite accurately said, I consider firing everybody.
That's the right answer. It's a perfect answer, by the way.
Trump does not get nearly enough credit for the answers that he does that are perfect, because, you know, the ones that are provocative and more fun.
But that's a perfect answer.
Yes, I consider firing every person on my staff every day.
That's the only right answer.
So here's the fake news.
That... That the government, or I guess the DOJ, is considering, considering, I say, based on the ACLU talking to the DOJ, they considered or discussed paying $450,000 apiece to every immigrant separated from their families at the border under Trump.
Now, do you think that's true news or fake news?
That it was considered...
True news or fake? Well, when Biden was asked by Fox News if it was true, Biden says it's garbage.
He says, no, it's not true, it's garbage.
Now, the ACLU immediately said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
We are literally talking to the Department of Justice right now, and we are literally, right now, discussing $450,000 payments.
So who's right?
Biden? Or the ACLU? Go.
Who's right? Which one has the right take on it?
Both. They're both right.
Biden is 100% right, because he's looking at it politically, I assume.
And he is quite correctly saying there's no frickin' way this is going to happen.
Do you know why it's not going to happen?
Because it would destroy the Democratic Party forever.
It would be the end.
Do you think Biden doesn't know that?
Do you think he can maintain the black vote if he doesn't do reparations but he pays $450,000 to the immigrants coming across?
Do you think he can keep the black vote if he does that?
It's the end of the Democratic Party.
So when you say, Scott, but it's been confirmed.
The ACLU confirmed it.
Yeah, they're considering it.
They're considering it just like I consider taking my own life every single day.
It's things you think about that never happen.
So, now, of course, you might say to yourself, well, it might be, you know, a smaller number.
Well, they could try.
But suppose they talked it down to, let's just pick a number, 450,000.
I saw somebody on Twitter said, maybe they could get it down to 80,000 apiece.
Is that still okay?
Do you think Biden's going to want Democrats to run again, knowing that the Democratic government gave people who broke a law in this country $80,000 apiece because we inconvenienced them?
I mean, it's more than an inconvenience, but I'm speaking sort of hyperbolic here.
No. No, the Democratic Party would just be out of business completely, even more than they probably are.
We'll talk about that. But in my opinion, it is so completely politically impossible that Biden was telling the absolute truth.
I think Biden's answer that it was garbage is the accurate one, politically speaking.
Now, of course, the DOJ can act independently, right?
Yes. But it looks like the Republicans are going to do a bill and maybe stop the payments even if the DOG wanted to, blah, blah.
So there will be plenty of machinations that will stop this from happening.
I don't think you have to worry about it.
So it's semi-fake news.
It's true and false at the same time.
Tom Elliott tweeted a little clip in which former Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter...
Was talking about the election in Virginia, and she said, the one thing that we need to make sure of is that Republicans in 2022 don't become the party of parents.
Because the Democrats know they're in trouble if the Republicans become obviously the ones who are taking care of children, and the Democrats are not.
Is she right? Well, too late.
Too late.
As Mr.
Durr noted, the truck driver who won his race, as Mr.
Durr notes, he said that the Democrats went too far because they were messing with our children.
So the truck driver, an established incumbent, Presumably on the message, stop messing with our children.
Now he said messing, I use the F word.
But again, the Democrats have this blind spot about how Republicans think.
I don't know is the same on the other side.
It might be. Maybe that works both ways.
But there's a gigantic blind spot.
Let me give you, there are two blind spots.
Number one, and I've talked about this, when Alec Baldwin had his tragic firearms accident there, and people on the left could not understand why people on the right were saying, no, it's Alec Baldwin's responsibility, period, when logical, rational people were saying, wait a minute, rationally?
He was part of a system in which that responsibility was delegated.
It's a mature system, works all the time.
There's a reason they do it.
Should have been safe. He made a reasonable decision.
There's no liability. Now, what's every gun owner say?
