Episode 1617 Scott Adams: How to Turn The Trunk of Your Car Into a Quarantine Center, and Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Jobs created vs. citizen deaths
Chuck Grassley wants Fentanyl to be schedule 1?
Democrat strategy of blaming other side
For lack of transparency and 2020 election
Supreme Court justices revealed as uninformed
How Republicans can win on immigration
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Are you in for the best time of possibly your entire life?
This is called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I can guarantee it's the best thing that will ever happen to you.
If you want to be sure it's the best thing that will ever happen to you, well, there is a little ceremony which guarantees it.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Possibly you've heard of it. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass or a tank or a child's thigh and a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Don't try to read my whiteboard because I move out of the way.
I'm not going to be out of the way long enough.
Look, you can try.
You can try, but you can't get it.
Oh, you can almost see it.
It's so tantalizing, but you can't.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's happening now.
Go! I feel the public coming together like nothing has ever happened before.
Well, let's get right to it.
We've got lots of good news and interesting news today.
So Trump has announced that he's launching his social network called True.
How wonderful is it that his social network will be called True, given that he's sort of the person who popularized the name fake news.
Now, I don't know that many people who are not Trump supporters will imagine that what is there is true.
And so the question is, does Trump have a way to beat the curse of the alternate social networks?
The curse, of course, is that they only attract conservatives.
How in the world do you get a robust Twitter-like service if you only attract one side?
I don't really know how that's going to work.
Will enough left-leaning trolls go on his social network just to cause trouble?
Because I don't feel like they would bother.
So I'm very curious what it would take to make it successful.
Because, you know, Fox News is hugely successful, but that's a media that you just watch.
But if it's supposed to be interactive, such as a Twitter model, how do you have it interactive with just people who agree with each other?
So I don't know how that works exactly.
But I'll be real curious to see if Trump has figured out a workaround for that problem that nobody else has figured out yet.
Now the most important story of the day is that a Texas woman whose son had a positive COVID test, and she was going to get another one, but she didn't want to be in the same car with somebody who was COVID positive, so she put her son in the trunk of her car.
And I guess he started yelling when he got...
Near some civilization.
And then the woman was arrested for putting a child in the...
How old was he? 12 or something?
13, maybe? 13, I think.
In the trunk of his car.
Now, I don't know about you, but I am just about fed up with all of these government mandates.
You know, it's not bad enough that the government's trying to make you get vaccinated and make you stay home and make you wear masks.
But now the government is telling you how to raise your children.
And apparently one of the things you can't do is put your child in the trunk of your car and start driving around.
Now, I don't want to live in a world in which the government tells me how to use the trunk of my car.
I think this government mandate, if I may call it that, against putting your child in the trunk of your car is very overblown.
Now, in my experience, if you put a child in the trunk of a car, they don't like it right away.
But that's true of a lot of things, right?
Kids don't like school, they don't like going to bed, but you can make them get used to it.
In my experience, if you put a kid in the trunk of a car, and if you train them diligently, in about eight months they'll start to like it.
And then you're good.
You don't even have to open the trunk of the car.
The kids will do it themselves.
They'll just walk out and say, hey, kids, we're going somewhere.
They'll just open the trunk and crawl right in there.
Now, this has many advantages, not just quarantine.
When they're in the trunk of the car, you can't hear them.
That's a bonus.
If you try to talk to them, you will never be annoyed that they're on their phone or their headphones are in.
And then you're like, hey, I'm trying to talk to you.
Hello, hello, hello back there.
Very annoying.
But if you just put them in the trunk of your car from the get-go, then you can just talk to them by texting.
Voice text only, because you're driving.
Voice text only. So if you don't text your teens in the back of the car already, you may have different teens than I'm used to.
But if you put them in the trunk of the car, like I said, about eight months of diligent practice, and they'll start to like it.
So there's that.
Am I going to get kicked off of social media for that?
For the people who can't take a joke?
Probably. Adam Dopamine tweeted around a story about...
This is like an uninteresting story that's the most interesting story in the world to me.
And let's see if I can sell it to you as interesting.
Apparently, there's a Chinese method to make a greenhouse that can work all year round, no matter how cold it is.
So Canada has started to adopt an idea that works in China.
So in Chinese territories where it gets really cold in the winter, they can still grow all year round.
Now, are you saying to yourself, uh...
I don't think we just invented the greenhouse, Scott.
I'm pretty sure the greenhouse has been here forever.
Yes, but this greenhouse uses no extra energy.
What? They grow vegetables when it's basically below zero without adding heat.
I don't know how.
It doesn't make sense to me that You could capture and store enough heat that way, but they figured it out.
So it's something that's reproducible and very provable.
Yeah, it's not geothermal.
It's literally they're just capturing the sunlight, but they're doing it so efficiently that somehow they can heat it.
Now, I also don't know how they get the right kind of light.
So that was a little unexplained.
Because don't you need a certain kind of light for a certain length of time?
But apparently no. Maybe they grow different sized vegetables and stuff in the winter.
But apparently they can build one of these and not add any energy ever and just keep growing stuff.
Now, the real cost is building the facility itself.
But don't you imagine if there were a lot of them that it would If there were a lot of these, that the price would come down.
Maybe you could get it down to kit-sized, so you don't even need special equipment or anything.
Just buy it and put up the frames and put on the plastic or whatever the hell it is.
I've got a feeling that this is a big, big thing.
I've long said that growing indoors is going to be the way it goes.
