Episode 1578 Scott Adams: The News Is Full of Red Meat Today. Come Get Some.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden is TRYING to raise energy prices, it isn't a secret
Vitamin D might explain everything COVID
Trump didn't trust/believe the IC?
Issues of Black concern
Parag Agrawal, new CEO and an old Tweet
Jonathan Karl comments on President Trump
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 one of the best things that will ever happen to you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's famous all over the Internet.
And today is likely to be one of the highlights of all times.
Yeah, that's how good this is going to be.
And if you want to take it up another level, you'll need the simultaneous sip to do that.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquor or coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's going to happen right now.
Go. Do you know how hard it is to talk and read at the same time?
This is a weird little skill that live streamers develop.
I think the skill of it is you have to think what you're going to say and then package it, and then as it's coming out, you can still read.
It's kind of tough, but you can do it for short periods.
It's not really multitasking, but it feels like it.
Well, I'd like to start with a public service.
Now, this public service will not be necessary for the men.
I know a lot of my audience is male.
But this is only for the benefit of your spouses or significant others who are female.
I'm pretty sure the men are going to appreciate this.
Okay? Because it's something you all have to deal with.
But it goes like this.
Public service announcement.
If you are facing away from me, And mumbling, I probably can't hear you.
Let me give you an example.
This would be facing you and talking clearly.
Hello, Scott.
How was your day?
See how well that worked?
Now imagine that I'm across the room, facing the other way, reading my phone, and saying...
Now, as a man, you're forced with two choices now.
You can say, what?
Do you know what happens when you do that?
Does your spouse turn around, face you, and speak clearly?
I've never had that experience.
What I get is...
It's sort of still mumbling, but it's more angry.
Don't ask a third time.
Just don't ask a third time, because that's when the fight starts.
That's too many times to ask.
Instead, do what I do.
Agree, and then later, when she says, I told you we were going to the thing, you need to say, oh, damn, I heard that, and I just forgot.
That's your only way to play it.
So as a public service announcement to the spouses listening to this, the women, For some reason, it just seems to be a male-female thing.
We can't hear you if you're facing the other direction and mumbling.
Almost never. Now, I'd like to add to that.
If you're standing next to a source of running water, could be a sink, possibly a shower, could be a bathtub filling up.
If you're talking to me from across the room, Even if you're not mumbling, especially.
And I'm standing next to running water.
How often do I hear you?
Zero? I think it's zero.
And what do you do if somebody talks and you're next to the water?
Don't do this.
What? Because they'll just say it again the same way.
And you're still standing next to the water.
Yes, James. You deal with this every fucking day.
Right? And I promise you, this is not me talking about Christina.
This is every man and every woman, and I don't know why.
It's other female members of a family as well.
So it's kids, grandmothers.
But it's some kind of a weird gender difference.
I don't think a man has ever done that.
But women hear you across the room if you're facing the other direction, and we never hear you when we're near running water, and that's not going to change.
All right. There's a story about Chris Cuomo helping his brother through his accusations, the brother's accusations of sexual misconduct while governor.
I can't care about this story.
In what world did we expect brothers not to talk?
Or not to help each other.
Or not to advise.
Or maybe even not to make a phone call to somebody.
Of course. Of course.
This is a story that shouldn't be a story.
I mean, it's of interest.
But to imagine that Chris Cuomo should be fired for giving his brother advice on anything, I just can't go there.
This is just too political.
I realize even MSNBC, somebody there saying he should be fired for this.
And I don't even have an opinion about whether he should be fired.
That's CNN's problem.
They can make that decision.
But it doesn't bother me at all.
Are you bothered by it?
Does anybody here feel that there's some injustice or something because he works for CNN and he backed his brother?
Who would not expect that exactly?
You know, it's one thing to be surprised by something that's bad, but if you know it's just part of the texture of life, Complaining about it is like complaining about the rain.
It's just going to be there.
So, I don't know, this just looks like news on the right taking a shot at the Cuomos.
And I'm not defending either one of them, because it's not my problem.
You know, they have plenty that they need to defend there.
I'm just saying, I don't know how I should be mad at this.
I can't get concerned about that news.
All right, another news.
Erasmus says that only 26% of likely U.S. voters believe Biden has done enough to stop the rising price of gasoline.
Carpe says the rain should be fired, too.
You're tough on rain, Carpe.
Tough on rain.
