Episode 1630 Scott Adams: There Is Lots of Juicy News Today. Come Enjoy it With a Beverage
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Top issues concerning people
Our perfect election process needs fixing?
Who can't figure out how to vote?
COVID restrictions being lifted
Why push Putin closer to China?
Fake News in the news today
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It doesn't sound as good with just one piece of paper.
That's because my printer's not working.
How many of you would like to see me take my new HP printer and smash it on the ground on my office floor right in front of you?
Good audio, it looks like.
I know you would. That might happen.
We'll see how this goes.
Man, do I hate my printer.
Oh, I hate my printer so much.
Well, if you'd like to have a good day, all you need is a cup, a mug, a glass, a tanker, a chelsea, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for an unparalleled pleasure.
Dopaminea of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen now.
Yeah, that was as good as I thought it would be.
I'm already getting spam calls.
What the hell? God.
All right, so Rasmussen has a poll asking people to rate the importance of various topics.
Now, it's not every topic, but they did five.
And here is what the public rated as their top issues of the five.
Inflation. Was number one.
62% thought that was very important.
Violent crime was number two.
So inflation and violent crime.
So far, two things that have been caused by Democrats.
The third thing is illegal immigration, 52%.
Caused by Democrats.
Then COVID-19, of course, 39%.
You would expect that one.
And then climate change at the bottom with 33%.
Now, how does this compare with the Democrats' own top priorities?
Are the priorities of the country in line with the priorities of the Democrats?
Well, Democrats' top priorities, if you simply look at how they act...
And what they say would be voting rights, wouldn't you say?
Voting rights? Making a big deal about that?
Climate change, of course.
So their top priorities would be low priorities for the public.
And the things the public does care about are the things that the Democrats largely caused.
So the Democrats are completely out of line with the American public.
I mean, just absurdly so out of line.
And I saw a montage of MSNBC guests saying that they thought 2022 was going to be if the Republicans sweep it like everybody expects.
That fascism will be sweeping the country.
And fascism will take over in 2022.
Well, I mean, you still have, you know, a Democrat president, so I don't know how much fascism you can get when you still have a split situation.
But I suppose whatever president came in in 2024 could change that.
Here's one of the absurdities.
Carol Roth tweeted this.
She said, so, talking about the Democrats, so, they're really going with the, quote, 2020 elections were fair, and to even question it is not democratic.
Also, we need to enact voting changes to make sure elections are fair.
The Democrat proposal of what they can do for the country...
It doesn't even make sense.
It's not even something you could agree with or disagree, because they can't even tell you if there's a problem.
Their top priority is something that the public doesn't seem to care about, at least in the way they care about it, and it doesn't even make sense.
It's not even something you could agree with or not agree with.
You just look at it and go, what?
Like, that's new, right? Yeah, it's not even wrong.
It's neither right nor wrong.
It's just, wait, what?
The elections are perfectly good and also perfectly flawed, so if you don't fix the flawed part of the perfect election, what?
What? That's their top priority.
Top priority, right there.
Doesn't even make a fucking bit of sense.
And then we've got the critical race theory, of course.
Where do you think that would show up on the list of the public's priorities?
Pretty low. Pretty low.
Again, that's top priority.
Unbelievable. Alright, here's another thing that Trump fixed and the Democrats are breaking.
So Kim Jong-un is thinking about doing some ICBM testing and maybe that would open up nuclear testing, etc.
To which I say, why?
What happened? What happened to we don't care about North Korea so it doesn't matter what you do?
I guess maybe it's just a...
I'm going to get rid of Andrew for just being Andrew.
So, why do we care about North Korea?
It's always been a mystery to me.
But here's the weirder part.
Apparently, both Russia and China opposed any sanctions on North Korea.
I guess Biden was considering some new sanctions.
And, you know, I get why they might not want sanctions, but do you think that Russia and China would be better off...
In their own opinion, would they be better off if North Korea had nukes and ICBMs?
In what way does that make Russia and China safer?
Can somebody connect those dots?
Why is it that we're on a different side than Russia and China about North Korea?
Isn't the one thing that all of us would want is for them to leave us alone?
Is there anything else that big countries want?
Right? They don't really have a...
I don't think they really have a strategic importance.
They're on the border there, but it's not like we're going to mass an army on the border of China.
So what's the difference where they are?
Their geolocation doesn't seem to make any difference in the modern world.
It did at one point. So why are we even having a disagreement about something we don't disagree about?
I don't think there's any fundamental reason we should be on a different side.
Why don't China, Russia and the United States all just say, you know what?
You know what would be great? If we just all ignored North Korea.
And then we say to North Korea, if we do that, do you think you'd be cool with the nukes?
Probably. I mean, I feel like you can work that out.
It seems like the easiest problem in the world to solve is that somehow we're just making it worse.
You know, Trump fixed it, basically.
Nothing's ever fixed forever, but he fixed it temporarily.
And it looks like Democrats are breaking it.
Good job there. Here's some dogs not barking.
Don't you think it's...
Puzzling that nobody has ever produced a number, even if it would be a debatable number, of course, but a number for the monetary value of one immigrant coming across the border undocumented.
