Episode 1565 Scott Adams: I Don't Think I'll Be Standing For the National Anthem While My Government is Hunting Citizens
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
55%, Bannon arrest is political prosecution
52%, O'Keefe raid politically motivated
Excessive prison time to "make an example" isn't valid
100,000 US overdose deaths this year
Chinese state sanctioned rape?
Jury concerned for their personal safety
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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'll ever happen to you ever, ever in the rest of your life.
Somebody's saying that I kneel for the National Anthem.
No, no, I don't kneel for anything, just to be clear.
I'm not going to kneel for the National Anthem, and I'm not going to kneel for the Black National Anthem or any other anthem.
Because I'm not going to kneel for anything.
Period. I might not stand up, but that's different.
Not standing up is different.
Well, we'll get into all of that.
Let's say that on a controversy level, today will be a 10 out of 10.
Do you like your controversy and your news?
Do you like it? I know you do.
You love it. You love it.
Savor it. Savor it.
All right, if you wanted to make this day special, more special than it already is, and it's already pretty great.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Do, do, do, do, do, do, do.
Wait a minute.
I'm getting a report.
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do.
This from Ben Greenfield, a tweet, says a study in the Japanese adults found that higher intakes of coffee were associated with a 51% lower risk of dementia.
Yeah, and green tea didn't help a bit.
Well, screw your green tea.
Coffee will take your dementia down to nothing.
And now, a simultaneous sip.
Go! I don't know about you, but I do feel my dementia going down a little bit.
Approximately 51%, 51%.
That's what it feels like.
Ooh, antibodies.
Antibodies. Coming online.
Going hot. All right.
You know, most topics in the United States end up coming down to left and right.
You've got your Democrats and you've got your Liberals.
You've got your conservatives and your Republicans on the other side.
But there is one topic that does not seem to line up by party.
It's the topic of federal legalization of weed.
It's the only topic that is lined up by smart people on one side and then stupid fucking idiots on the other side.
Am I wrong? Because on the side that wants to legalize and stuff like that, you've got your Rand Pauls, Republican.
He's in favor of loosening up on the federal stuff.
But you also have lots of Democrats.
And I would guess that if you took all the Republicans who were in favor of loosening up and all the Democrats who were in favor of loosening up, you'd probably have something pretty good.
Why is anybody on the other side...
Yeah, the libertarians do.
Who's on the other side?
Because Chuck Schumer is, and I guess some Republican leadership is.
This is not about left or right, is it?
This is not about...
That's the weirdest comment I've ever seen.
I'm not going to read it. I totally threw off my game.
You bastard. You bastard.
You know who you are. That was pretty funny.
All right. I'm not going to share that with you.
But in the topic of weed legalization, really, let's stop calling this political.
There are well-informed people who think we should loosen up And they're fucking idiots who think we shouldn't.
That's it. This is the one topic where it's just smart people and idiots.
And it's the cleanest...
It is the cleanest topic I've ever seen on this.
Are there any other topics you've ever seen in which it broke down not by political party?
It broke down by smart people and fucking idiots?
Can you think of anything else like that?
Honestly, is there any other topic like that?
Yeah, term limits, I don't know.
Term limits sorted. I think that can be all over the place.
Yeah. Okay.
Bill Barr continues to be the most interesting person in political commentating because he's doing something fairly heroic.
Which he's trying to turn the ship on his side.
But I swear to God he's doing it single-handedly.
It's like he doesn't have any help at all.
And what I mean is he's the only person with one eye in the land of the blind.
And he's realizing what the left is doing.
He can see the overreach.
I guess that's the best way to say it.
He can see that he still likes the left in terms of general politics.
But he can see the overreach.
And he's trying to push back about that, you know, using his platform.
And he had an interview with Chris Cuomo that I definitely recommend you watch.
Because... And I hope I can do this justice.
But you have to see Bill Maher correct Cuomo in the gentlest way I've ever seen anybody corrected on anything.
And it's kind of brilliant.
I mean, my instinct was he should have gone harder at it, but when I think about it a little bit more, I think the pacing and the leading are important.
So here's the setup.
Cuomo says that nobody even understands what CRT means, much less do we teach it in school.
It's not being taught in school, and nobody even knows what it means.