Have I ever mentioned that 25% of people in every poll are frickin' idiots?
Just reliably?
25% is always gonna get it wrong.
Every question. And so exactly 26%, you know, the 25 is always approximate.
They think maybe Biden has done enough to keep the energy prices down.
He literally is raising them intentionally.
He's intentionally reducing the supply.
How does 26% of the country not notice that he's not only not helping, he's trying as hard as he can to make it go the other way, right in front of you, and every news source is reporting it.
It's not even one of those things where, you know, the left is hiding the news or anything.
They're reporting it.
A quarter of the country gets every question wrong.
It's so consistent.
Alright, I'm going to give you a quick investment lesson that's a two-parter.
It's also full disclosure.
So I have some investments in some topics that I talk about, and so you should know that.
Tesla, I have an investment in.
Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, a bunch of tech companies.
Snap, Twitter. Twitter, I have an investment in.
And I've mentioned those before, but I just made some changes this morning.
I'm going to tell you why I made the changes, but also full disclosure, in case I talk about it.
Alright, here's what I did.
I had shares of Pennstock, the online gaming company.
And that was because of the barstool situation.
You know, the stock dropped when the whole barstool thing came out.
And I thought to myself, you know, this looks like just...
Overreaction. And so I bought some on the dip, and then it just kept going down.
So in terms of guessing, I guessed poorly.
Now here's your first investment lesson.
Many of you are experienced investors, so just fact-check me as I go.
If you're an experienced investor, jump in on the comments if you want to add something to it, because you probably do.
Never buy an individual stock...
And think you're investing.
That's the most important tip.
If you buy one and only one stock, and you don't have any other investments, you're not investing.
That's not an investment.
That's just a bet.
That's just a gamble. If you don't have a diversified portfolio where some can go up and some will go down and it kind of takes care of itself on average, if you don't have that, you're not investing, you're just gambling.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
When I tell you what individual stocks I bought, here's what you should know.
It's only one of a larger portfolio, and for me it's just gambling.
So the next topic I tell you about I would not say is an investment, and specifically I wouldn't advise you to buy it.
Don't do what I did unless you've done your own looking into it.
Research is a little bit worthless, but at least do your own.
Don't listen to me. And you have a portfolio that's already balanced.
If that's the case, well, you might consider it, but I don't recommend it.
The stock is...
So the stock I got rid of, first of all, is Regeneron.
So Regeneron has been sort of a miracle drug for quite a while now because it works.
But today is also the day that the COVID pill gets approved by the FDA, we think.
If COVID pills are out, which would you rather take?
A Regeneron drip?
Now, give me a fact check on this.
That's the only way you can get Regeneron, right?
Regeneron doesn't have a pill, does it?
So it's going to get a lot of competition.
So whatever form it is, it doesn't matter.
It's getting competition. So I got rid of Regeneron for a profit.
It was up. But it'll have more competition.
Probably still a good company.
Probably still a good stock.
But it didn't have the reason that I bought it changed.
Now, here's a Warren Buffett investment advice.
If you buy a stock, don't sell it unless the reason you bought it in the first place changes.
So the reason I bought it in the first place is it was sort of the only game in town, you know, that was that powerful.
But now there's competition, so I sold it.
So that's your investment lesson.
Something changed. The other thing I bought was today, just this morning, I bought Wynn Hotels.
Now, Wynn, W-Y-N-N, which is one of the greatest names ever for a casino.
It actually says Wynn right in the name, but obviously it was the founder's name.
Now, the reason that I bought that, and again, this is not an investment advice, is I'm betting that the variant news is overblown.
So I'm essentially making a bet that I understand the media a little bit better than maybe the average investor.
Is that true? I don't know.
I don't know. I guess we'll find out, because I put my money where my mouth is.
Now, that doesn't mean wind will necessarily go up or down based on that variable alone.
But it's a good one. So it's a solid company.
It's the top of the industry.
It's the best hotels in Vegas.
Vegas is still doing business.
So apparently they're making money, even in the pandemic.
So it's probably underpriced now, and I bought some of that.
But I don't recommend it for you because it's very, very speculative.
Don't invest in a stock like that unless you can lose it all and you still sleep.
All right. Wynn has China exposure, but my understanding is that's priced to zero already.
They've basically priced the China stuff all the way down to nothing.
I'm exaggerating, but it's priced in there.
So we'll see. So I just tell you that so as you know.