Because if you grow indoors, you don't need the pesticides.
You don't need a lot of stuff.
You don't worry about the...
The elements destroying things, etc.
You can recycle the water.
Basically, growing indoors is all the advantages if you can pay for the structure.
That's pretty much it.
If you pay for the structure, and I think that we'll probably have a robot that can build these things pretty soon.
Imagine, if you will, you build some robots that are special-purpose robots.
And all they do is build these greenhouses.
Now, if you look at it, it looks like it's just a bunch of U-shaped metal structures, like an upside-down letter U. And they're just put in the ground, and then some kind of plastic covers them.
I feel like you could roboticize that, couldn't you?
Robot at each side and just make these as long as you want, make it two miles long, just keep going.
High tunnels. Maybe.
Could be. Anyway, I think this whole indoor growing thing is gigantic, and it goes to everything from climate change to energy use to water use to...
Even CO2. I mean, you would want to use the CO2 and pump it into there.
So there's just so many ways that this could go right.
It's definitely the golden age.
All right. There's a wonderful fake news graph on Twitter that shows that Biden has created, like, a tremendous amount of jobs, and Trump actually lost jobs during his administration.
And better than every president so far, Biden has created the most jobs.
Is that true? Is that true that Biden created the most jobs by far?
Well, it's true in the way that statistics lie because we came off a pandemic.
Of course, whoever was president when the pandemic started was going to lose jobs.
Whoever was president when the pandemic was starting to mature was going to gain a lot of jobs.
And that's really the whole story.
And I thought to myself, there must be a lot of people who don't know that the pandemic happened.
And so for them, they need data that conforms to their point of view.
That no pandemic happened.
So apparently somebody found a need and filled it, which is creating fake graphs on Twitter just for the people who didn't know there was a pandemic.
If you do know there was a pandemic, you look at it and say, well, this is stupid.
You can't measure that.
It's just the pandemic.
And that made me wonder, if you were to compare the number of jobs created under Biden, because there were a lot of them, To the number of citizens that died under Biden, which would be the bigger number?
Do you know? The number of jobs created under Biden or the number of citizens who died under Biden?
I think died.
I'm not positive, but I think died.
And I asked this further question for historians.
What president has presided over the most number of citizen deaths, citizens, citizen deaths, as opposed to military, during the first year of their reign?
What president had the most American deaths during their first year?
Not the first term, first year.
I think it's Biden.
I think he beats Lincoln, right?
Yeah. Lincoln was probably number two.
Now, imagine running for office when your critics can say, and accurately, that more American citizens died under your reign in the first year than any other president.
Now, of course, that's lying with statistics, right?
Because the population of the United States is something like 10 times what it was when Lincoln was in office.
And of course, again, it's the pandemic, which wasn't Biden's fault.
So you can do anything with statistics.
It would be terribly unfair to say that he killed a lot of people just because he was president.
But those are the rules.
The rules are that you get credit for the jobs and you get blamed for the deaths.
Yes.
So I didn't make up the rules.
Those are just the rules. It doesn't matter if the president had anything to do with them.
Now, I don't think Roosevelt presided over that many deaths in his first year of office.
So it's the first-year question.
Have you ever noticed that it's especially irksome when people use sarcasm to answer you?
Does that bother you?
When somebody, like, you're debating somebody and they use sarcasm, you're like, ugh, God, I hate that.
Does it bother you more when they use sarcasm on something stupid?
In other words, they're saying something that's objectively stupid, but they're adding sarcasm like it's so obviously correct that you're an idiot for not getting it?
Well, here's an example of that.
Um... When I tweeted that the election of 2020 has to be under the presumption of fraud, presumption, not evidence, but presumption, because it's non-transparent, I got this reply from Ellen Kotler on Twitter, and Ellen says sarcastically, uh, U-H-H-H, uh, 60-plus court cases, is that not transparency?
Trump started his con before the election.
It certainly has worked on you, meaning me.
60-plus court cases?
That's not enough transparency for you?
Really? Really?
That's not enough transparency.
Really. 60 court cases.
Not enough transparency for you.
That's the most annoying sarcasm in the world, when the thing they're saying is objectively stupid.
You know, the courts don't add transparency to an election, right?
Except in whatever minor way they were asked to rule on something.
If you have an election which, by its nature, isn't transparent, the courts aren't going to settle that for you.
Somebody says it's not stupid.
No, Carol, it's very stupid.
It is very stupid.
The courts are not the tool that tells you an election was fair or not.
They can only judge the things that are brought to them and are under their jurisdiction.
Do you know what kinds of things are not under their jurisdiction?
Most of the things about an election.
Because after the election is actually done, the courts say, well, that would have been good before the election.
But after the election, we can't even look at it.
So, no, the courts are not a vehicle to find transparency, except they can drill down on a specific question.
But they're not going to audit the whole network.
It can't be done. So I saw that Chuck Grassley was talking about fentanyl and wanting to make it a Schedule I. And when I first read that, I thought, all right, all right.
Now, there's a member of Congress...
Who's trying to do something about fentanyl.
That sounds pretty good.
And then I said to myself, what does Schedule 1 mean?
So I had to go look it up.
So apparently fentanyl is Schedule 2 right now, which means that it is allowed to be used for medical uses, approved medical uses, but it's illegal for recreation.
Now, does that sound like exactly what fentanyl should be?
Legal for medical use, as it is now, but illegal for recreational.
That's what it is now.
Chuck Grassley wants to make his Schedule I, which would make it illegal for legitimate medical uses.