Blah, blah, blah. He had the gun in his hand.
It's his responsibility, period.
Blah, blah, blah. Now, the left can't understand that because they're like, ah, don't you understand...
That clearly there can be exceptions.
You can make an exception.
Use your common sense and make an exception.
And the exception in this case would be the safety had been delegated to somebody who's a professional to make sure it's safe.
That should have been good enough.
Common sense. And then the gun owners say, the gun was in his hand, it's his responsibility.
That's the end of the conversation.
Who's right? Well, there's a weird hybrid going on here.
I believe that gun owners are rationally irrational.
Here's what I mean. The moment you say, you know, this isn't an absolute.
You know, we're going to say there are gun safety rules and responsibilities and stuff, but use your common sense.
So what happens the first time you say use your common sense?
How does that work out?
Well, here's common sense.
Don't leave a loaded gun around where there are children.
Like, you wouldn't leave it on your table loaded if any kids were in the room, right?
Common sense. No gun owner who is responsible would do that.
But let's say you use the other standard, common sense.
Does everybody have the same amount of common sense?
I don't think so. You don't think that that would give permission for somebody to say, yeah, it's available to the kid, but it's not going to happen because I'm closer to the table than the children are, and if I see the children go for the gun, I'll just get there first.
I'm just using my common sense.
There's no way they're going to get the gun, even though it's just sitting right out there, because I'm closer to the table.
Common sense people, if my kid is heading toward the table, I'm going to protect the gun.
And then what happens? Boom.
Right? You lose your concentration, you walk away, a kid picks up the gun, trouble.
So, I believe gun owners pursue something I would call rational irrationality, because it works.
It is irrational to say there never can be an exception.
The reason they do it is because it works.
Right? It's an irrational system that's the only one that works.
So gun owners know that.
So when you argue, no, the responsibility was somebody else, gun owners don't even want to have the conversation.
Because you don't want to open that door a crack.
Not even a crack.
Because as soon as you say common sense is the standard, people get killed.
Every gun owner knows that.
Now, how many people on the left could have explained it with the nuance that I just explained it?
Not many. In fact, I've never heard it.
So, let's see.
That was going to dovetail into a really good point.
Probably... Oh, here was the point.
The other blind spot that the Democrats have is the flexibility of Republicans.
Am I right? Because, you know, you can poke them forever, it seems like.
You know, they'll poke you.
Oh, you have to use this word.
I hate that word. You have to use it anyway.
You have to use this word. Ah, but I don't want to.
Yeah, I'm poking you a little bit.
And then the conservatives say, you know, I've got better things to do.
I'm not going to die on that hill.
And then they say, you know, you're going to raise your taxes a little bit.
Just a little bit. Raise your taxes.
And the Republicans say, hey, we hate that.
We hate that. Ah, you know. I've got a lot to work on today.
I'm not going to dedicate my life to this one little area of life.
And next to another, they're just pushed and pushed and pushed.
And that's what's been happening, it seems, lately.
But here's the blind spot.
Republicans are not flexible about children.
That's the red line.
Have you heard of abortion?
No. Republicans are not flexible about children and their safety and well-being, and their education especially.
And as soon as the Democrats crossed that line and said, you know, how about we educate your children the way we want to, and by the way, we're going to turn them against you.
We're going to tell your children that you're a racist.
Your parents. We're going to tell your children that you're a racist and you don't understand science and climate change and everything else.
That's the red line. Everything on the other side of the red line is different from everything on the other side.
Everything on the other side, a little bit flexible, or at least maybe not willing to fight for it.
Everything on the other side of the line, that's game over.
That's game over.
So in my opinion, 2022 and 2024 are largely already decided.
Because the Democrats...
You could call it an overreach, but that really would be minimizing how big of a problem this is.
The Republicans are now squarely the party that's going to protect your kids as well as their own.
There's no question about that now.