And I also think that the COVID pill will make such a big difference to travel and risk that it's going to be hard to keep things locked down when you've got a COVID pill in your pocket.
Am I right? Apparently the COVID pill takes the risk down to pretty close zero if you take it once you have symptoms.
Am I right? I think that's the case.
And when that's the case, how does the government justify keeping stuff closed down?
I feel like the argument is going away really quickly.
All right. Apparently in Germany, if you want to commit suicide in a legal way, which apparently is legal if it's assisted suicide, sort of medically approved and you've done all the steps to be approved for that, you can actually kill yourself in Germany legally.
But only if you're vaccinated first.
That's the actual story.
I'm not even making that up.
You have to be fully vaccinated to kill yourself in Germany.
Now, obviously the reason is because the medical professionals and others who might be attending to you don't want to get infected.
So obviously the story is not about the person who's going to be dead, but it sounds funny when you read it.
It's one of those stories that sounds like, ah, this is crazy, except it's not.
You still have to protect the people around you if you believe that vaccinations do that.
Also, Greece and Germany are sort of poised to make vaccines mandatory.
I think in Greece, that's already a dumb deal.
And in Germany, the incoming chancellor wants them to be mandatory.
At the same time, the COVID pill is coming out.
So here's a bad move for a politician.
Make vaccines mandatory at the same time the COVID pill comes out.
That's pretty bad timing.
All right? Now, the COVID pill does not make vaccinations unnecessary, if our experts are correct in what everything's doing.
Of course, that's a big if.
But it's good news.
So here's my question about Germany.
In my opinion, this would be a pretty big government overreach.
Do you think the German population can be Hitlerized this easily, still?
Did they learn nothing from World War II? Because I feel like that's their main lesson in life, and they're a bit obsessed about learning something from it.
You may be over-obsessed.
But this is going to be fun to watch if the German public just gets in line and says, oh, okay, I guess we need our shots now.
Or do they overthrow the government?
I don't know. I'm going to root for the German people.
So I'm going to root for the German people to change their government's opinion or at least speak out, unless the public actually agrees with this.
You know, if you did a German opinion poll and 80% of the public was for it, I'd say, well, okay, do what you want to do.
Do what you want to do.
All right. There is an interesting article in The Blaze by Daniel Horowitz, who is making some pretty big claims about vitamin D based on studies.
So he's not making stuff up, he's looking at the studies.
And apparently the studies suggest that if your vitamin D level is over a certain level, your odds of dying are zero.
Apparently the science seems to suggest that.
Yeah, over 50, what is the unit?
50 what? Milli something?
What is the units we're talking about?
Yeah. Now, apparently, now this is according to Daniel Horowitz's article, so these are his interpretations.
According to him, it's the most documented scientific truth of the pandemic.
That nothing's more documented with more certainty than having more vitamin D would keep you from dying of COVID. Now, do you believe that?
I always have the problem that, you know, people said that about iverbectin, they said it about hydroxychloroquine.
It has been said about many things and not true.
There are many things that look like they're super well documented by science, but they're not true.
So I would be concerned about anybody who says all the science points in one direction, because we've seen that trick before.
But I suspect that all the science does point in one direction.
And as I predicted, let me take you back to the beginning of the pandemic.
Some of you will remember this.
And based on pattern recognition alone, before I'd heard it from really anybody, but I think other people were saying it then, I just hadn't heard it from anybody yet, I said, is it a coincidence that it seems to be not affecting the places that have the most vitamin D? Does anybody remember me saying that at the beginning of the pandemic?
Hey, I'm just looking at where it's good and where it's bad, and it looks like wherever people get enough vitamin D, including Sweden, because they supplement in Sweden, including Sweden, that they were having better outcomes.
And it looked like it was fairly consistent, where there was a lot of smog, it looked like they were having a tough time, and where there wasn't...
Now, I don't know that my pattern recognition was on point, or it could have been an illusion.
You know, I just convinced myself I saw something.
But the science now is squarely on that side.
But here's my caution.
According to Daniel Horowitz's article, there's now some tests...
Which would suggest it's more than just a correlation, that it's causation.
I'm not quite there.
I want to be there.
And if I had to bet, I don't know, 50-50, that we'd get there.
And 50-50 means I just don't have a basis for making a prediction, basically.
I don't know that we're going to prove it's causation.
And here's why.