What? Wait, what?
He wants to take a bad situation and do the only thing that would make it worse?
By making the people who at least can find a way to get away from pain take that away from them?
I mean, I don't think anybody is more anti-fentanyl than somebody whose stepson died on fentanyl, meaning me.
You can't get more anti-fentanyl than I am, but why would you take it away from the medical use?
Maybe I don't understand what he's doing.
There must be something missing in the story.
But is our government so weak?
Just get a load of this.
Some of you know I have...
I call him my buddy, Chen.
Chen is a...
He gets labeled by Twitter as being affiliated with Chinese state media.
A way to interpret that would be that he's a Chinese agent who says pro-Chinese things on Twitter.
Now, of course, Chen denies that and says these are his own opinions.
But we assume that he has to stay within the CCCP's opinions.
So I'm sure they are his personal opinions within the realm of what's allowed him to say.
So he's a pro-China...
I guess you could say a critic of the United States.
And he even agreed with Chuck Grassley.
That's right. China agrees with Chuck Grassley that the problem is on our end.
The problem is on our end.
That we've got an administrative problem with how we deal with fentanyl.
That's right. Instead of stopping fentanyl coming from China, Chuck Grassley came up with the only idea about fentanyl that I can imagine that would make China compliment him.
China is the drug dealer creating the precursors that go to the cartels that go into the United States.
China does it intentionally and knowingly because it kills tens of thousands of Americans per year.
That's what China does.
And Chuck Grassley just came up with an idea that China likes.
It is such a bad idea that China actually complimented it.
You can't get more pathetic as a politician than doing something that your enemies compliment because they really like it.
Because it's good for them.
Oh my God, that's pathetic.
I said something really dumb yesterday I want to correct.
I was saying that there were only two people in Congress who might have the balls to try to make it illegal for pharma to advertise on network news and social media.
Like every other country except two, I guess.
And I said, yeah, we need somebody who's got balls and they can really take on the big pharma.
And then I realized that I'm an idiot because I think Thomas Massey and Rand Paul...
Do a fact check on me, but they'd be closer to a libertarian point of view, right?
Which I think, by its nature, doesn't like a lot of government rules.
So they would be exactly, in terms of just philosophy, they would not be exactly compatible with any new rules.
Obviously, they make new rules, and they vote for them.
But I don't know that they would be the best...
Messengers, given that they're sort of keep the government out of our way kind of people, which I respect, by the way.
In terms of philosophy, I respect the philosophy, but sometimes you have to make exceptions.
All right. What else we got going on?
All right. I saw Thomas Massey quote speaking of him.
He said about January 6th, he said, why would a president, meaning Biden, why would a president complain about an election he won almost a year into his term?
Which is what he was doing yesterday on January 6th.
Why would he spend so much time complaining when he won?
And it was a year ago. And then Thomas Massey went on and said, today Biden could have worked on inflation, the border crisis, or other urgent issues for Americans.
And I'm thinking, yes.
Yes, he could have been useful, and he decided not to.
That's exactly what we saw.
And instead he sounded like an angry old man after four beers shouting at the neighbor's dog.
That's exactly what he sounded like.
By the way, this is good persuasion because it's visual.
It's visual in the sense that you can imagine him after four beers, shouting at the neighbor's dog.
So very good persuasion technique there.
Does it seem to you that the Democrats are lost?
If they're still fighting Trump, they just seem lost.
But also, it seems to me that they've handed Trump, or whoever becomes the Republican nominee, they've handed them a loaded gun and said, just shoot me with it.
And I'm going to show you how.
Now, I'm not saying that the Republicans will take this advice.
And this is advice, by the way.
But look how easily the Republicans could just win everything...
With January 6th as their issue, which seems impossible, doesn't it?
Because if the Democrats are saying January 6th is the one thing that they have going for them, Democrats, what are the odds that that's going to be the same thing that would be good for Republicans?
Well, let me show you.
So, when you're talking about the 2020 election, as former President Trump likes to do, he uses what I call the child frame.
The child frame was, you said, it was rigged.
It wasn't fair.
What do I say about fairness?
Fairness is a concept that was invented so idiots and children have a way to argue.
Because fairness isn't real.
There's no fairness in the world.
Everybody disagrees about what is fair.
So arguing fairness is exactly what children and idiots do.
That's the idiot frame.
I'll call it the child frame because that's not quite as insulting as the idiot frame.
But if you're arguing anything, if you're arguing anything is unfair, you've taken a child's point of view.
Compared to what you could have said, which I tweeted today, a non-auditable election bears the full presumption of fraud, which is, I have no proof of fraud.
No proof. No courts have proven it.
So take the official thing that the Democrats say.
No court has proven it, but the courts are also the wrong vehicle for it.
And since we don't have a vehicle for looking into a non-auditable situation, then the full presumption of fraud has to be on it because it's a government.
It is not an individual.
If the government were an individual, let's say a citizen, you would never use the presumption of crime.
You would always use the assumption of innocence for individuals.
But for the government, because of their power, if they intentionally make something non-transparent, they intentionally hide something, or they intentionally design a system that can't be audited, they may have some fraud in there.
They may not.
Does it matter?
Well, it doesn't matter for the past, because the past is already settled.
But it definitely matters for the future.
So if you're a Republican and you decide to take the, it was rigged, or even if you don't deny it, let's say, even if you don't say, yeah, the president went too far, which is also bad, because then you're just criticizing your own party.
