Episode 1568 Scott Adams: Rittenhouse Verdict Causes Massive Cognitive Dissonance on the Left
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden's health exam, but no cognitive test?
Rittenhouse was charged BEFORE investigation?
ACLU, completely corrupted
Jerry Nadler seeks federal charges against Kyle
MSNBC after the Rittenhouse verdict
GoFundMe policy, NO defense funds?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you in your entire life and probably the best thing that's ever happened in the universe itself.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's a good time so you better stick around.
We got all kinds of stuff happening.
The news is really serving it up today.
Delicious news.
Mmm. You know sometimes the news leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
And other times, mmm.
Well, today's that other kind.
Mmm. And if you'd like to take that up to another delicious level, and I know you do, who wants to go to the next level?
All right. Okay, put your hands down.
I know you do. All you need is a cup, a mug, or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, or a stein, a canteen jug, or a flask, or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the court system.
It's called the simultaneous sipping.
It's happening now. Go. Yum.
Yeah, I know.
It was good for me, too.
Well, as you know, Biden got his health exam yesterday, and we learned a few things about him.
Number one, he has some arthritis, which is why he walks stiffly.
Not because of any kind of cognitive problems.
It's arthritis. So he doesn't have an Alzheimer's walk.
He has arthritis.
And that coughing he does is from acid reflux.
Good to know. Now, on the positive side, Biden, his weight is good, and his blood pressure is excellent.
And I didn't know this, but did you know that Biden doesn't drink?
Did you know that? How am I finding this out now?
Because, you know, I'm going to start the episode by saying something good about the other team.
In my case, Biden's on the other team.
And I think the fact that he doesn't drink...
Should have been a much bigger deal.
Right? Because look at Nancy Pelosi.
Do you think she doesn't drink?
I mean, I don't know. But she looks like she does.
What about Hillary Clinton?
I was legitimately concerned about Hillary Clinton's drinking.
Was anybody else? You know, in the political season, you talk about every flaw.
But honestly, the fact that Hillary Clinton was an enthusiastic pleasure drinker, I think just a pleasure drinker, I wasn't comfortable with that.
I wasn't comfortable with that at all.
And I thought that was a huge selling point for Trump, that he was the non-drinker.
That's a big, big deal.
I mean, we're so used to alcohol being part of our society That somehow we accept it if it's the guy who's got his finger or the woman who has the finger on the nuclear button.
Really? No, I don't want my president ever to be drunk.
Ever. Not once.
And if I had known that Biden was a non-drinker, I would have given him credit for that in the context of running for president.
And he doesn't use tobacco either.
That makes him better than Obama.
Obama was a terrible role model.
With the cigarette smoking?
I mean, that was just terrible.
And Clinton with the drinking?
Those are not good role models at all.
All right. But you know what did not come out of the Biden health exam?
Any information about his cognitive test?
Do you think he didn't take one?
Or do you think they didn't tell us the outcome?
What do you think? And is the news filled with people demanding a cognitive test?
It was when Trump was president, right?
It's all we could talk about.
The left just couldn't stop talking about, we need a cognitive test.
And Biden, age, what, 78 or 9 or whatever, doesn't need a cognitive test?
Really? Really, he doesn't need a cognitive test.
The fact that this stuff is happening right in front of us...
You know, it's one thing if your government is doing weaselly things behind your back, at least they had the respect that they would do it behind our backs, right?
That's the minimum level of respect I hope to get.
If you're going to do something terrible, at least don't do it right in front of me.
I mean, not right in front of me, but that's what they're doing with this...
This Biden non-cognitive test is right in front of us.
It's like he's obviously acting in a way that smart people who mean well say he looks degraded.
I mean, pretty much everybody says that.
And right in front of us, they're going to ignore the cognitive test.
Like, right in front of you.
I think that's the part that blows me away.
When the fake news just lies...
I sort of get that. Oh, it's not real news, it's fake news.
They just lie. I get that.
But when they lie, when the truth is right in front of you, that's a whole different level.
I don't know what that's about.
But it's amazing to see it.
Funniest comment about Biden being under anesthesia and giving the reins to Harris, the Harris administration.