Everybody who has bad health has low vitamin D. It could be just an indicator that your health is bad in general.
Dr. Shiva promoted vitamin D first, somebody saying in the comments.
I know he was among the earliest.
I don't remember if he said it before I did, but probably.
Inflammation theory, etc.
Yeah, anecdotally, people taking COVID seem to be doing well.
But here's the provocative point that Daniel Horowitz makes, and I don't discount this.
This could actually be true.
That it's the biggest crime in the history of humanity.
That is possible.
It is possible that the collective pharma plus news industry may have prevented an obvious and cheap solution to the pandemic.
May have. And if I had to bet whether this is true or not, that the biggest crime in all humanity...
I mean, you could argue that World War II was bigger.
But in terms of this kind of crime that's not actually a war, it would be the biggest crime in human civilization.
And we might be watching it right in front of us.
Letter bummer. Scott is finally waking up.
All right, asshole, you're gone.
I don't tolerate Scott is finally waking up when I say things that I literally was the first fucking person in the country that you heard say it.
Wasn't the first one to say it, but probably the first one you heard, for many of you.
All right. So, I would keep an eye on this, because I don't know that the news business will report on it accurately.
I don't know if scientists will report on it accurately.
And I don't trust a journalist to look into the science and tell me what's happening.
So I just put a gigantic question mark around this, and I think that Daniel Horowitz's article does a good service, and I recommend it.
So go look for that. I tweeted it if you want to find it that way.
All right. There's an article on CNN about Trump and his intelligence briefings.
And of course it's written to make Trump look bad and says stuff like, I guess James Clapper says that Trump ignores the facts from the biggest, you know, he ignores the facts.
Clapper. Clapper said that Trump ignored the facts.
Are we going to ignore the fact that Clapper is the biggest liar we've ever known in public life?
He's literally a famous liar, Clapper is.
I mean, well-documented.
You've all seen the videos of what he said and then what's true.
He's literally a well-documented liar.
And he says that Trump wouldn't believe him or that people like him.
Thank you. Is this supposed to make me think less of Trump?
Apparently Trump didn't trust that they would even be on the side of the country, much less Trump.
Now, am I supposed to think less of Trump because he had a perfectly accurate view of the intelligence agency?
Because that's what it was.
Trump smelled it from the first second, and he smelled it correctly.
They were, in fact, trying to overthrow the government.
At the very time that they were giving him briefings, they were trying to overthrow his administration.
And they said, despite all of that, apparently he treated all of the briefers, and he got briefed a lot, Starseed will be blocked now.
Starseed is saying, shit, Scott just figured this out.
No, fucking asshole.
I didn't just fucking figure it out.
Goodbye. Jesus Christ.
You fucking idiots.
Why are there so many idiots today on YouTube?
Did somebody, like, did an idiot tweet this or something?
All the idiots come...
Just don't tell me I'm finally fucking getting it, if it's something I've been talking about for two fucking years.
Jesus Christ. All right.
Sorry about that. All right.
Apparently CNN's going to have to re-engineer their narrative.
If they're trying to make us like Trump less because he didn't trust the people trying to overthrow his administration, That's a plus.
Pure plus. And, you know, you've watched me long enough.
I'm not going to say everything Trump does pure plus.
Right? You know, he's got some rough edges.
We all acknowledge that. But this is pure plus.
Thanks, TP. Yesterday, I saw a little group of people talking.
I forget, what is Twitter's product that's like that...
The one where you can hear people talking, so it's like a group talk, and people...
Spaces? Yeah, so Twitter's product called Spaces, where you can create a little space where people will talk about a topic.
Well, you know, I wandered into one yesterday that was about black issues.
It was mostly, maybe 90% of the attendees were black.
And the topic was issues of black concern.
And it was really interesting.
It's like Clubhouse, but it's Twitter's version.
It was really interesting to be sort of the fly on the wall.
I mean, even though my presence was obvious because I show up there.
But to hear people talking to each other, in other words, black people talking to other black people, is different.
Than what you normally see if you're just watching TV. Because normally you're seeing black people talking to everybody.
And it was kind of an eye-opener.
I've got to admit. And I'll probably get cancelled for what I'm going to do next.
So if I get cancelled for this, it was nice knowing you.
I enjoyed our time together.
But here's what one of the...