So instead of criticizing your own party, which won't work, and saying, oh, yeah, it wasn't rigged, You're not going to get elected that way, because the Republicans won't even like you if you say it wasn't rigged.
If you say it was rigged, well, you don't get president that way either, probably.
Because there are too many people who think, okay, that's too far.
There's no evidence of that.
Proof. There's no proof of it.
There is evidence. But, you know, evidence can either be true or false.
If you do this, this is called the high ground move.
I have tried this out on many people.
How many people, after hearing this, push back?
Okay, after hearing...
All right, well, it might be back.
We'll have to wait to see if we have any comments.
Oh, there we are. Did you guys lose the feed there for a while?
Yeah, interesting. So what I told you, that the entire narrative...
When I told you the complete narrative could be destroyed with one sentence, and it was obviously true, YouTube cut me.
Do you think that was a coincidence?
That at the very moment I told you how to kneecap the entire democratic movement with precision and absoluteness.
Can you agree with me that this message is unbeatable?
Let's just... I say this message is un-fucking-beatable.
Like, 100% unbeatable.
Right? This is the end of the Democrats.
On YouTube, they're saying there's no audio.
Hey, Paul, can you give me a...
There's only one person I trust on this, on Locals.
Paul, are you there?
I saw you say that the audio is good.
Yeah, Paul said it's good, but they're still saying it's not.
Okay, I was confirmed.
All right, the audio is fine, so it's just the trolls.
We have a confirmation. I finally worked on a system for knowing when the trolls are just saying the audio is bad, and that is having a...
A trusted person who's watching both platforms.
So, Paul, thank you.
You are a citizen and a gentleman, and a patriot.
And a patriot. Paul Collider, thank you very much.
So, let me just summarize.
If the Republicans leave the child frame and stop saying it was unfair, and they go to the high ground maneuver, that is the end of any chance that a Democrat could be president.
I mean, you would have to do everything else wrong to lose the election under these circumstances.
And you'd have to be really quick about dismissing the court cases.
And you'd have to do it the way I do it.
Because somebody's going to say, but, but, but, all those court cases.
And that's when you say, this is also a high ground maneuver.
But you know the court can only look at what's brought to them and what's within their jurisdiction.
So the court maybe could look at 1% of an election, maximum.
Now, is that accurate?
If I said to you the courts could only, in the best case scenario, given that they can only look at narrow little things within their jurisdiction and narrow little claims, then maybe the court could get at 1% of the transparency.
Is that fair? Now, I don't know if it's 10% or 20% or 1%, but claiming 1% doesn't sound wrong.
I mean, it feels like it's in the range of the right direction.
The Epoch Times is holding a global COVID doctor summit today.
Interesting. All right.
Let's see if I can get kicked off of social media again.
Do you remember something called herd immunity?
It was all the talk there for a while, wasn't it?
We were going to get to herd immunity, either by vaccinations or infections.
And now we are totally at herd immunity...
And it doesn't seem to make any difference at all.
Am I wrong about that?
Fact check me. We are definitely a herd immunity.
I mean, we reached the level of infections plus vaccinations.
And it seems to be making no difference in the infections.
Am I right? Definitely, I think the official word is still big difference in hospitalizations and outcomes.
So from that perspective, the vaccinations are working of keeping people out of the hospital and from dying.
Not entirely, but they're doing a good job.
Right. But have you heard anybody in power say, you know the whole herd immunity thing didn't work out?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but 100% of our strategy was aimed at herd immunity, and we have, I'd say this week...
Maybe last week, but at least by this week, can we not confirm that that didn't work?
We can confirm that, right?
Is that too strong?
I don't think that's too strong.
Because I feel like we could get to 100% of vaccinations and we'd still be looking at what we're looking at.
So... Well, I support the government in moving the goalposts.
Somebody said they moved the goalposts.
I support them doing that.
Because in the context of an emergency where people are just figuring it out and they're basically just improvising, they're going to get a lot of big stuff wrong.
And then you need to improvise again and fix it.
So, you know, I'm going to be the most forgiving of anybody in public for whatever mistakes get made.
Right? I will be the most forgiving of all of you.
Because I think you just have to put it in context that everybody was guessing.
And once you accept that everybody was guessing, I think you can be a little bit more generous about...
So I guess YouTube's still freezing up every now and then.
But I would like to build credibility.
I would like to see Anthony Fauci say, you know, our whole strategy was building toward herd immunity, and that didn't work.
That didn't work.
But the good news is we did lower the deaths and whatever.
So that would go a long way toward building this credibility.
You know, for me, the experts can admit they're wrong all day long and I'll still be good.
Just admit you were wrong.
We sort of need that, don't we?
This isn't really politics as usual.
With politics, you can live with the fact that nobody admits they're wrong.
But when it's life and death and it's health, I feel like the credibility of our politicians would be boosted by saying, oh, we got that one totally wrong.
Trust me. I did the best I could, but we got that totally wrong.
I listen to the experts that are not right every time.
That would help a lot.
A lot. Well, Kamala Harris made some news yesterday by comparing the fake insurrection day to Pearl Harbor and 9-11.
Many people were offended.
The death counts of those two things were not the same.
But here's another way they're not the same.
Pearl Harbor was an attack from an outside force trying to destroy our democracy and our country.
9-11 was an attack from the outside, trying to destroy our democracy and our country.
So I do think you could compare Pearl Harbor and 9-11, because they were attacks from the outside that we didn't see coming, and they were from outside forces.