Election Wizard on Twitter, that's his name, Election Wizard, tweeted this.
The sole highlight of the Harris administration was the full acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.
That's the only thing that happened during the hour she was president.
LAUGHTER Which is hilarious.
Now, can I get any credit for being the person who picked Kamala Harris to be Trump's biggest competition?
Now, it turns out it was Biden.
Biden was actually the greatest competition.
And by the way, Trump said that in 2018.
Trump predicted to me, personally, that he thought Biden was his biggest competition.
That was way before I thought Biden had any chance.
I thought actually Trump was crazy.
I'm not, you know, not actual crazy.
But I thought his opinion was totally off.
When he said, yeah, Biden, I think Biden's going to be the nominee and he'll be tough.
And I thought, really?
Really? And I even said to him, like, there's no way Biden can beat you.
He's like the poor man's version of you.
I joked about Biden.
If you started with Trump and removed all the good parts, you would end up with Biden.
So I didn't think he could possibly win.
I was wrong about that because of a number of things which I did not see coming, such as the way the elections were held in terms of the mail-in votes and stuff.
But sure enough, I made the most unlikely prediction in the history of unlikely predictions, and for one hour...
We had a female president of the United States, and it was Kamala Harris.
Now, you know what's also cool about that?
I hate to say it because it's a little bit of schadenfreude, which I shouldn't admit.
You know, when you feel good that somebody else feels bad.
Hillary Clinton didn't get to be the first female president, and nobody else will either because Kamala Harris already did it.
It was a big deal.
It is a big deal.
Now, if you're saying, oh, you know, it's a technicality and it was only an hour and stuff like that, well, yes.
But keep in mind that she was selected specifically because the top guy was old.
No, that wasn't hidden.
She was selected because she was strong enough...
To take over, because Biden's a little sketchy age-wise and health-wise.
So, I don't know, it looked real to me.
It looked like we had a female president, and she was selected primarily by Democrats for her capability to do that.
So, there you go.
The weirdest prediction that I ever got almost right.
It's still technically wrong.
But it's the rightest I've ever been while being technically wrong.
CNN has hired actually a racist to write for it.
Somebody named John Blake.
And I'm not even going to tell you what he wrote.
It's that bad.
It's just pure racist. He singled out a race, and then he just shit on him on CNN's website.
And, you know, it doesn't even matter what race it is, does it?
Does it? If you say it does matter what race it is, then I'm not on your side.
It doesn't matter what race it is.
He's a racist. He called out a specific race, and then he shit on him.
In public. That's just racist.
So the racist CNN, I think I'll just refer to them as racist CNN now, because now they're not trying to hide it.
I feel like it was a little dog-whistly before, but now it's overt.
It's completely overt.
Let's talk about the Rittenhouse verdict a little bit.
So PolitiFact, who is supposed to be fact-checking things, got a lot wrong On this Rittenhouse thing, but I think there's some little pushback on them correcting it.
So don't we need somebody to rate the fact-checkers?
What the hell good is a fact-checker if they just agree with the MS, you know, the mainstream media?
It has no point.
So PolitiFact, I think, lost its credibility, if it ever had any, on this.
So here's the good takes and the bad takes on Rittenhouse.
Tulsi Gabbard, good take.
She said, the jury got it right, finding Rittenhouse not guilty, blah, blah.
And here's what I loved about it.
She said, the fact that charges were brought before any serious investigation, and I think that's fair, is evidence that the government was motivated by politics, which itself should be considered criminal.
Exactly. Exactly.
I think that the prosecutor should be arrested and jailed for what he did.
No, I guess he has some kind of immunity, so that can't happen.
But why aren't we at least talking about it?
I mean, I get that he can't...
You know, the system probably would not be able to survive jailing lawyers for being bad in court.
So I get why there has to be some immunity.
I wouldn't argue against it.
But we should at least talk about the fact that it was criminal-like.
Right? It was very criminal-like.
Um... I've been hearing lots of criticisms about the ACLU becoming kind of just nutty, and I hadn't really paid too much attention because I thought, well, it's probably a little overblown.
Maybe the ACLU didn't agree with you at this time.
Is that what's happening? Oh, a ruling, they went against you, so now they're all bad.