But it's definitely not being taught in schools.
So that's what Cuomo says on CNN, your trusted news source station.
He says this to Bill Maher.
Bill Maher, of course, knows this is a lie.
In kind, right?
It's not a direct lie, but it is intended to mislead.
Clearly. Because the answer is that the CRT ideas are baked into the...
Into the curriculum in a lot of schools.
And they just don't call it CRT. Because they're not teaching the theory.
They're just taking parts of it and embedding it in the curriculum.
So that gives CNN enough cover to say it doesn't exist.
But it does exist.
Bill Maher knows it exists.
He says he read up on it.
There it is. Saw it himself.
There's no question it exists.
It just isn't called that.
It's just embedded. And you have to see how gently Bill Maher, without actually disagreeing with him, corrects him.
It's actually really, in terms of quality of communication, it's really good.
I don't know, I was just impressed with how he did it.
That you could see somebody totally fact-checked, And I guess here's the frame that makes it interesting.
CNN is supposed to be the news.
So CNN is the one that's supposed to be bringing the facts.
Their guest fact-checked them on live TV and didn't even get any pushback.
Because he did it so cleverly, there was nothing to push back.
It was really done well.
All right, nuclear energy is the new solar panels.
That's me talking. Nuclear energy is the new solar panels, meaning it's the new thing.
Indonesian government said they plan to replace their coal plants with nuclear because they have some questions about the viability of solar and wind and geothermal.
Now, almost every story you've seen about nuclear energy in the past six months All positive, right?
Any exception? 100% of the news coverage of nuclear energy for the last six months is positive.
You've never seen that before, right?
I'm not wrong, am I? It just all turned positive all at once.
And not only did it turn positive, but people are getting that it's the replacement for solar power, or an alternative, or an addition.
I wouldn't say replacement.
This is gigantic.
And I have to ask, how much did Mark Schneider's influence on this topic matter?
Because he influenced a lot.
How much did Michael Schellenberger's influence on this topic matter?
Yeah, because I think Schellenberger and Mark Schneider were the two voices that I heard the most, and I tried to boost their signal as much as possible.
In my case, I'm just a booster.
But I feel like there was this giant battleship that was going in one direction, and there were just a few little tugboats, like, trying to move it a little bit.
And I think it changed directions.
Yeah, Bill Gates invested in a nuclear power company, that's true.
How much did the China Syndrome poison perception?
Probably a lot, because movies make a big difference.
Probably a lot. Alright, so that's good news.
Nuclear is moving in all the right direction.
So that's your golden age coming.
As Joe Concha noted in a tweet today, Ron DeSantis is holding a press conference today, which is not the interesting part.
The interesting part is he chose to do it in a town in Florida called Brandon.
And he's going to be at a Honda dealership called Brandon Honda.
Good job, Ron DeSantis.
I doubt it's a coincidence.
Probably not a coincidence.
So good job, trolling-wise.
Rasmussen Polls has a poll result today that says 55% of people who are asked, voters, I guess, say Bannon prosecution is politically motivated.
55%. Just think about this.
55% of the country...
Thinks that they just watched a man be arrested without a crime, and that the government is doing it to punish him for political reasons.
Now, I don't know if there's a crime or not.
I'm no expert on that.
But it does look like it's a political prosecution.
I mean, I guess technically it's a crime because he's not showing up to testify.
Also, Rasmussen asked about the O'Keefe raid, you know, the Project Veritas stuff, and 52% of the public say that's politically motivated.
Bannon and O'Keefe, two people associated with the political right, and over half of the country, so that's more than just Republicans, right?
This is over half of the country in both cases, say this looks politically motivated.
There's something happening.
Do you feel it? This is part of the story.
I'm going to piece together the whole tapestry as we go.
But this is important.
That it's not just the right who notices now that the government has overreached.
Because at 55%, you're way past the number of Republicans.
You're into the Bill Maher territory, where even the reasonable people on the left are saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
That's a little too far.
Let's keep going. You heard that Jacob Chansley, he was the so-called QAnon shaman, the guy who was part of the January 6th protest.
I call it a protest.
He got 41 months in federal prison.
One of the longest sentences handed down so far in connection with the event.
So he got one of the longest sentences.