But if you talk about January 6th, this is completely an inside deal, like it's Americans and Americans.
And I would argue that it was an insurrection on January 6th.
Now, I don't want to disappoint a lot of you, but in my opinion, January 6th was an insurrection.
Does anybody disagree with me?
I've heard a lot of people say that it wasn't an insurrection, but January 6th was definitely an insurrection.
Now, here's the bad news.
The protesters who tried to stop that insurrection and delay the vote so we could know that we had a good vote, the protesters failed, and so the Democrats succeeded in their insurrection, or at least according to the protesters.
Now, we don't have any court proof that the election was fraudulent.
We have no court proof.
We do have the presumption And the full presumption of fraud, because it's a non-transparent system.
So you do assume it was fraud, but we don't have court proof.
Um... Under those conditions, I would think that it's fair to call it an insurrection by the Democrats that the Republican protesters tried to stop and failed.
And then, as is often the case with the Democrats, one of the ways they cover their bad behavior is by doing a louder job of blaming you of the same behavior.
And my God, does it work.
I've said this before.
Tucker Carlson has been saying this for years, that the Democrats blame you for whatever they're doing.
And the first 20 times I heard it, I thought, that's too far.
That's too far. That's just a coincidence.
You know, it's just politics.
Everybody blames everybody of everything.
And so it looks like they're blaming you for what they're doing because everybody's doing bad things and everybody's blaming people.
So it's really just a perceptual thing.
It's not an actual effect.
It's not like they consciously blame you for the thing they're doing.
Except that it looks like that's exactly what they do.
It looks like that's how they hide it.
For example, Russia collusion.
The truth, which we know with no doubt whatsoever, is that the Clinton campaign colluded with another country, at least Great Britain and Russia, to change the results of the election.
But because they made it invisible...
By making the entire story about whether Trump did or did not collude with Russia, we learned he did not.
That story was so big that it's like the magic trick where it diverts you.
We have guaranteed, proven connections between the Clinton campaign and foreign entities influencing our elections.
Nobody even questions it.
As far as I know, there's nobody on the left or the right who would question what I just said, that the Democratic campaign talked to foreign nationals and got their help to try to influence the election.
There's no doubt about those facts.
But we act like it doesn't matter...
Only because our brains have been diverted to the magic trick.
It's all about Trump, did he, did he not.
And you just can't even see the other thing.
It becomes invisible.
But it's there. We all see it.
We see it, but it doesn't activate.
I guess that's the better way to see it.
We can see it clearly, but it doesn't activate into motion and anything kinetic.
It just sits there.
It's the damnedest thing.
And I think you can think of three more examples of it.
But it looks like an actual strategy that works like nothing I've ever seen work before really well.
Anyway, my mascots, which you might call my critics, but I call them my mascots, they're not going to like that.
And they'll think I'll get banned for what I said.
And I tweeted this today.
I want to make it really clear.
I said I declare my right as a citizen of the United States to label the 2020 election illegitimate based on a lack of transparency.
An election that can't be fully audited by design must bear the full presumption of fraud.
Now, that statement violates the narrative, doesn't it?
I don't think you can violate the narrative harder than that.
Will I get banned for that?
Nope. And by the way, my broadcast yesterday got re-monetized.
It's too late to actually make money.
But YouTube will sometimes preemptively demonetize you, which lowers your visibility, I believe.
But then they'll re-monetize it if you appeal and it doesn't really violate any rules, which is what happened.
But you've already lost your money by then and your audience.
So it's sort of too late by the time they do that, which is a really good trick, by the way.
If it's a trick, it's a good one.
So we'll see. I say I will not be banned for saying the truth.
What might happen is the connection might go bad, as apparently it did.
I put in my profile on Twitter.
I've changed it to say that I'm the number one best predictor in the country during the pandemic.
Not number two, not one of the best, but the number one best predictor.
And then I have a link to my actual full description of all my predictions and how they did.
People are still telling me that I'm going to pay for my bad predictions until they look at them, and then they get really, really quiet.
So my mascots, who you might call my critics, were really, really frothy for the last week or so.
Did anybody notice? Because I was working them up into a lather, intentionally.
And I wanted to see how much of a lather I could get all my critics worked up for.
Because they all believed that I had some kind of opinions I'd never held.
But then once I had him in the highest level of lather, I'd lost, I don't know, 10,000 followers or something like that.
People were bailing out like crazy.
His turn. So I waited.
And it was hard to wait because I wanted to do it earlier.
But I was like, hold, hold, hold, hold.
And then I finally released my full list of what my predictions were.
And I do think that the list does support my claim.
I'm the number one best predictor of the entire pandemic, if you see what I actually predicted.
Now, I ran it through the local subscription people because they've watched all my predictions live, and they're not indexed.
So I needed lots of witnesses.
You know, I needed thousands of witnesses to say, yes, these were my actual predictions, so that you didn't think I made them up after the fact.
How many left? Let's see.
I'll give you an actual number.
Because you're right, that was hyperbole.
So around...
I don't know. It's hard to say because, you know, some get added at the same time, some are subtracting.
But I was pushing 670,000, and now it's at 663.
So 7,000 down net at a time I might have gained 3,000-ish.
So rounded off to about 10,000 people left because of that.
But now that I have that little link, every time somebody complains, I just send them that little link.
And what do they do after that?
They get really quiet.
As soon as they see my actual predictions...
They get really, really quiet.
And nobody's come back after that.