That's kind of what I thought it was.
Nope. It turns out the ACLU is completely corrupted.
Like, completely. They're not even close to whatever their original mission was.
Just listen to this. This is what the ACLU tweeted after the Rittenhouse verdict.
They say, And then they say, unfortunately, this is not surprising.
What? Are you kidding me?
I thought the criticisms against the ACLU were just sort of overblown.
Oh, my God, what happened to them?
Where do we start?
First of all, why did they mention that he crossed state lines?
All right, here's your cognitive dissonance lesson for the day.
Are you ready? When cognitive dissonance is triggered in someone, the trigger itself is easy to identify.
So the trigger would be, especially if you've publicly said something, and if you've said it repeatedly, and then you find out it's completely wrong, and you find out in a very credible way.
So that's what happened with the Rittenhouse case.
There were a whole bunch of people who had a specific set of beliefs, all wrong, like in the details and the big picture, just completely wrong.
And then the jury is credible, because it was a unanimous decision, and they did look at all the evidence, and they say, basically, you were wrong about everything.
Now, this situation should, predictably, trigger massive cognitive dissonance.
What would it look like if it happened?
How do you spot cognitive dissonance?
Is it simply an opinion you disagree with?
Nope. Nope.
It's not that. There are plenty of opinions you disagree with that are just opinions you disagree with.
But what happened in this case was actual cognitive dissonance.
And what you should see is nonsense.
Like word salad. People saying things that you say, that didn't make any sense.
That's cognitive dissonance.
Here's the ACLU, and the brief amount of words that they have to put their opinion about Rittenhouse decided that an important part of that was traveling across state lines.
Why? Why was that important?
Why does the ACLU have to put in travel across state lines?
Because it makes it look like something bad happened.
Because in your mind, you complete the sentence, traveled across state lines with a minor?
No, that didn't happen.
Traveled across state lines with a firearm?
Nope. Didn't happen.
The firearm was already where he went.
Traveled across state lines...
It just feels like it's a crime, right?
It's a federal crime. Except there was no crime charged.
In the end, there was not even a gun charge.
There was no crime charged that had anything to do with crossing state lines.
And it got me worried because I was planning to take a vacation sometime next year, and I thought I was going to cross some state lines, but now I'm worried.
You know what I mean? This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance.
If the ACLU had said something like the following, that would not be cognitive dissonance.
So here's what a non-cognitive dissonance take would be.
Well, we're surprised about the verdict.
That could be true. We're surprised at the verdict.
And we think that maybe Kyle was taking a gun into a place where a reasonable person could have expected bad things to happen.
Now, you could agree with that.
You could disagree with that.
Certainly, he had the right to be there.
For me, that's the beginning and the end of the story.
He had a right to be there.
He was protecting property.
There's nothing else I want to hear about.
That's it. But there are lots of ways that people who are wrong about everything could have still said they're a little bit right.
You know, I got a little bit of a point.
But they didn't. They went into full cognitive dissonance and talk about traveling over state lines.
Complete nonsense.
They don't even try to give a reason for it.
It's not traveling over state lines is illegal.
It's not traveling across state lines is obviously a problem because it's not.
So they're trying to make something out of nothing.
Then he says that they made a conscious decision, Rittenhouse, a conscious decision to travel across state lines and injure one person and kill two others.
Now, the conscious part makes it look like there were two conscious decisions.
One was to cross state lines, probably conscious, but the other one, they write it as if it was a conscious decision to go kill people.
Nothing like that happened.
He didn't make a conscious decision to cross the state line to kill people.
Literally just made up.
And somehow they can get away with this.
All right. So here's a comment from Nikhil Verma, MD, on Twitter.
He tweets this.
Here is the worst part of it all.
Kyle Rittenhouse will now get a book deal.
He will become a political talking point and likely go on to have a very successful life, doing nothing to fix the flaws in his own thinking or in the world.
And then he ends, just imagine if he wasn't white.
Yes, just imagine, just imagine if a black 17-year-old had legally, completely legally, possessed a firearm, and in the context of protecting property in a town he would consider his hometown, because and in the context of protecting property in a town he would consider his hometown, because Kyle had a lot of family That was one of his hometowns.