And not only that, but they have the perfect opening to partner with the black American public to fix schools, because everybody wins then, right?
So... Of course, it's always dangerous to make predictions more than a day in advance, and even that's dangerous.
So lots of things could change between now and elections, especially if Trump makes some big waves somehow.
But at this point, the Republicans have a death grip on power.
It'll take a while for the elections to make that happen.
But I don't see how a Republican can lose unless they're trying at this point.
Because all you have to do is say, they're destroying your children, we're protecting them.
What do you care about?
It's kind of over. So...
Here's a question.
If China wanted to destroy the West, but they had lots of patience, how would they do it?
Well, there are lots of ways to do it.
But I would think the main way they'd do it would be to...
To destroy our most powerful, let's say, social cohesion.
And what is the most powerful social cohesion in this country?
Well, marriage was for a long time, and we see that falling apart.
But the other one is the melting pot idea.
When I grew up, and many of you as well, we were really brainwashed into saying that the melting pot was our strength and our power and to respect it.
And I think I did.
I think the brainwashing worked.
I'm happy about that. I mean, I call it brainwashing because children shouldn't be making their own decisions about the big stuff.
You kind of have to brainwash them.
Later, you hope that they can think for themselves.
Probably not. But there isn't a system better than that because children can't really make big decisions.
If I were China and I wanted to ruin the West, I would fund anybody, either secretly or not secretly, who pushed critical race theory.
That would be with a way for China to destroy the country.
Because it would destroy the melting pot, you know, we all at least have equal opportunity.
Even if you think that's not true, it's a good fiction to hold a country together.
And so I would strongly wonder if China's at all behind it, whether they thought of it.
I have to wonder.
Because China is more ethnically similar Give me a fact check on that.
I think so. That feels right.
So it would be an advantage to them if they could get our melting pot to fall apart.
And it looks like they're working on that.
Or somebody is. Or it's just happening.
I don't know. But it looks like...
It's so corrosive, it looks like it's coming from an enemy.
It doesn't look like it's coming from within.
Rachel Maddow is complaining about...
Fox News saying they're building a campaign platform, talking about CRT as a big topic, they're building a campaign platform for conservative candidates to run on it everywhere.
And then she says, even though it's not actually taught anywhere.
Even though it's not a real thing.
Here's the thing. If she has to hide behind the definition of the word, that's her argument.
That I define it differently.
She's not even talking about the content or the reality of it.
Just, you know, can I define this as CRT or is it just stuff we say that happens to be in the same topic and compatible with it?
I feel that that's...
It's like a sign of knowing you've got nothing.
I mean, knowing your gun is empty, basically.
And all the GOP has to do...
To prove anybody wrong is point to any example of it.
And apparently there are lots of them.
You can find the school documents that show pretty clearly things that look like CRT to people who have not studied CRT. So the Republicans have this total winning play here.
They can just keep hammering on this CRT thing, and I think it's going to work for a long time.
Now, there are lots of topics where...
People are equally incentivized on both sides.
Take abortion. The people who are pro or anti-abortion are really worked up about it, right?
So I'm not even sure which way that works, election-wise, because people are equally worked up on both sides.
But this is a weird topic, because the CRT stuff totally activates the right...
But on the other side, there's not really much traction.
In other words, it's an unbalanced topic.
It can only be bad for Democrats.
That's it. It can only be bad.
There's no sense where they can motivate their people to get more CRT in the school Do you see people marching in the streets?
Yes. More critical race training in the schools.
Now, of course, there are plenty of advocates.
That's why it exists. But in terms of the energy, I would say the advocates are mostly people getting paid to be advocates.
I don't know that the public cares that much.
But the public Republicans sure care that it's there or some version of it they don't like.
So in terms of a political topic, it could not be more perfect.
For the Republicans going forward.
And I think Rachel Maddow is correct that Fox News either accidentally or wisely decided that this was going to be the winning issue.