Zero people have seen the link and then come after me a second time.
It just shuts them down totally.
Which is quite nice.
How many of you follow a Twitter user named James Lindsay?
Is that name familiar to you?
He got a lot of attention during the pandemic.
I would recommend that you stop immediately.
He's turned into, in my opinion, and I'll try to just keep to opinion because facts are elusive.
In my opinion, he's turned into a very negative force.
And he was warning today, I blocked him today finally because I need him out of my life completely.
He's been one of my mascots that you might call a critic.
And he was quite sure that I and the other people who were, quote, wrong are going to have to pay for our wrongness.
So he's already setting it up that he wants to make sure that all the people who are wrong, I guess that would include people like me, will pay for their wrongness and really, really be held to account.
To which I say, James Lindsay, number one, you were completely wrong about all of my predictions, and you shat upon me for making predictions that were the best in the world, while you, completely misinformed, treated them as the worst.
Now, should you be worried that the person who says people should be punished for being wrong can't fucking tell who was the rightest in the world from who was wrong?
The guy who wants to punish people for being wrong can't tell the difference between the number one rightest person and somebody who is wrong.
And that's who you're following.
You're following somebody who wants to punish people without having a fucking clue if they were right or wrong.
Don't follow him.
I mean, obviously, you're a free person.
You can do whatever you want. But I would say he turned into a really...
He's like Smigel with the ring.
I think he has some views about the pandemic that he's too invested in.
So he sort of turned into, oh, my precious.
Yeah. There was a time that I thought his voice was important.
Indeed, I would like to compliment all of the critics.
So I've been a critic of Alex Berenson, For his views, because I think he tweeted a lot of things that people I trust found inaccurate.
But, also, national treasure.
I think you could be wrong about everything and still be a national treasure if you're a critic.
Because you need the critics, right?
Didn't you feel safer knowing there was an Alex Berenson?
Right? Didn't you feel safer knowing there was a James Lindsay?
Right? Didn't you feel safer knowing there was a Dr.
Malone? Yeah.
I mean, the critics make you feel safer because you feel like at least the other side is getting, you know, aspirated or something.
Whatever is the best word for that.
Oh, and somebody says James Lindsay is a good voice against critical race theory.
So that would be a different topic.
Yeah. Somebody says Malone is intel.
Hmm. You mean intelligence services?
I'm not seeing that.
All right. So, yeah, I think you should block anybody or stop following anybody who's turned into Smigel.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has lost all credibility.
I've been tweeting, even in the last year, I've been tweeting that the Supreme Court is the...
You know, the jewel in our crown.
It's like the thing we can't lose.
Because as long as the Supreme Court is working, and the court system in general, but the Supreme Court especially, as long as the Supreme Court is functioning, we can make everything else work.
Right? That's the only thing that can't be broken.
As long as that's working, we're good.
So, how's that working?
Well... Here are a few things that our justices got wrong.
And this comes from some tweets by Michael Sanger.
And he says, this is a partial list of COVID misinformation repeated by the U.S. Supreme Court so far today.
This is just in one day.
So I guess they're hearing cases about mandates or something.
I don't even know the details. So this is from Sotomayor.
She said, 100,000 children are in critical care and on ventilators.
No. It's closer to 3,000.
If 100,000 children in the U.S. were in critical care on ventilators, that would be the only story.
There wouldn't be any other story.
It would just be pictures of those kids on ventilators.
So where did you even get this?
Where do you get that statistic from?
That's just out of nowhere. Here's another one.
This is from Justice Breyer.
Vaccine mandate would prevent 100% of U.S. cases.
What? What?
What? Is he the only person in the world who doesn't know that vaccines don't stop the transmission of the Omicron, especially?
He said that in public.
These are our smartest people.
He said that in public.
Here's another one. Sotomayor said that COVID deaths are at an all-time high.
But that probably was a misinterpretation.
I think she means cumulative.
If it was interpreted to mean per week, that would be crazy because it's nowhere near it.
So I guess it depends on the context on that one.
This is something Kagan said.
So Justice Kagan said, it's, quote, beyond settled that vaccines and masks are the best way to stop the spread.
What? What?
It might be true, and it might be untrue.
But how could you live in America and say that those questions are settled?
Settled by whom?
Who believes they're settled?
I got vaccinated. I don't think it's settled.
For God's sakes.
Was it settled before we decided we needed infinite boosters?
What the hell does settled mean?
This is crazy shit from the Supreme Court.
Here's another one from Sotomayor.
The federal government can mandate vaccine using its police power.
Well, that's more of a legal thing.
I don't have an opinion on that.
Sotomayor also said hospitals are nearing capacity.
Are they? Are hospitals nearing capacity?
My understanding is that the critical care are always near capacity, because they're designed to be near capacity, and that the regular hospitals are maybe not that busy.
Is it misleading at least, if not outright wrong?
And here's a wild one from Sotomayor.
Omicron is deadlier than Delta.
What? What?
We have a Supreme Court justice who thinks that Omicron is deadlier than Delta?
I don't think there's a citizen who believes that.
Well, and we all know it's not true.
How could she be the only one left who doesn't know this?
Jack Posobiec just was tweeting around a study out of the UK, I think, that suggests that Omicron could be as much as a hundred times less dangerous than Delta.
A hundred times less dangerous.
Now, I don't think that's true, actually.
That feels like too much, if you know what I mean.
It feels like too much. There's no doubt that it's less dangerous at this point, right?