So if this hypothetical young black man Had a gun totally legally, and he was protecting assets in his hometown, or even one that he considered close to a hometown, and he shot two white Antifa people who were attacking him, and it was clearly in self-defense.
What would the political right say about that?
Give him a medal?
Maybe see if he'll run for president?
Start a GoFundMe forum?
The most ridiculous thing you'll ever hear is the political left imagining that the political right puts race above the Constitution.
What? The political left thinks that the right would put race above...
The Bible. The Bible.
How much more ridiculous?
Yes, it is. It looks like projection.
It looks like a clean case of projection.
It could not be more wrong about the political right.
Now, are there some racists on the political right?
Of course. Are there some racists on the left?
Of course. But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about the average conservative.
Is the average conservative going to be against a black man legally possessing a gun and using it in self-defense against two white Antifa guys?
There's no way!
There's no way in the world any conservative would be angry about that.
They would literally want to shake his hand.
How do you not understand that?
Nothing could be more basic.
Than understanding the left and the right.
Literally, literally nothing is more basic than knowing that the Conservatives are going to put the Constitution and the Bible above race.
Race is never number one on the right.
It's only number one on the left.
Anyway. Jerry Nadler wants to pursue federal charges against Rittenhouse.
Now... Here's a little mental experiment.
Imagine if you could round up every Democrat in the world and remove all of their bad parts.
Because, you know, everybody's got good parts and bad parts.
No exceptions to that.
But if you were to take all the Democrats and round them up, every single one of them, like all 80 million of them, or however many there are, and you could somehow medically extract The bile and the bad parts, like the fat and the bile and the bad opinions and the evil and the shit.
You know, like clean out the bowels and you get all the earwax and you get all the spittle and like all the bad parts.
If you could suck all the bad parts out of the Democrats and then sort of mush it all together, you'd have Jerry Nadler.
What the fuck? I'm sorry.
I wasn't going to swear this time.
What the F is wrong with that guy?
What is wrong with him?
Now, part of me kind of wants it to go forward.
Now, not for Kyle Rittenhouse.
That would be tragic.
So I don't want him to suffer anymore.
But just to watch it happen, I don't think I could look away if he tried this.
Anyway, good luck, Jerry Nadler, on that.
Let me ask you this.
I was talking about there was this big energy in the country, and when Rittenhouse's verdict came down, for me, just personally, it all released.
Did anybody have that experience?
Did anybody feel like a sense of relief at That was bigger than just the news.
Like it actually permeated to your life.
Your actual daily life felt different.
Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of people saying yes to this, especially on the Locals platform.
It's a little faster over there.
Yeah, a lot of yeses.
Now, I wasn't expecting that.
I wasn't expecting it at all.
But I think maybe that's what that energy was.
Because imagine if it had gone the other way.
Now, in my opinion, the conservative gun-owning right is nowhere near any kind of a revolution or anything like that.
Nowhere near it. You know, there are militias, of course.
But the mainstream, you know, gun-owning, Second Amendment-loving conservatives, they're not even slightly close to a revolution.
But what happened if Rittenhouse went to jail?
I don't know. I don't know if that would be the last straw.
But it wouldn't help.
Because remember, the QAnon shaman is going to jail for 41 months for wearing a colorful costume and trespassing, basically.
So we know that white men are getting hit hard.
I don't know if...
I think maybe the Rittenhouse thing could have been a breaking point for white men, basically.
But... There's some kind of weird Hollywood talking point.
I saw in a tweet, but I don't think the tweets are still up, where, not recently, but I guess some months ago, a whole bunch of Hollywood people said the same thing, the same tweet.
So they acted like it was their own tweet each time.
It said, I want to live in a country where Colin Kaepernick is seen as a hero and Kyle Rittenhouse is seen as a terrorist.
And I thought to myself, well, there is such a country...
You could live in a country where Colin Kaepernick is seen as a hero and Kyle Rittenhouse is seen as a terrorist.
That country exists.
It's called China.
So, welcome to it.
It's all yours.
Well, I don't know if any of you tried this.
Did you try watching MSNBC after the Rittenhouse verdict?