One of the people talking, it doesn't matter which one, was saying, because it sounded like people were generally agreeing with this, they were saying that white adoptive parents of black babies are suboptimal, and the reason is that the white adoptive parents,
on average, would not, and I'm paraphrasing right, these are not exact quotes, and the problem was that a white adoptive parent Would not teach the black child that their experience is based on victimhood,
basically. That the white parent would not teach them that they are being suppressed and held back by society and that racial injustice is a big explanation for whatever's happening to them.
Now, I only heard agreement.
Nobody pushed back on it.
And I wonder, of course, if this is anecdotal, so I ask myself, would this be a normal conversation?
Would your average black American have this conversation with other black Americans?
Would they talk this way? It's interesting.
Now, here's the part where I'll get cancelled.
I'm trying to be helpful.
Probably still get cancelled.
Because my intention doesn't matter, right?
It just matters what they take out of context.
But I'm trying to be helpful.
I believe that this point of view is based on truth.
It is true that if you're black in America, you're going to be discriminated against.
That's true. I also buy into systemic racism as being absolutely true.
How can it not be true?
How can one group start from behind and expect to, you know, catch up?
I mean, it's definitely a limitation.
You know, you could argue that other groups have succeeded better with similar or bad situations, but not really.
You know, nothing's like slavery.
So I buy into systemic racism as being real, but here's the problem.
If you raise the kid with that belief set, you've ruined the kid.
It's like child abuse. It doesn't matter that it's true.
It absolutely doesn't matter that it's true.
If you teach the kids that their success will be limited by these things, that's what'll happen.
That's how they'll see the world, and that's what'll happen.
Now, here's where I get cancelled.
Do you think Asian Americans are doing that with their kids?
Do you think Jewish Americans are telling their kids, You know, you're not going to do so well in America because of all the anti-Semitism.
Nope. Nope.
Do you think white parents tell their kids that they won't do so well because of what?
Reverse racism or, you know, it's tough to be a white person in America in 2021, even if they believe it.
Even if they believe it.
You're not going to raise your kids to believe it.
That's child abuse. And the fact that it's true, let's take the specific case of black Americans, it's completely true that they'll have extra challenges.
But man, you raise somebody to believe that that's like a permanent obstacle, Because that's essentially what it looks like.
It looks like it's some kind of permanent obstacle, the way it's being represented.
That is so bad.
And it would explain almost entirely the difference between white and black performance in the country.
If you just took a bunch of anybody, you pick any ethnic group, and then teach their children that they won't do well because of discrimination, and just watch what happens.
They won't do well.
Because they'll think that their failure is caused by somebody else.
So why would you fix it?
You can't. It's somebody else's problem.
How do I fix other people?
I can fix myself.
So I would say that the problem here is that you have to separate what's true from what's useful.
What's true is it's tough to be black in America in a variety of ways, but it's also true that there are a bunch of advantages.
If you're not teaching your kid, hey, this discrimination stuff is real, and it's going to bite you in the ass every single day of your life, that's probably true.
Also true, you have a bunch of advantages the society has engineered in for you, such as getting a job at a Fortune 500 company.
You go to the top of the line.
So go there. Don't go where things will be bad for you, because you have a choice.
Go work for the Fortune 500 company.
I mean, assuming you've done your schoolwork right.
So, anyway, it bothers me to see a gigantic segment of Americans disadvantaging themselves, because that's what it looks like.
It's like self-immolation.
And I can't be comfortable with this.
So at the risk of getting cancelled, let me advise black parents to tell their kids that they can succeed.
They just have to have a better strategy because they've got a little extra challenge.
All right. Twitter has a new CEO. Jack Dorsey decided to resign from that position.
He's got plenty to do.
I believe he's still running square and he's got a lot of...
Charitable challenges they had.
I think Jack wants to give away much of his wealth, and that's sort of a full-time job, as Bill Gates has discovered.
So I would say, number one, the best timing of anybody who ever left a job.
This is the best timing that a founder ever had.
Twitter stock is good, and the election's coming.
And when the election comes, I would not want to be the CEO of Twitter.
He is going to get so much grief.
So to the extent that Jack Dorsey was thinking of leaving anyway, his timing could not have been better.
Now he's replaced with a new CEO is Parag Aggrual.
I haven't heard it pronounced correctly, so if I'm mispronouncing it, I apologize.
And he's getting some trouble on the internet today because of a tweet, of course, from 10 years ago or something, 11 years ago, in which he was quoting Asif Munvi, a comedian on The Jon Stewart Show.