Did nothing violent.
Didn't threaten anything violent.
Didn't do anything violent. They said that his little flag thing was a weapon, because it had a flagpole.
This is a political prosecution.
So now we've got Bannon, O'Keefe, and Jacob Chensley.
Now, I'm not saying he didn't break a law.
I'm saying that the penalty is clearly to make an example of him.
And let me say this as clearly as I can.
I can't stand for the National Anthem anymore.
Just a personal thing.
You can do whatever you want.
I'm not trying to convince you.
And I'm not siding with Black Lives Matter, and I'm definitely not going to kneel for the National Anthem because I don't kneel for anything.
I just don't kneel for things.
It doesn't matter what it is. So I'm not going to be kneeling for anything.
But I don't think I can stand for a government.
And I realize the national anthem is not the government, per se.
But you get the point.
You know, our national symbols...
They have two purposes.
One is to unite the country, but the other is it gives us a protest focus.
So they're kind of handy in two directions that way.
And personally, I don't want to show respect for a country that would use somebody as an example.
If you say right out loud, we're going to make an example of somebody, I'm done with you.
That's not a government I support.
Nope. You can put somebody in jail because they committed a crime.
Cool. But if you put somebody in jail extra long to make an example of him, not cool.
Not cool. No respect for that.
So going forward, I won't be standing for the national anthem.
And again, I don't care what you think about it, and I'm not trying to convince you.
I'm just saying that my personal standard...
For respecting my government has been surpassed.
I can't respect this government anymore.
Now, I've got lots of complaints about lots of things, as we all do.
The government gives you lots of stuff to complain about.
But this is different.
Yeah, dude, I understand the government is not the country.
Fucking listen for a second, huh?
Like, some people are already flipping out.
Can you fucking understand that I said that directly before you did?
So to disagree with me, say something that's fucking different than what I just said.
This guy's going to turn it off.
Oh, I'm done with you because you don't understand the government is different than the country.
Just fucking said that.
I just fucking said that.
Jesus Christ. All right.
Go off and be against weed legalization.
I think you're on that team. All right.
Do I seem to have an attitude today?
I don't know. I think it's going to get worse.
Stay with me. All right.
As long as the government is making examples of conservatives, I'm done with the government.
Speaking of the government, there's a national Quinnipiac poll that gives the GOP a plus 8 on a generic ballot.
What that means is if a generic Republican ran against a generic Democrat, which of course doesn't happen in the real world, the Republican would win solidly.
Now, of course, gerrymandering and all that doesn't make that a real thing.
But it does show you where the public is at.
And according to Quinnipiac, Biden's approval is only at 36%.
And his approval on the economy is 34%.
And do I need to remind you, it's the economy, stupid.
If you're 34% on the economy, you can't get re-elected.
But it doesn't matter.
He's not going to run anyway.
However, I should remind you, I told you that Rasmussen was plus 13 on a similar question, right?
That's a pretty big difference.
Plus 13 versus plus 8.
But they're both so solidly in the same direction.
That means something. I should mention that the Rasmussen poll, which has the higher number, 13-point difference, they have classically done a better job of taking a representative sample of voters.
Other polls tend to be Democrat-heavy, for whatever reason.
And so I would lean toward Rasmussen's number of 13 as more credible than the 8, But they're both in the same direction.
So they both say the same thing.
So the government will fall, it appears.
And it has to.
It has to. The government has to fall.
It has disappointed us greatly.
You want to hear some more disappointment?
I saw this in a tweet by Aaron, and I can't say his last name.
Who has a last name that I can't say in public?
And do you know why? It's a last name that I can't say in public.
I can't say it because the last name is spelled S-I-R-I. And if I say his last name, it will activate all your iPhones.
So I can't say it.
But somebody named Aaron...
With the last name that's an iPhone digital assistant.
He tweets this.
That the FDA... Now, this is the FDA is asking this.
This is a key part of the story.
The FDA is asking this.
Is asking a federal judge to grant it until the year 2076.
That's a long time from now.
To fully release Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccination data.
What? Wait, what?
I have to read that again.
The FDA asked federal judge to grant it until the year 2076 to fully release Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine data.
You fucking motherfuckers.
You fucking motherfuckers.
The FDA is corrupt, obviously.