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Because MSNBC is still reeling from lying about the dossier and getting caught for that, which is really bad.
So now they got caught again on the Kyle Rittenhouse thing, being wrong about everything.
So I don't know who got the harder colonoscopy yesterday.
Was it Biden or MSNBC? Because they were certainly getting reamed by the non-NBC viewers.
But then you tune into MSNBC... And it's a whole different alternate reality.
Here's what the Rittenhouse trial was on MSNBC. I swear to God, I'm not making this up.
This was actually happening.
They were actually saying this.
And I heard some pundit on there say, and it wasn't challenged by anybody.
So this was said unchallenged.
That the Rittenhouse story is about bad laws in Wisconsin that allowed a vigilante, as they say, to intentionally provoke an attack and still have a self-defense.
None of that happened.
He wasn't a vigilante by any means.
I mean, I don't know how you define it, but I wouldn't define it as a vigilante.
Um... And it's not about the laws being bad in Wisconsin, because self-defense is pretty basic.
Pretty basic. And he didn't intentionally provoke an attack.
None of it's true.
The MSNBC take, literally none of it's true.
And it's a news channel.
Now, what's even more disturbing is that MSNBC is, if anybody doesn't know it, allegedly the CIA's captive network.
Meaning that they don't do any news that the CIA doesn't want you to see that way.
Now, I'm not making that claim.
That's the allegations by people who seem to know more than I do.
But I'm a little concerned that maybe an organ of our intelligence agencies wants a civil war or something.
I don't know what they're...
I mean, I can't read their minds, right?
So I don't know what they want.
But this is very disturbing, that our own intel agency's captive news is making up a whole different story about what happened.
You heard that GoFundMe wouldn't allow Rittenhouse to have a GoFundMe campaign for his defense.
It turns out that that is their policy in general.
So I heard somebody said that they still have some up there for other situations.
They're like Kyle Rittenhouse.
So maybe they just haven't policed it well.
But they do have a policy that this fit under that they wouldn't fund people for if they've been accused of serious crimes.
Now the key word is accused.
You can't do a GoFundMe if you're accused of a serious crime.
Does that sound like a good...
Company policy? I don't know.
It probably seems like a good policy if the people are guilty.
You don't want to fund guilty people to help them get off.
On the other hand, if rich people can fund good lawyers, why can't guilty people?
Well, why does GoFundMe get to decide who's guilty or not?
Because that's kind of what they're doing.
They're kind of saying if you're accused, you're guilty.
They don't say that, of course.
But the implication is that being accused is sufficient to rob you of a right.
Now, it's not a government right to be on GoFundMe, but everybody else can do it, who are within their guidelines.
I think that GoFundMe was just plain wrong.
However, it turns out that they would allow a GoFundMe for a lawsuit.
So if Kyle Rittenhouse wants to sue, let's say, Joe Biden for calling him a white supremacist, which he is not, GoFundMe will do that campaign.
So I don't know if they'll use GoFundMe, because I'm not sure the Rittenhouse people want them to make money.
But I would expect, because I guess Rittenhouse's mom actually said their lawyers will take care of the Joe Biden defamation thing.
So it sounds like they're preparing for that.
Now, I've got something really delicious here.
I've been saving this.
I just want to connect some dots, and I'm not sure this will happen, but there's a possibility of something really awesome happening.
Like, really, really awesome.
And it goes like this. I believe Biden has two offenses against Rittenhouse.
One is that I think he said in public that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, which, of course, he's not.
So give me a fact check on this.
I think that's true. He said it in public.
But also, there's a Biden campaign commercial.
Which shows the fine people hoax as if it's not a hoax.
And then it shows Kyle Rittenhouse as part of the campaign, which suggests he would be a white supremacist.
Now, in the campaign commercial, it's only done by suggestion, by inference.
Do you know where I'm going yet?
You don't see it yet, do you?
Somebody sees it. Come on.
Somebody sees it. I need a lawyer's opinion on this because I could easily be wrong on this.
I'm on shaky ground.
But given that the campaign commercial could be part of a lawsuit, right, would the lawyers for Rittenhouse be able to put the fine people hoax on trial?