And they basically created a topic that every Republican can win on.
And I think that Rachel Maddow is quite correct in calling out Fox News as having created a message and a method that Republicans can use to win.
And they would support it with their platform.
All right. I read a fascinating story from an experienced trucker about what the real supply chain problem is.
And I'm not sure if this is different from what you've heard, but he's certainly coming at it a little differently.
It goes like this. The reason that there are not enough truckers to take away the stuff is because the job of being a trucker is terrible, primarily now because of how long you have to wait for your truck to be loaded or unloaded.
So now you have multi-hour waits in which the independent truckers don't get paid.
You could have an eight-hour wait to get your container on your truck.
On top of that, apparently we need something like 10,000 specialized chassis that we don't have because not every truck can carry a container.
You have to have a special chassis for that.
And apparently we're way underwater in the number of chassis.
Now, why is that?
Somebody says, I told you this for days.
I told you this for days.
So, why is it that we suddenly don't have chassis?
Does anybody know? Well, I think it's because as soon as things get bunched up, everything breaks at once.
We probably had enough chassis when there wasn't a big backlog.
But as soon as there's a big backlog, you don't have enough chassis.
And then if you don't have enough chassis, the backlog just keeps building up.
And then you can't do anything.
So basically, nobody can move because there aren't chassis and there aren't truckers to take things away.
But even if there were, they'd have to work 24 hours a day to move anything.
And there are a number of other regulatory problems, etc.
So the interesting thing about this is it looks like everything broke at the same time.
There's something about this we don't understand still.
I feel like this got us closer.
But when you say something like, we don't have enough chassis, you have to explain why we had enough chassis a month ago or whenever this started.
Why did we have enough chassis before and suddenly we don't?
It's not chassis, right?
Unless we're short just because we have so much backup.
Follow the ownership and the money.
All right, here's the point. You'd think that the trucking companies would fix this, right?
Economics should work.
So the trucking companies should want to fix this by raising the salary of truckers or doing something.
But here's the problem.
The trucking companies are already getting rich because they're doing all the business that they can handle.
The trucking companies don't need to do anything.
They're all so busy making money that they have more business than they can handle.
So do they have any incentive to do anything?
Well, yeah, I mean, more money is better.
But if you're making money like crazy and you're fully busy and you can't hire new truckers, you're not really thinking in terms of expanding.
You're just going to chase the money while you can.
So we have this weird set of problems that all happen simultaneously to create an economic incentive where nobody can do anything.
Nobody has the economic incentive To change things enough.
They all have an economic incentive to make it better, but nobody individually, not the trucking companies, not the shippers, not the container makers, nobody has enough economic incentive, apparently, to, like, do something big, and you'd have to do something big.
Yeah, and I was also wondering, it's kind of a big coincidence that we had this problem at the same time we're talking about decoupling from China, Because that's suspiciously convenient, isn't it?
You know, one of the things I tell you about fake news is that it's too convenient.
This is a little too convenient to the decoupling story.
But it could be a coincidence.
I won't rule it out, but it's a little convenient.
All right. Climate Change Summit turned into a joke with their private jets, and I guess 60% of their meals had beef and dairy, which is not cool, apparently, if you're attending a Climate Change Summit.
China didn't even go.
So what was the point of the Climate Change Summit if China didn't go, Russia didn't go, the people who attended went in private jets, and they ate food that they would not recommend for the world?
I think this turned into a complete disaster, right?
I think this is the moment that the world realized it's a fraud.
Now, climate change is real, in my opinion, meaning that humans are making the planet warmer at some rate.
I'm less alarmed than other people are, but I think basic science is probably right.
So the Climate Change Summit, which I think was supposed to be positive PR for getting something done, turned into the opposite, didn't it?
Didn't it show us for sure that it's a hoax?
Because if the people who were flying in these private jets were even a little bit serious about it, they'd be living it to model it.
They'd be leading us by modeling it.