If you had any doubt, you don't have any doubt now, do you?
I have said from the first, and again this was a personal opinion, that the benefit of a doubt or maybe the presumption would be in favor of the vaccines being safe.
The presumption, without definite knowledge, but my personal presumption was that the vaccines were probably safe enough.
This changes my assumption.
Presumption. It changes my presumption.
I think this information, you would have to presume it's unsafe, or less safe than they're telling you.
Let me be clear.
I'm not going to say unsafe.
That would be too strong, because the evidence doesn't suggest that.
But it does suggest that it's less safe than reported.
Are you with me? Why would they hide information if it's good?
Can you think of any reason?
Well, there are two reasons to hide information.
Well, one reason to hide information if it's good.
There are two reasons to hide information.
One is it's bad, so you don't want people to know.
But the other is that it's not bad, but people might mistakenly think it is.
Now, that's the case with Trump's tax returns.
We don't know if Trump's tax returns show something bad, and I really doubt it because, you know, he gets audited, he's got professionals doing stuff.
But there's a 100% chance people would think it was bad because it's complicated and they don't understand taxes.
There would be something there.
So the good reason not to release good news is that the good news can be embarrassing because people will misinterpret it.
But that wouldn't be a problem until 2076.
You could just wait five years.
If the problem was you want people to misinterpret the data, just wait two years, right?
Because then the pandemic's mostly over.
Five years to be safe.
But if you make 50-plus years to release this shit, you have to assume they're hiding bad news.
What else could you assume?
You fucking assholes.
Now, I'm going to give them a little bit of safety.
It is entirely possible that the government lied to you in what they thought was your best interest.
Here would be an example of what that would look like.
It could be that the vaccines are more dangerous than has been represented, but you're still better off, country-wise, getting them.
Not individually.
Individually, you know, all bets are off.
But it might be better for the country, even if everybody knew these were more dangerous than reported.
It's possible. But, does your country, your government, have the right to lie to you for your own benefit?
They can do it. Obviously they can do it and get away with it.
But do they have the right to do that?
No. No, they don't.
They don't have that right.
And for this, the government should fall.
The FDA needs to answer to this, and if they can't answer for it, the government needs to fall.
This is a government-ending thing right here.
If you lie to the public this badly, even for good intention, and I don't know if there was any bad intention by anybody, but if you lie this badly, the government has to be replaced.
And by the way, I have no belief that things would have been different under Trump.
Because it's the FDA, right?
It's not really the president who's doing anything on this, I don't think.
Not yet. So this probably would have been the same.
The FDA probably would have acted the same under Trump.
This isn't even political. Next topic.
U.S. has reached 100,000 deaths from overdoses.
75% of them are some big numbers from fentanyl.
Now that's the way the news is reported, but of course the news is reported incorrectly.
Here's the way to correctly report this story.
The real story is China worked with Mexican cartels to murder over 60,000 Americans just this year, and our government did almost nothing about it.
Again. Now when I say again, I mean Trump did almost nothing about it.
I mean, he was catching stuff at the border a little more aggressively, maybe.
And he talked to China, and China did nothing.
So that's as close to nothing as you could get.
I give Trump a failing grade on fentanyl.
And I give Biden a failing grade as well.
But I give the news an extra failing grade because they're not even reporting the fucking story right.
The story is China is murdering 60,000 fucking Americans a year through the cartels.
They send the drugs to the cartels to get into this country.
And our government isn't doing a fucking thing about it.
That's the story. The story is we're being murdered by tens of thousands and our government isn't doing a fucking thing about it.
The government has to fall.
The government has to fall.
On just this topic.
By the way, I would say the same thing about Trump, I think.
If we had gone this long and Trump hadn't done a fucking thing about fentanyl, I'd want him replaced too.
Just to be clear, no politics involved here.
No politics.
I don't care who it is.
If you can't get this done, or at least try hard, fuck you.
What do we do about drug overdoses?
Well, it turns out that there's a very clear way to solve it, because the Netherlands has solved it, and other countries have too.
So this big old drug problem that we're wrestling with, it does have a known solution.
Basically, you arrest the people who are doing drugs in the streets, or addicts, basically.
You force them into rehab.