And so I'll tell you what the tweet was, and then let's talk about it.
Did I actually not write down the tweet?
Good Lord. Could somebody put...
You all saw the news.
Would you do me a favor and type the tweet into the comments so people can see it?
Because I'm an idiot and I didn't write down the actual exact tweet.
I'll paraphrase it.
He was saying that if people can call Muslims terrorists...
Then why can't he call white people racists?
Now, there was a big upheaval about that.
The left is going out of their way to sort of explain it away.
And this is the way they're explaining it away.
They're saying, hey, that was just sarcasm and it was a joke.
Was it sarcasm?
Was it a joke? Now, it was based on what a comedian said to another comedian.
So that much we know.
Yeah, there it is. So the exact quote was...
And thank you. They are not going to make a distinction...
I don't know who they is. I guess white people.
They are not going to make a distinction between Muslims and extremists.
Then why should I distinguish between white people and racists?
Now, it's in quotes...
So you can see that it's not his words, right?
So he's quoting somebody, and originally it was in a humorous context.
But, I don't know if you know this or not, but I write jokes for a living.
This is one of the few things in which I am an expert, believe it or not.
So we finally found something I could talk about that I'm an expert at.
It took long enough, but I'm an expert at writing jokes.
I've got 33 years of experience at a commercial level.
And this wasn't a joke.
This wasn't a joke.
Where's the punchline?
What's the joke?
There's no joke.
So trying to explain this away as a joke is ridiculous.
It's a point.
It's a point. It's a provocative point.
But he's making a point.
And it's a good one.
Why would anybody even need to apologize for it?
It's a perfectly good point.
If somebody's going to paint one group by their extremists, why can't you do the same with them?
Perfectly good point.
Doesn't need to be explained.
You don't need to explain it away as a joke.
You don't have to say it's satire.
Obviously, it shouldn't be taken seriously.
It was a point. It was a good enough point that people on the right probably looked at it and said, oh yeah, that's a pretty good point.
Because if you're on the right, you're generally in favor of freedom of speech.
This is just freedom of speech.
Made a point, made it provocative.
Good for him. I have no problem with that at all.
Except, here's a question.
Why make that point?
Of all the points you could make about all the things in the world, we don't tweet them all.
We tweet things that we think are important, things that in our mind have risen to a level of, oh, that's tweetable.
So we do know that the new CEO of Twitter has at least at one point in his life thought that something important enough to tweet was this point, which is a really scary signal That his opinion of white people, and Republicans specifically, of Republicans on Twitter might have some bias in it.
Would you agree with that?
That the joke itself doesn't really say anything that I have any problem with.
But the things you focus on can be a signal for what you're thinking.
Wait a minute, who's going to say it first?
Who's going to criticize me first for mind reading?
Go ahead. You should.
You should say, uh, Scott, you're mind reading.
Mind reading. And it would be.
So we can't know what was in his mind.
But if you're telling me I should ignore the signal that this was one of the things he thought was worthy of tweeting, I can't ignore that.
That's a pretty strong signal.
But I also can't read his mind.
So the signal could be imaginary.
I could just be imagining that he's got an attitude about Republicans.
It wouldn't be statistically unlikely.
If you just threw a dart into San Francisco or wherever he's working in it, and you hit the first person with a dart, well, there's a pretty good chance that they don't like Republicans.
Or don't respect them or something.
So this is a pretty big signal that he would be similar to most of the people in San Francisco and have an attitude about Republicans.
Which is scary if you happen to be a Republican and you happen to use Twitter and you're saying to yourself, someday it's going to be a judgment call whether I cross the line or not.
Who do you want making the judgment call?
Somebody who had never made this tweet?
Or somebody who made that tweet.
Now, of course, the CEO isn't making all the banning calls personally.
But the big ones, I'll bet the big ones are all run by the CEO. I'll bet the CEO sees all the big blue check ones that they ban.
So that would be something to be afraid of.
Let's see what Daniel Dale is saying.
Uh... Well, I don't know what that's about.
I thought that was going to be on this topic, but it was not.
Oh, damn it.
Just lost my whole locals feed.
Don't know if you guys are still there somewhere.
Let's see if I can find you. All right.
Damn it.
I think it might be live still, so let me see if I can find it.
This interface is driving me nuts.
God damn it. All right.
Well, YouTube, I'll just take locals offline.
All right, Locals is offline.