Aren't we beyond wondering if it's more dangerous than Delta?
Now, I think she may have come to that conclusion because some people think Omicron will spread faster, and then there will be a lot of people who have to stay home from work, and that could cause more problems in the long run.
But she didn't explain it that way, I guess.
She didn't explain it that way.
So, and then Breyer said that hospitals are full of unvaccinated people.
What? You know, first of all, the hospitals aren't full, but it's definitely a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Now, I think what he means is that the worst outcomes, the critical care, the ones who die are the unvaccinated ones.
More or less, that's true.
So I think some of these are less about being wrong and more about being unclear.
But still, it's shocking.
It's shocking. Because at the very least, the Supreme Court should be clear.
They do have that ability.
The unvaxxed make up 80% in our hospitals, somebody says.
But 80% of the serious cases, right?
80% of the serious cases.
Well, so now we've lost all faith in the Supreme Court.
Our elections cannot be trusted because they're not transparent.
Our leaders are lying to us, telling us that January 6th was an insurrection in the opposite direction of what it was.
And somehow our system still works.
Isn't it the damnedest thing?
On one hand, everything is broken.
Just everything.
On the other hand, I don't know, I wake up every day and my coffee tastes the same and the stock market's doing okay.
I don't know how everything works out.
It's kind of weird. Let me ask you this.
At this point, do you see any problems ahead of us that aren't just inflation?
Go. Let's assume that we work our way through the pandemic, whether it's February 1st or sometime soon.
But we're in a weird place in the world, aren't we?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like we've solved almost every problem, except inflation, and that's probably going to get solved.
Homeless. I'm not entirely sure the homeless are a problem the way you see it.
Let me give you my newest opinion on the homeless.
The reason the homeless are homeless is because they want to take drugs and live a free life.
And being in a home would require them to follow the restrictions of living inside, basically.
And if you have people who are taking agency and living as free people, no matter how bad it looks to you, I don't know that's a problem.
It's a problem for the people who live in those towns, but they can move.
It's a problem that will work itself out.
So it's a weird kind of problem.
We're trying to solve a problem for a group of people who don't say they have a problem, or at least not that problem.
That's the part they want to keep, the don't go inside.
So the entire Western world is under assault and Scott doesn't notice.
Well, I certainly notice all of the devious things that China's doing.
We've got the hacking, we've got the public opinion manipulation, we don't trust our drug companies, and we've got, of course, the critical race theory, tearing us apart and all those things.
But in my opinion, none of those are really going to get the job done.
Let's talk about the border.
How many of you have had a border-related problem if you don't live on the border?
Obviously, it's a big problem if you're near the border.
But I don't live near the border, and I have so far zero problems that are caused by the stream of maybe even infected COVID people coming across the border illegally, many of them criminals.
Well, I won't say many, but too many of them are criminals.
I don't want to say many are criminals.
That would be unfair.
Because it's the opposite. The weird thing about the border is that it's a gigantic problem that doesn't affect me in a way that I can determine.
And I'm interested if you also have any direct effect from it.
No, I don't live in a gated community.
People assume I'm in a gated community and there's a reason I'm not.
Yeah. Yeah, gated communities.
I don't like gated communities.
They're really a pain in the ass.
It affects my taxes?
Okay, I'll give you that.
Yeah, but you know, I don't see it directly.
But that's a good point. So somebody said it will affect my taxes in California.
That's true. That's true.
But you know the thing that I've never seen calculated?
Is the net...
I don't have my own wall either.
If you get inside my house, you're going to wish you hadn't.
So my only security to my house is if you get on the inside, I'm first of all going to have a good picture of you before you got in.
And secondly, when you get in, good luck getting out.
Good luck getting out.
But you can get in.
Anybody can get in the house.
But good luck in there.
So, yeah.
So I agree with you that the border is an issue that has to be fixed.
I agree with you that some people, especially if you're near the border, it's got to be terrible.
I mean, there's got to be just chaos if you're near the border.
So if you're an American near the border, it's definitely bad for you.
But here's the calculation I've never seen.
Maybe you have. Let's take just California as an example.
So we have massive illegal immigration, and I don't know what percentage of them stay in California, but I would guess most.
I don't think most people come across the border and then leave to another state, do they?
Give me a fact check on that, but I'd guess 75% stay.
Now, we have massive open immigration.
Do those people add to the economy or subtract?
And whichever one it is, by how much?
And does it matter if it's the first year they're here, or should you measure it over 10 years?
Because immigration generally adds to the GDP, right?
If you have controlled immigration, well, let me say, if you have controlled immigration, could you say that it's always positive to the GDP? If it's controlled.
Meaning that you only let in the people you want at the numbers you want.
Yeah, that would be positive.
But what I don't know is the crossover.
If you just threw the doors open and said, well, screw it.
Come in if you want to. At what point does it cross over into negative?
And, you know, economics is my bag.
I don't know. So I've said forever that the way to win on immigration...
Here's how the Republicans should win on immigration.
They should say, we should separate the question of border security from the question of how many people get in.
They've never done that, and it's stupid.
It just gives the issue away, basically.
So they have an airtight issue that they should win on every time, which is immigration control, and they find a way to lose by framing it wrong.
The right way to frame it is, wait, wait, wait.
There are two issues. One is how we control the border, and we would want to be able to control it as much as possible.
But the second question that's related is how many people to let in.
And that should be determined by economists.