You give them a choice of jail or rehab, which basically forces them into rehab, and it works.
So you keep arresting the dealers, but the people get rehab, it's just forced.
Now, apparently, forced rehab works just as well as voluntary.
Did you know that? Rehab isn't really a perfect process.
It's not very good at all, actually.
But it's the best we have.
And it doesn't matter if you're forced into it or you do it voluntarily.
Apparently, you get about the same level of success.
Alright, so given that, as Michael Schellenberger is doing, at this point he's just a national treasure, because the two of our biggest problems in the world, climate change, he's behind the push for nuclear energy, and now the drug overdose problem and the homelessness and all that, he's taken that on, and it turns out that these are problems with solutions.
I mean, think about this.
We have lots of problems where you can't really know what the solution is, like inflation.
I don't know exactly what to do about that.
I mean, we could stop wildly spending, but once it's here, and we've already done the wild spending, what do you do about it?
So there's lots of problems that we don't know what to do about them, but this isn't one of them.
Climate change is not a problem we don't know what to do about it.
We do. Nuclear energy.
This overdose problem is not a problem that we don't know what to do about it.
We do! We know exactly what to do about it because other countries have handled it with great success.
We just do what they do.
And there's no reason to think that our culture or our situation or society would have a different outcome at all once you know what the solutions are.
I mean, they're just basic stuff.
Well... So here's my take on China.
So they've got a one-two punch going on here.
So they send fentanyl to kill liberals, mostly.
Now that's a gross generalization.
There are plenty of conservatives who've died from fentanyl.
But it's probably concentrated a little bit more on the left.
Now who normally protects the people on the left in this country?
The people on the right.
It's usually the conservatives who are backing strong police forces, strong defense, protection, basically.
But the conservatives are not protecting the people on the left who are dying by tens of thousands.
Why not? Why not?
Why is this the exception?
I mean, generally we have a country where the conservatives are protecting liberals from killing themselves one way or another.
But why not this time?
It's because our press is preventing it.
Because the press decides what we think, right?
The public's opinion and what we do is based on the media.
So to me, it looks like China has neutered the conservatives because they somehow can control the media.
And once the conservatives are off the field, they can just murder the liberals because there's nobody there to protect them.
That's what it looks like to me.
They just neuter the conservatives with the media and murder the liberals with fentanyl.
Apparently, and this is an unconfirmed report, so put this in the category of things I saw claimed on Twitter.
I would need a confirmation on this one.
But apparently, according to the story, China is paying influencers in this country to run a video that says COVID came from the U.S. from a white-tailed deer.
That's what China is doing right now.
They're pushing propaganda in this country.
In this country. Paying influencers.
Now this influencer said no.
Turned them down. But they're pushing the idea that came from the white-tailed deer.
Okay. Here's a little bit more on China.
Did you know that China...
I think it's the top female player...
From China. She was a whistleblower and said some powerful Chinese communist guy sexually molested her.
I don't know the details of that.
But then she disappeared.
That's right. Peng Shui...
I hope I'm pronouncing that right.
She disappeared, and nobody knows where she is, but they've seen one screenshot...
Yes, I should note that there are lots of conservatives in, let's say, rural Kentucky who have drug problems.
But the fentanyl part of their drug problem is accidental, as it is for most people, actually.
There are people who do it intentionally.
But the overdoses are usually the unintentional guys.
So this Chinese tennis player was sexually abused or raped, I think.
That is her claim.
And then the Chinese government disappeared her.
Now, Rose McGowan tweeted on this.
And, you know, Rose McGowan got the Me Too movement going in this country.
And this is a bigger story than maybe you think.
Because, first of all, it seems very clear what happened, that the Chinese government probably raped a tennis star, she talked about it, and then they're imprisoning her for just talking about it.
That probably is what's happening.
And we're not going to get any confirmation or denial that is credible, so we're never going to know what's happening.
And I don't think we'll ever see her again.
I think she's done.
Now... Up until now, I have an opinion that China has mostly pissed off the men in the United States.
I can't prove that.
But when I hear people talking about China, it's almost always men.
Am I wrong about that?
Give me a fact check.
Am I just being a biased, sexist asshole?
Or would you agree that when anybody's complaining about China attacking the United States, 95% of the time it's a man?