Apparently, if I open up an image and look at it, hit the wrong button, it goes offline.
All right, John Carl has a book called something about betrayal.
It's an anti-Trump book. And he did an interview, and CNN's Brian Stelter was talking to him about it.
And John Carl said this about Trump.
How do you cover a candidate who is running both...
Is it both against whoever the Democratic candidate is, but also running against the very Democratic system that makes all of this possible?
In other words, there's a journalist who will be covering Trump.
Yeah, Locals is down, I know.
So I just turned off the feed.
It's just a interface bug with Locals, so I can't get it back.
At least not while I'm doing this.
And so Jonathan Karl says that he doesn't know how to cover a candidate who he believes is running against the very democratic system that makes all this possible.
What?
What?
How can you possibly be credible as a journalist if you believe that Trump was running against the democratic system?
What? Now, I assume that he's talking about questioning the elections.
Questioning the elections is part of the democratic system.
Protesting? Part of the democratic system.
Disagreeing with your critics?
Part of the system.
Wanting your elections to be fair and audited and to make sure that the people voted for who they thought they voted for?
Part of the system.
Part of the democratic system.
Trump has never even slightly left the democratic system.
Not even slightly. He's been one of the most productive parts of it.
He told us the news was fake and finally sold it to us.
So now we know.
That's a pretty big deal.
If you want to improve the democratic system, you have to destroy the fake news.
And he did. I don't think anybody's helped the democratic system more than that.
Do you? Seriously.
If you just take one variable, Trump is the one who told you the news was fake in a way that eventually you could see as well.
That is the biggest improvement in democracy since the Constitution, in my opinion.
Because if you didn't know that the news was fake, what good is having a democracy?
It wouldn't make any difference, right?
Now, did you used to think that the election system itself was fair or fair enough?
I'll bet you did.
I'll bet you did. Now what do you think?
Now you think that even if the election picked the right president, I don't know one way or the other, you do know that the system is flawed and that we can't live with this.
We have a system which is flawed and we cannot live with it.
Trump made that true as well.
Now, who is more democratic?
The person who says, we have to fix this system so we really know who got elected, or the person who says, don't fix the system, even though you can't tell who got elected for sure.
Which one is more the Democrat or Democratic?
Trump. By far.
Which president gave more access to the press?
Biden or Trump?
Trump by far.
Ten to one, right?
What does the democratic system need more than transparency?
Well, it's like one of the top things you need.
You need all kinds of transparency.
And Trump gave it to him.
So I would say that Trump is the biggest booster of the democratic system of all time.
Since the actual creation of the Constitution.
Those three things are gigantic.
I mean, even the fact that he tweeted was more transparency.
Greatest transparency, greatest amount of energy toward fixing the voting system itself, and the person who told us that the news was ruining democracy, basically.
You could make an argument that he should get an award for boosting the democratic system.
And it would be an easy argument, actually.
A very easy argument.
You wouldn't have to stretch it at all?
I do know who vandalized the house, by the way.
And what's interesting is that one of that person's parents is probably watching right now.
So if you have a child who may or may not have taken some eggs and had a reason to throw them at my house, you know who you are.
Why don't you ask your Child.
Where they were that night.
And what they were doing. Because I think you know who it was.
We do. All right.
Amplifying, not boosting.
Okay.
I'm just looking at your comments for a moment.
I don't think the eggs were about me.
Frank says, "Scott, using your skills, I make hundreds of dollars a week being TikTok famous."
Good for you. So I tried to buy a Ford automobile recently, a month ago or so, and I knew it was going to take a few months for delivery because everything was backed up.
So I ordered the automobile, and I didn't hear back, and then I followed up and I said, hey, is this really ordered?
I'm looking for some kind of ongoing communication.
And instead of saying, oh yes, that's ordered, they sent me the order and asked me to confirm it.
And I thought, oh, maybe it was my fault, because I was pretty sure I confirmed it before I left.
I mean, I looked at it, I signed it, Confirmed.
But then why were they checking with me again?
Like weeks and weeks later.
So I thought that was weird.
And I also thought it might be a stall.
A way to tell me that I'm not getting that car.
Or that automobile.
And so I followed up.
And didn't get a call back.
And I followed up again.
Didn't get a call back.
So that's why I tweeted and said, does anybody know if cars are even available?
And of course there's a big microchip problem and that probably has something to do with it.