They wouldn't be leading us by taking private jets to talk to each other.
Yeah. So I think this is a huge failure.
I mean, about as big as you can get.
Here's my idea and somebody else's idea for reparations.
You ready? The first idea is instead of giving $450,000 to each immigrant, you could give each immigrant who was separated at the border under Trump one Hunter Biden painting worth $450,000.
Anybody have a problem with that plan?
Now, I know it would keep Hunter busy for a while, but that's part of the benefit of the plan.
Keep him away from the rest of people, right?
Yeah, one Hunter Biden painting to every person who got separated at the border.
Apparently somebody else had that idea before I did, but I don't know who it was.
Here's my idea for reparations.
And first I'll give you Raul Davis' idea.
So on Twitter, Raul Davis, who you should follow.
So look for Raul Davis, CEO branding expert.
He'll pop right up. And he said, he tweeted, the government should create an NFT, that's a little digital piece of art, an NFT reparations fund.
Half proceeds to go to black reparations.
Get together the top white liberal actors, artists, and business leaders.
They should all be willing to provide NFT artwork for the government program.
It's not a bad idea, is it?
All the people who want reparations, the famous ones, they could create a little piece of art and just sell it.
And then the proceeds go to some kind of reparations fund.
But I'm going to take it one step further.
Are you ready to have your mind blown?
Ready? I'm going to blow your mind.
We are, and I think you'd agree, and Facebook certainly agrees, transitioning as a species from a sort of organic species into a metaverse digital virtual reality species.
True or false? Do you accept the premise?
It might be 20 years, it might be 30 years, but do you accept the premise that we're guaranteed to be spending a lot of time in the multiverse?
Maybe not your generation, but the one after.
I'm going to say yes.
Stay with me here.
Don't argue the assumptions yet.
Now, if we believe that black Americans were highly disadvantaged in the real world because of slavery, and then systemic racism that grows from that, what would be the one time in human history we could fix that?
See where I'm going?
You could make the reparations in the metaverse.
You could give every black American who would be, let's say, the recipient of reparations if we were to do reparations, you could give them digital assets.
That would have actual monetary value when they entered the metaverse.
So every black American who signs up for the metaverse, whether it's Zuckerberg's version or another one, gets automatic a digital payment, and they start with an advantage.
What do you think? Here's another way to do it.
Now, would this be fair?
No, of course not. It wouldn't be fair.
But... I'd have a conversation about it.
I'd at least talk about it.
Here's another version.
Give every black American in the form of reparations some WEN tokens.
Now, the WEN is my own and my ex-startup's token.
The startup is gone, but the token remains because they live forever on the blockchain.
You could give everybody a bunch of WEN tokens or some other crypto, but I'll just pick my own, and then just say to people, hey, if you'd like reparations to be a thing...
Buy some when for yourself.
Because if you buy one for yourself, just as a speculation or investment, I wouldn't call it an investment, speculation.
If you buy it for yourself, you could make some money if it goes up.
You could lose some money if it goes down.
But if it goes up, and just the fact that you bought it, should make the WEM tokens that the black owners of it have go up in value.
So you could simply make yourself rich and also black Americans who got reparations rich simply by investing in it.
Now, again, it's not really an investment because crypto, I don't consider it an investment.
What about it? Who loses?
Nobody, right? Nobody loses.
Because there's a whole bunch of WEN tokens.
You could just give a bunch away and say, all right, everybody gets one WEN. And then say, if you want people to have reparations, buy some WEN. You'll make money, too, because yours might go up at the same time.
Not guaranteed. But if it does, suddenly black Americans have a nice little...
A little pot of crypto that they can turn into real cash.
So those are my ideas, and Raul's ideas as well.
And I don't know that these are good ideas.
I like to put out the bad idea version, and then maybe that makes somebody think, well, that's a bad idea, but if you change this part, it might work.
That's usually the philosophy with which I do this.