Am I right? Now, I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of women who see the same things.
Of course there are. But isn't it like 95% male?
I'm just looking at your comments to see if I'm way off base here.
It's disproportionate at the very light, right?
Disproportionate, wouldn't you say? All right, so here's what may have happened with this Peng Shui tennis star disappearing.
This might activate American women in a way that they have not been activated against China.
It's basically a rape regime.
What do you think is happening to the Uyghurs right now?
Do you think the Uyghurs are getting raped by the guards?
I would guess yes.
I would guess yes. I would guess that state-sanctioned rape is probably a thing.
It probably is a thing. I would bet that the Chinese Communist Party does a lot of raping.
Anybody want to bet against that?
Does anyone want to bet that the high members of the Chinese Communist Party are raping like crazy?
You know they are.
It's a rapist regime.
And... Right?
There's nobody who's going to doubt that.
Right? There's no pushback on that.
Is there? You know they're raping like crazy just because they can.
There's nothing that would stop them, and unfortunately, human nature, blah, blah, blah.
So I wonder if activating the women in this country, if that happens, maybe women will ignore this too.
I don't know. But Rose McGowan's on it, and that means something.
We know she can influence the country.
Maybe she'll do it again.
So it does look like the Biden regime has turned on the country.
history.
And in a way that's hard to explain.
But they will be removed from power pretty soon.
All right. I saw a tweet from Machiavelli's Underbelly.
So that's just the name he uses for his account.
And he said this.
He said, I've been watching behavioral evolution lectures for a few months now, and my primary takeaways are, number one, nothing close to free will could possibly make any sense.
Number two, nothing we do is rational, but is almost always fit.
I think he means works to keep us alive.
And we're more complex than however complex you think you are.
All right, I agree with all these things.
But what's interesting is that the way he got there is by watching behavioral evolution lectures for months.
And when he was done with it, he thought there can't be anything like free will.
It doesn't make sense.
Now, hypnotists get there a different way.
The way hypnotists get there is without all the science.
We just do stuff that makes it clear to us that people don't have free will.
Because you can change people's preferences.
And then they act differently.
Like, where was the free will if I could change it?
If it gets changed by exterior things and there doesn't seem to be a processing level?
To hypnotists, this was always obvious.
But science takes a while to catch up.
All right, let's talk about the Rittenhouse trial.
Is there any result yet in the Rittenhouse trial?
I haven't seen anything in the comments, so I'm guessing no.
Are the jurors still out?
So they stayed out?
Again, I would like to say that I support the jurors who want to hold out.
And I'm going to go further than this.
Because we know at this point that the judge and the jury are mostly concerned about public reaction.
Would you agree with that assumption, first of all?
That both the judge...
And the jury, at this point, given that we know there's no evidence of a crime, would everybody agree with that?
That both the jury and the judge are completely aware there's no evidence of a crime?
We all know that now, because we saw the trial.
At this point, do you know what the best thing to do would be?
For the judge to declare I don't know what the legal term would be, but just to cancel the trial.
Here's why. If I were the judge, I would simply make this statement.
We have this trial, and the jurors are justifiably concerned for their safety.
And that matters, because we're going to protect the system.
We're going to protect the system, the legal system.
And when you have a situation where the jurors are afraid for their lives, you can't have a verdict.
You can't do it.
And further, since there is no evidence of any crime that was presented in the trial, I, as a judge, am just going to cancel it.
Not a mistrial. Not a mistrial with prejudice.
That's too weak.
Just call it a nothing.
Don't call it a hung jury.
Don't even call it a mistrial.
Just say, we're done.
Just say, we're done. I'll go home.
There's no evidence of a crime.
Everybody go home.
Tell me that wouldn't work.
Wouldn't it? What would be more powerful?
See, my problem is that if there's a mistrial, people are going to read it as a technicality, and they're going to think he was really guilty.
Am I wrong? That a mistrial would make some percentage of the country think that he was actually guilty but got away with it.
But if the judge said there was no evidence of a crime and we're worried for our lives, which they should be, we're just going to go home.
Because there was no evidence of a crime, there's nothing to do here.
What do you think? Because that would just rock the whole country, wouldn't it?
Because there's no name for that.