Could they? Could they put the fine people hoax on trial and get the court to conclude that it didn't happen?
Because I think in the context of defending Kyle, they should also defend the president and say, not only is Kyle not associated with this group, but by the way, the way the news handled it was fraudulent.
Because here's the clip of Trump condemning it.
Now, I don't think they'd have to because they could win the case without that, right?
It wouldn't be necessary. But could they do it?
You know, would the rules of evidence allow them to do that just as sort of an aside showing how bad Biden is?
Because it would be part of showing that Biden...
is an intentional liar.
Oh, maybe that's the angle.
If they can show that Biden is an intentional liar, and the fine people hoax would be a good way to do that, because it's so clearly a lie, then the lie about Rittenhouse could be shown to be another one of a similar type, right? Now, DICE is telling me that in discovery you could do that, but I want it to be done in the trial itself.
Pattern of practice.
Pattern of practice?
Would that be a legal standard that applies or no?
Scott's getting red-pilled as we watched.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Defense would get it thrown out?
Maybe so. Anyway, my hope was that somehow that would get a trial verdict.
I feel like somebody could sue...
I feel like anybody who attended the rally who was not with the racists could sue Biden for calling the entire group white supremacists.
Because there would be quite a few people there who did not march...
And we're anti-racist.
They're there for their own reasons.
I feel like they can sue too, but it's less direct.
You couldn't show damages, I guess.
Let's see what else we got.
You're not even going to believe this story.
I think it's true, because it came from a good source on Twitter.
But up in Canada, where things are a little woker than they are in the United States, there's some kind of Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation.
Is that like a union?
Is that like a union?
Federation, right? I think it is.
But this school teachers union announced that they're going to change their rules for voting.
And the rule change is that if you're white, you get less of a vote.
So people of color would have weighted votes, so their votes would count for more than one.
But if you were white, or identified as white, you would get less than one vote.
Or just one.
But it would be fewer voting...
fewer votes than people of color.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that would happen in America?
If it's a teacher's union, I suppose they can make up any rules they want.
I don't know. Is it even illegal?
I don't even know if that's illegal in the United States.
But here's the loophole.
Are you ready for this? Apparently you can identify as anything you want.
What would stop you from identifying as black just to get two votes?
Nothing. Nothing.
Nothing. Have I told you before that if you want to break somebody's bad idea, you don't complain about it.
You get inside it.
And you use it.
You just break it from the inside.
So, as you know, I've identified as black for some time now, and I do it for the social benefits.
Because I get benefits both ways.
If somebody looks at me and says, oh, I don't think he's a shoplifter because he looks white...
Well, that's discrimination too, but it works in my favor in that case.
So I get that.
So that's a benefit.
But by defining myself and identifying as black, should I ever need to get a loan or start a company and sell to the government or anything like that, I'd be set.
Because I identify as black and I would get the advantages of that as well.
So in this Canadian situation, if the white people on that don't identify as black immediately, well, they're just idiots.
Canada deserves what it gets.
If you don't immediately identify as black just to increase your vote, I don't care.
I don't care. If you're so dumb that you can't even do that easy trick...
Then you don't deserve a full vote anyway.
It looks to me like the people of color are smarter than the white people on this federation.
Because if the white people were even as smart as the people of color, even just as smart, they would thwart this immediately by saying, great idea, I'm all for it, and I'm also black.
That would be it. It would be done.
So I think we can conclude that in this one case, it's probably a good thing.
I mean, normally I'd say it was racist, but in this case it seems pretty obvious that the specific white people who get to vote in their federation appear to be unusually stupid.
Am I wrong? Because anybody who was even a little bit smart...
Would just say, wait, the rule is I can identify as anything I want, and if I identify as black, I'll get two votes.
I'm black. Just for today.
And correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't know all the woke rules, but you can change your identification later, right?
Is there any reason you can't be black for a day?
Under the rules. I think you can.
If you get to self-identify, I think you get to change it wherever you need it, whenever you want.
I'm wrong? Impossible.
Impossible. So Bill Maher finally understands Trump in a way that I don't know if he ever did before.
Now this is my take on Bill Maher.