But here's the thing.
I actually don't know if I bought a car.
Isn't that weird? And I can't find out.
Now, a representative from Ford did contact me to see if they could work it out.
But I don't know if I need to do that, because if they had a car, I'm sure they'd want to sell it to me, right?
If any car was ordered and coming my way in any kind of a reasonable time, month or two or whatever, I think they'd want me to know that, don't you?
Am I right? Wouldn't they want me to know that?
They'd keep in contact, hey, here's the schedule, your car is at the factory, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I don't think that they're selling cars now.
I feel like Ford is only selling you promises of cars.
I don't know if you could actually buy a car, unless it's on the lot.
If it's on the lot, yes.
But if you had to order it, I don't know that they could even tell you they can get it, or when.
Does anybody else have this experience?
So I don't know that there's necessarily a problem to solve, because if they could solve their supply chain problem, they would have done it already.
Now, the Ford Vapor.
I'm actually pro-Ford.
I like American company.
It's a great American company.
Talk about Mr.
Science, Fauci. You know, I've intentionally ignored that whole Fauci saying that people are going after him because he represents science.
That was just a person who's not so good with public relations, trying to handle some public relations.
There's not much to that story.
Trying to cloak himself with the With a shield of science?
That worked when we believed science.
But I don't know what is less credible in 2021, science in general or Fauci specifically.
So it's sort of like, well, they're attacking me, but I'm going to wrap myself in crap.
All right, what time is it?
I'm going to need to get going here.
I apologize to all the locals people.
There's sort of an interface imperfection that caused me to knock you off today.
And... Yeah, I think Ford is doing something big to fix their chip problem.
It'll just take a while.
All right. Masks and vaccines haven't worked.
You know, that was one of the things that was in the article in The Blaze by Horowitz.
He claimed in that article that the science already shows that masking and vaccines and shutdowns and stuff didn't make any difference.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that there's any study that shows that.
All right, there are studies that pretend to show that, but I don't think there's a good study that shows that.
Are you edging us local speakers?
Watch John Campbell review of vitamin D clinical trials on YouTube.
He's pro-vitamin D, right?
Have they done a trial yet with vitamin D in which they took a group of people and they boosted some of their vitamin D before they were ever infected?
And they didn't, and they left the rest alone?
Has that trial been done in a randomized, controlled trial way?
I doubt it, because I don't know anybody who would have the financial incentive.
Somebody says yes. Yes?
I don't think so.
Because I don't know who would fund that.
It would be really expensive, and I don't know that, you know, generic vitamin companies could fund it.
Observational, somebody says.
Yeah, I don't think it's been done.
So here's what it would take to change my, well, not change my mind, to convince me that vitamin D supplementation would end the pandemic.
I would need two places that are kind of similar, and I would need one place that gets no supplements ahead of time and one that does, and then I want to see that the ones that got supplements, nobody died.
And then the other one, they had a normal rate of death, what we'd expect.
If you can give me that with a randomized controlled trial of sufficient number of people, I'm in.
But short of that, I still have a problem with the causation.
I mean, it's so close.
Like, I want to believe it.
By the way, Gibraltar has been debunked.
Yeah, the countries that we know you can't learn anything from.
Africa. Not, you know, a continent.
Doesn't tell us anything.
It's just a mystery. Sweden?
Mystery. Israel?
Mystery. Gibraltar?
Mystery. They don't tell you anything.
They just tell Florida, California.
Compare anything you want. Basically, we don't know why stuff's happening.
But if it turns out it's the vitamin D, that would explain everything.
That would just explain everything.
So the fact that it explains basically everything does make me lean toward it.
Compare north and south, vitamin D, yeah.
You can't quite do that because of supplementing.
A lot of people supplement vitamin D, so I don't know if you can just compare north and south.
Dr. Johnson says, Here's my troll.
Dr. Johnson says, you'll never find a fat person that is also tan from the sun.
Well... That's not a bad comment.
I mean, obviously, it's an absolute, so it doesn't make sense as an absolute.
But it's probably true.
That people who are obese spend less time in a swimsuit.
That's probably true.
So, wouldn't it be interesting if the weight was nothing but a signal for vitamin D, and the weight actually had nothing to do with anything, and it was just your vitamin D levels all along?
More skin surface?
Yeah, the bigger you are, the more skin surface you have to absorb vitamin D. Angela says he's never been to the beach in Texas.