Like, it's not a mistrial, it's not a hung jury.
It's what? It doesn't have a name.
That's why it would be brilliant.
Oh, we're dismissed?
Is that a thing? I'm so ignorant of the law that...
Summary dismissal.
Would that cover what I'm saying?
Summary dismissal?
Look that up.
Summary dismissal.
That might be exactly the thing, right?
Summary... I guess that just means it's so weak a case.
It's ridiculous, right?
Somebody's going to paste the...
Summary dismissal.
Uh... Uh...
Well, I see it in the context of a job.
All right, I only see it in employment.
What is summary dismissal by a lawyer?
Okay. It would be a response to a motion for summary judgment.
Jury nullification?
Now, I wouldn't call it jury nullification.
A directed verdict?
Yeah, maybe. That would be ballsy, wouldn't it?
Imagine the judge, I don't know the legal details or whether that's even possible, but imagine him just doing a directed verdict and say, you know, I didn't see any evidence of the crime and I don't want the jurors to hit for this.
I'm a judge. I'll take the hit for it.
Dismissed. Dismissed for lack of evidence.
So that's a thing, right? Just dismissed for lack of evidence.
That would be the best...
I feel like that would be the best outcome, don't you?
Dismissed.
Okay.
Now, if it's dismissed, it could still be tried again.
I think that's the problem.
But since there was no evidence, I don't know that it would be.
Here's your lesson on cognitive dissonance for the day.
Courtesy of Senk Oyer.
How do you say Senk from the Young Turks?
How do you pronounce his last name?
Because I hate to botch people's names because it sounds like I'm being disrespectful.
Oh, it's Cenk?
It's not Senk?
Oh, it's Cenk. Okay.
Well, I got his first name wrong. Cenk...
Ugar or Weger?
Ugar. Cenk Ugar.
Okay. All right.
With all due respect to Cenk, I did not mean to get his name wrong.
And I think I've said his name wrong a bunch of times in the past, so I apologize.
Well, here's your lesson in cognitive dissonance.
So I think the Young Turks were maybe anti-Rittenhouse when it all started, but they watched the trial, and at least two of them, Cenk and Anna, Have decided that they saw self-defense.
So my first statement is, good job, Cenk and Anna, for changing your opinions based on evidence.
I'm always impressed when people change their opinion based on data, based on evidence.
Because you think it's never going to happen, right?
But then when it happens, you're like, huh.
Somebody actually changed their mind based on data.
Well, that's not exactly what happened with Cenk.
What he said in his tweet is that, yeah, he sees the defense of self-defense being valid in this case, but he still thinks that Rittenhouse is not an angel in the sense that he, quote, came there, and this is a quote from Cenk, in hopes he could shoot someone.
What? Where's that in evidence?
Where's the evidence that Rittenhouse came there in hopes he could shoe someone?
If you come with a medical kit and you've stated to everybody that you're going to be defending some property and you're cleaning graffiti, which part of that indicates to Cenk that he came with the hopes to shoe someone?
That seems like quite the opposite of all the evidence, isn't it?
Now again, no matter how much evidence there is, I can't read his mind any more than Jen can.
So I'm not going to read Rittenhouse's mind and say, oh, I see in there no bad intentions.
I can't do that.
But the other thing I can do is, I looked into his mind, and although all of his actions looked opposite, I can see that what he's secretly thinking is he'd like to shoot somebody.
That's cognitive dissonance.
If you have to rely on mind reading in public, your argument is gone, but you can't release it yet.
So you sort of shift it to something that's adjacent to your argument that you can hold on to.
But there wasn't anything adjacent to his argument he could hold on to either.
So he didn't get anything.
He just got a whiff.
Shot and a miss. Alright.
So the bottom line here is that our government has turned against the people, is not defending us against China whatsoever.
They're not helping us with fentanyl at all.
Not helping us protect the border at all.
And they're putting Americans in jail to make an example.
To make an example.
As soon as you hear that any American is being put in jail to make an example, you should be done with your government.
Because we don't do that.
That's not the America I will stand for.
Now, again, I get the distinction, the government versus the people.
I love the people. So I'm very pro-American people.
And I'm still completely pro-the republic.
So I like the republic.
I like the people. I think, you know, America has done great things and will do more great things.