I can't read his mind, of course.
So I'm just saying it looks like, from the outside, that he understands Trump for the first time.
See if you agree with me.
I'm going to read what he said.
And see if this looks like Bill Maher understanding Trump for the first time.
All right? Quote, I keep saying this to the Democratic Party.
The reason why you're so toxic is because you've become the party of no common sense.
And people see this on their news feeds, Maher said.
They see things on their phone or on their Facebook page.
People pass things around, and it's a constant drip, drip, drip of, oh, these people are nuts, in a way.
They're not oblivious to the fact that Trump is nuts.
When he ran, one of his big selling points was, quote, you've got no choice, he was saying.
Yes, I know I'm nuts.
You know I'm nuts.
But they're nuts in a very different way that's closer to home to you.
I think he meant that Trump's nuts was closer to home.
Sounds like he might have just said it wrong.
But I think the meaning was that Trump had the kind of crazy you could live with.
That is exactly right, isn't it?
Yeah, that is exactly right.
Everybody who thought that the people on the right believed that everything Trump did was good and he didn't make any mistakes and everything the other team did was bad, nothing like that was happening.
On Twitter...
Of course, for fun, you know, Trump was treated as the god king and, you know, infallible, etc.
But no actual supporter thought that, right?
There was no actual conservative who thought everything Trump did was amazing.
I've never heard any Trump supporters support Trump University.
Have you? Even once?
Have you ever heard one conservative...
Defend Trump University.
No. No.
No. Trump has flaws, which I think everyone can see.
But he also brings benefits that are bigger than his flaws, according to some subset of the population.
They knew exactly what they were getting.
And I think Bill Maher is finally feeling the vibration from the right.
If I can put it in New Age terms.
He definitely gets it at this point, and he sees that his team is going nuts, at least on the extremes.
And he goes after AOC really hard for being unwilling to go on his show or any other show that would give her hard questions, basically.
So, watching Bill Maher bitch-slap the Democratic Party...
It's really entertaining, but it's more than that.
It's important. He's the only adult that I can see.
Who's the other adult?
I think Bill Maher is the only adult on the Democrat side at this point.
Can you think of another?
Oh, James Carville, yeah.
Do you know what AOC said about James Carville when he was making fun of the over-wokeness?
AOC said that's just something that old people say, and you should ask yourself why.
Only old people are complaining about the wokeness.
Well, you little ageous piece of shit, you.
All right. Jimmy Dore?
Van Jones? Yeah, okay.
Tulsi? Yeah, there are some other names that can see the Democrats a little bit more clearly.
Do we have any updates from the rapist regime of She Too?
By the way, I've been challenged...
To make the hashtag Xi2, spelled Xi, as in the leader of China, Xi2, because China is a rapist regime now.
You can call the whole regime a rapist regime, because if one member of the regime rapes somebody, and we know it, because it was publicly stated, and the regime protects them, it's a rapist regime.
Is that too far?
If the regime knowingly, consciously, directly, and publicly protects a rapist, they're a rapist regime.
That's fair. I think it's fair, right?
If any other country did it, if the United States did it, I'd say the same damn thing.
So it's a she too.
So I don't know why any Olympian would go to a rapist regime.
I would think that would be a stain on your reputation, but I won't watch.
Is anybody going to watch the Olympics in China?
I'm not going to watch a minute.
Well, the Olympics are lame and anachronistic.
So, at the very least, we can make whoever is broadcasting this thing have a bad day.
At the very least. So I don't think any conservative should watch the Olympics.
I don't think any citizen should.
Because you're supporting a rapist regime.
And that's why they do it.
I mean, China does it for PR purposes, right?
To make their country look good.
But if they want to be a rapist regime, that doesn't work with the Olympics.
It just doesn't work.
You can't be a rapist regime and host the Olympics.
Sure, Hitler did. Hitler hosted the Olympics, so there is some precedent, but not cool.
Meanwhile, over in the Netherlands, there are major protests and riots underway over COVID restrictions that exclude the unvaccinated from public places.
Now, this is the same as Australia, right?
Is that the same law that the Australians are up in arms about?
Or is there some slight difference to it?
Could that happen in the United States?