So in other words, if the economists, let's say every six months they recalculate, and if the economists say, hey, it looks like we could use some more immigrants, For the GDP. Then you turn the lever and you let in a bunch more.
And then if the economists say, hey, something special happened, like a pandemic.
We'd better close that border.
It's like, okay, temporarily. Close it temporarily.
Now you tell me that you couldn't sell that to everybody.
Because you're saying, if it's good for the country, we'll let them in.
And if it's bad for the country, we won't.
And it will be determined not by me, not by me as president.
I'm not in this. It will be determined by a bipartisan group of economists who just have to work it out and tell us, hey, you need a few more immigrants or different kinds of immigrants or something.
Ah... Thank you.
I was waiting for somebody to catch me so I could tell you how I'll weasel out of it.
Somebody said in quotes, oh, trust the experts.
Scott, have you not been telling us for years not to trust the experts, but now?
But now, Scott, really?
Really? Now you're going to trust the experts?
Is that what you're going to do?
Nope. Did you hear anywhere in my idea, trust?
Nope. Nope.
The idea requires no trust.
In fact, you could totally not trust the economists.
It still works. It's the same kind of effect why capitalism works even though it's broken completely.
It still works.
And our democratic republic?
Completely broken from head to bottom, right?
Congress is broken.
The Supreme Court doesn't even read the news, apparently.
Completely broken. Still works.
Still works. So if you build this immigration system the way I described, and then my critic at the moment said, but then you'd be trusting the experts, the economists, to know when to tweak it.
To which I say, no, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't be trusting them at all.
I would be relying on them.
Which is different. In other words, I want the country to think that the system made sense, and then they'll accept it.
We only need to know that something was done rationally.
We don't need to know it was done right.
Which is different. Because I think that people do actually understand that the government is guessing on some stuff.
You know, like, we're guessing what to do with the economy and taxes a little bit.
We're guessing. So I think there is some forgiveness for a bad guess, but there's no forgiveness for a bad system.
For example, I can forgive America for electing a president I didn't want to be elected, but I can't forgive them for having a system that can't be audited.
See? We completely can accept the mistake of getting the wrong president, which seems like a big mistake, but we can accept that, because we didn't have a revolution.
There was no insurrection.
We accepted it.
A very broken system, and we accepted it.
But we should not have accepted the system that got us there, because it was non-transparent.
Fix the system, and you have a fighting chance of getting the citizens to say, I don't like where it went, I don't like the outcome, but I get it.
I don't like where that went, but at least that made sense.
At least you had a process, and I'll respect the process even if I don't like the answer.
I did say there was an insurrection of the Democrats.
All right. A degradation of California IQ is a fact.
It could be caused by porous borders.
So somebody's saying that the IQ in California is going down because of porous borders.
That's a figure I wouldn't trust.
How do people who don't speak English do on English IQ tests?
Or do they even take them?
I mean, I assume that was some kind of a racist-sounding opinion.
But I think the history is that immigration just works for GDP. Now, I will tell you that the average intelligence of people may not matter as much as you think.
In my opinion, the top 5% of smart people matter a lot.
Like you can't really have a good civilization unless your top 5% of smart people have the freedom to do what they need to do and the incentives and they can do their thing.
It's not the bottom 90% who are inventing anything.
There was nobody in the bottom 90% of intelligence who worked on the iPhone.
Except maybe the janitor or something.
The top 10% are the ones that are doing all the things that transform society.
And the rest? I don't know.
The rest, they just need to be able to do their jobs.
That's it. If you can raise a family well and do your job, that's all the IQ you need.
The extra would be wasted.
Run the really check on the Sotomayor quotes.
Would that work? Well, we work on some of them.
So, you really think that 100,000 children are on ventilators in critical care and we haven't heard of it?
Really? Really?
100,000 kids in critical care and the first we're hearing about it, the first we're hearing about it is from the Supreme Court.
Well, I think it worked, right?
In that case, it worked.
All right. Somebody says immigration drains your economy.
It drains it, but also it also boosts it.
So what I'm saying is you need to figure out the net.
We know the drain.
The drain is obvious.
But the net is, you know, the benefit is a little less obvious because that kicks in maybe in the second generation.
How would you even measure the benefit of immigration?
I'd love to see...
Here's something I'd like to see.
All right, for those of you who are racists, and I know there are some of you here, so speaking to the racists, if you were to measure the, you know, immigrants who just are fresh over the border, how would they do compared to, say, Americans who've been living here?
Maybe not as well, because they're starting from a low point.
But give me the second generation of immigrants Give me the second generation of immigrants.
And let me compare the second generation of immigrants from any country.
Doesn't matter the country.
Just second generation immigrants.
You compare them to all of you racist assholes who have been here for a while.
Who's going to win? Which one of them would do better?
The second generation or the people who have been here for a long time?
I would put my money on the second generation of immigrants every time.
Now, I don't have data to back that up, by the way.
So if you have data, you can change my mind.
But if I had to guess, and a lot of this is observational, right?
If you live in California, you meet a lot of first generation and second generation.
You do not want your kid to compete against a second generation immigrant.
Let me say that again.
If your kid's in school...
You better hope they're not competing against too many second-generation immigrants because they're getting their asses kicked because they're hungry.
You know, it's sort of a gross generalization.
Of course, it's a gross generalization.
So that's what I've got to say about that.
I don't mean your specific kids.
They're all geniuses, I'm sure.
Depends if they got poisoned by college.
Alright. That's all I've got for now.
And thank you for joining me. This is the best live stream you've ever seen.