But the government, current government, has to fail.
They have to fall.
Because they've gone too far and everybody can see it now.
You can see from the poll results, everybody can see it.
It's now really obvious.
Americans are being hunted just to make a political point.
Can't live in that country.
So that's not going to stand.
We won't have that.
We will not be Australia.
The Second Amendment exists for a reason.
This is it. Now, I'm not saying use guns, of course.
I'm saying that the government ultimately is going to do what you tell it to do.
Why? Because of the Second Amendment.
I mean, not entirely because of that.
You know, they want to keep their jobs and get good ratings and all that stuff, too.
But the people have complete power in this country.
We're not fucking Australia.
In Australia, the government has power over the people.
Not here. Not here.
Not ever. Not here.
Not ever. In America, the people control the government, and it's time...
To exert that control.
Now, probably it will just be the 2022 election.
Could be, you know, protests or something.
But, you know, we have mechanisms in place.
But now it's time.
Now, if you think that I'm telling you you should elect Trump, I'm not.
I'm not. I'd like to see who's running.
If you think that I will uncritically support Trump if he gets into the race, you're wrong.
Because if DeSantis is in the race, I'm probably going to back him.
Sorry. Now, if Trump wins the primary, I probably will back him.
But Republicans, you need to get your house in order of what you want to do.
I'm not a Republican, and I won't advise you.
But I'm just saying, DeSantis is looking really strong.
Trump is stronger on a lot of things, I think.
But also brings some controversy.
And he's also of a certain age.
You know... Maybe change is necessary.
But on the other hand, Trump is probably the only personality who can do some of the things that need to get done.
He can go further against China, for example, I think, than maybe somebody else could.
So Trump has big benefits, but also big costs.
I've always said he's an expensive president, but you get your money's worth.
Trump's the better story, that's correct.
If you do the prediction that the better story always wins, it's definitely a Trump comeback.
Definitely. Now, I could definitely support Trump from the get-go if I thought maybe he'd change some of his approach or change his priorities or something.
I could be convinced.
But not right now.
Yeah, what if Trump pivots to the kinder, nicer, lame duck version of himself?
Now, here's another thing.
Do you want to elect a lame duck president from the start?
And I don't know, that sounded rhetorical, but I don't know the answer.
Because normally the second term of a president can be a little dicey, because everybody knows they're on the way out.
If Trump is elected, it's his second term.
So he's a certain age and he's sort of, you know, on the way out.
DeSantis would be a first-term president with another term to go.
So if you wanted to hold power for longer, DeSantis is a better bet.
Because Trump could easily turn the country, you know, flip the Congress back the other direction just because people get worked up about him.
No way in hell would I vote for Scott...
Am I running? Better to have Trump as vice president.
If you want Trump to have a third term, just vote for somebody who will do whatever Trump tells him to do.
You could get it that way.
Can you talk about how the grocery industry is corrupt?
I'll give you one example.
When I had my product, it got placed into 7-Elevens, which is a gigantic product.
You know, break for a new food company.
We actually got a shelf space on 7-Elevens.
And then when we went to check to see how it was doing, we couldn't find it anywhere on the shelf.
Oh, it was there.
But the other food companies, Kraft in particular, they have people on the ground who will come in and put their product in front of your product if it's a competing product.
So it's a known thing.
It's called burying it on the shelf.
So the food business is...
And then Safeway.
I'll name names. Safeway is essentially a fraudulent operation.
The way they treat the vendors who provide food.
So they'll sell you some space on the bottom shelf.
And when I say sell it to you, I mean they make you pay to be in the store.
And then after you've paid as much as you're going to pay, they say, well, there was another fee.
You say, what? We didn't negotiate any other fee.
We've paid everything we were going to pay to be on the shelf.
They say, well, you know, you don't have to, but we'll take you off the shelf.
And you say, okay, okay, I'll pay this extra fee.
Just keep us on the shelf.
And the next month, they give you another extra fee.
And you say, wait a minute.
This is now an extra fee on top of an extra fee.
None of this was ever discussed.
And they say, you don't have to pay it.
You can just be off the shelf.
So yeah, Safeway, Kraft, those are corrupt corporations, and they run a corrupt business.
And the food industry in general is like that, actually.