Or is it even being discussed?
Do you think in the United States our government could restrict unvaccinated people from public places?
What do you think? You know, because there are a lot of things that you think are possible and then the next thing you know they happened.
Not after Kyle. Now, I don't know that this has anything to do with gun ownership.
If that's the first thing you think.
But I already have.
I already have.
California is already doing it?
Not that I know of.
Is that true? But no, those are private companies.
Those are private companies.
Or is that the same thing?
Huh. L.A. has mandates.
Oh, so you're saying that basically we're already doing it.
Huh. That's true.
You know what? I just realized...
I'm not going to name names, but I just realized there are some restaurants that don't ask for the Vax Pass anymore.
Are there any Californians here?
I think on the first week where the Vax Passes were required, I did have to show mine.
But recently, I think the last few times I ate out, I wasn't asked.
Are the restaurants dropping it?
Why would someone go eat?
Yeah, why would anyone go someplace where they asked for it exactly?
I mean, I would, because I'm vaccinated, so I just would eat wherever I want the food.
It's not exactly where I was going to stage my protest.
Yeah, it punishes the restaurant owners.
I feel that the small businesses are going to be the rebels.
The big businesses can't take a chance, but the small businesses, I think, are going to massively start ignoring this stuff.
Well... All right, well, apparently there's going to be more protests.
All right, let's rebel.
I don't feel much energy for that.
You know, the problem is that we always think it's going to work itself out in a few months, and I think that now.
You know, people are talking about going back to normal in January.
I don't think we'll go back to normal in January.
That's not my guess.
I think it'll be longer.
But as long as you think, well, just hang out for a few more months and I'm there, it's hard to protest a problem you think will solve itself.
You know, that's kind of where I'm at.
If a problem is going to solve itself, maybe I'll protest someone else.
But Now, I also saw there's a mystery about why Africa has so little problems with COVID. And it was treated as if it's a mystery.
And I thought, I don't think that's a mystery.
So Africa has a far younger population than everywhere else, far less obesity, Probably far more outdoor time, far more sun from vitamin D. Maybe not as much crowding.
I don't know. They definitely don't count the number of deaths as accurately.
They wouldn't have those advanced medical databases and stuff.
Yeah, between the... Oh, now there's an interesting thing.
Somebody's saying they have stronger immune systems.
Could it be that they're exposed to more nasty stuff in daily life, and so they just have stronger immune systems?
Is that possible? Oh, let's see.
Everything is now open.
Zero restrictions...
Yeah, I think people just thought it was a cold that went around.
Now, I'm seeing the theory that they're taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
I don't think that's the case.
I don't think that ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are widespread enough, enough, that that would explain what's happening in Africa.
I don't think that explains it.
Now, I could be wrong about that.
But I'd be really, really surprised...
How much of the population does any kind of malaria drug prophylactically?
I would think not many, but I don't know that.
Africa has no old people because they don't live, right?
I mean, some of it is a lower life expectancy, but a lot of it is just that there are more young people being born.
You were wrong about the skirt.
You were wrong about the skirt.
Well, I was right about the larger issue of the skirt.
So I was right that the story was wrong, but the skirt was irrelevant to the story.
So I was right that it was irrelevant to the story.
No, I was right about the story.
I said that the skirt part, I did doubt.
But it was in the context of doubting the whole story.
So the skirt part was the trivial part of it.
Okay, Big Tom, I know you're subscribing for this, but you're being an asshole right now.
I just said...
That I was wrong about the skirt.
So if you write, you were wrong about the skirt again, I think I'm going to kick you off.
Because if I say it, then you're not disagreeing with me to say it.
You were wrong about the skirt.
If that's the most thing I was ever wrong about, that's pretty good.
Pretty good. Everybody has access to it, but they don't take it.
So somebody's saying on YouTube, I lived in Tanzania for several years, and everybody has access to it.
That's different than everybody taking it.
Scott doesn't understand that he was wrong about the skirt.
Now, why are you saying that?
Because you know the skirt had nothing to do with the story, right?
You all know that, right?
The skirt was not relevant to the crime.
It was relevant to the story because the news made it about that, but it wasn't relevant to the crime.