Is the economics of that minus one or plus one?
Or is it minus one, the first generation, and plus one by the second or third?
Sometimes it depends where the immigration is coming from.
But don't you think that we could come up with at least a southern border calculation that would say what each person who comes across either adds or subtracts on average, right?
Each person would be different.
But on average, wouldn't you love to hear, well, we let, I don't know what the numbers are, 1,000 immigrants in today, so that's a million dollars we added to the GDP, right?
You know, there are downsides as well, of course.
But we added a million dollars to the GDP. Or, or, we let in a thousand people on the southern border, and our GDP went down by a million dollars.
It's one of those things.
Do you tell me we can't calculate that?
Or at least an estimate or range or something?
Because one of the problems with issues that are not measured correctly is that you can't manage them.
You can't manage something you don't measure.
And the way we're measuring it is just the number of bodies that came across the border.
Does that make sense? Right?
We're just counting the number of people coming across.
That's the only metric. How in the world can you manage a situation when your metric is the wrong metric?
Because we don't even agree what the number is that would be the right number.
So if we're counting the number of people who come across, and that number doesn't relate to anything in the real world, did that cost me money or make me money?
I mean, that matters.
If you tell me this will cost me money, then I have an opinion.
If you say this will make me money, then I have an opinion.
If you tell me a thousand people came over the border, I say, and?
And? That's really big.
Is it really small?
Do I make money?
Do I lose money? Is there more crime, less crime?
I have no idea.
I have no idea. You know what else I don't know?
I don't know if illegal immigration lowers or raises crime rates.
It increases crime...
Because there are more humans.
Wherever there are more humans, there's more crime.
But is the average crime rate of an immigrant coming across the southern border similar to the average crime rate of the citizens?
I don't know. If you take out the things that are sort of victimless, such as, well, you could argue what's victimless, but the ones that don't have somebody dying at the moment, such as crossing the border illegally, if you took out the...
The illegal component of the actual immigration, would they do less stealing than the average person who's already here?
Or more? How many of you even know the answer to that question?
Here's the reason I ask.
The people that I trust the most in my house are usually people who were immigrants at one point.
And especially the ones who came from South America.
And the reason is that they're really, really trying to stay in this country.
And to me, just observationally, this is just anecdotal.
So it's anecdotal and it's limited to my little bubble here.
But anecdotally...
They have a lower crime rate.
Does anybody else have that experience?
I don't know if you live where there are a lot of illegal aliens, but I assume it matters if you're in the inner city versus a nice suburb where I am.
But where I am, let's say a low crime area, where I used to be, in a low crime area, do the people who came in to work have a higher or lower crime rate once they get here?
I'm looking at your answers.
I'm seeing some people say lower.
Yeah, they lay low because they try to stay out of trouble.
I don't even think they drive as fast.
Do you know what's the worst thing that could happen to you if you're an illegal immigrant in America?
Get pulled over for a traffic infraction.
Because it's goodbye, right?
So I don't know this for sure, but I'll bet the safest drivers on the road are illegal immigrants.
Because if I crash, I've just got a problem with the crash.
But if they crash, their whole life changes.
There's no way that's the same.
So... Do they have insurance?
Oh, that's a good question.
So all of those things should be put in.
Yeah, do they have insurance? If they had an accident, you know, that is a cost to society in some way.
Anyway, I just wonder why we don't have an economic calculation on that.
It's probably not an accident. Here's another one that says, dog not barking.
Have we yet found that one person who couldn't figure out how to vote?
Or who was stymied by the hours that things were opened or the way people had to vote.
Have we yet found the one person?
Do you know why you can't find that person?
Because the moment you found them, their problem would be solved.
In other words, finding the person who doesn't know how to vote Turns them immediately into a person who does know how to vote.
Because if they wanted to, they'd just say, you know, I don't know how to vote.
How do I do it? And you'd say, oh, let me show you.
Here, you're registered. I just did it on my phone for you.
So everybody who doesn't know how to vote could solve their problem just by asking somebody who does.
That would solve their entire problem.
How would you like a huge national problem That could be solved this way.
Oh, we've got this big problem.
Various parts of our society, and especially we think minorities, may not be able to vote because of various obstacles.
Let me suggest a solution.
Why don't you talk to somebody who knows how to vote?
Just ask them. You don't think they can answer that question for you?
100% of the people who know how to vote can answer the question, how do you vote?
Pretty easily. That would probably even help you.
Could you imagine if somebody wanted to vote, and you knew how, and they asked you, would you not offer help?
I mean, seriously.
You would, of course, because it's not even hard.
You know, I assume it's harder if they don't have access to technology or something.
But you could even do that for them.
You could just say, you know, here, let me Google this.
Oh, if you don't have a smartphone, you could just go down to the post office.
I don't even know how you do it. I don't know how you do it if you don't have electronics.
But I'm pretty sure I could Google it in about a minute.
Oh, here it is. Just go down to the post office or whatever.
Mail this or maybe go to a website.
You just do it for them. It's literally the world's easiest problem to solve.
Imagine if you could solve climate change this way.
Hey, Bob...
I don't know how to solve climate change.
Do you? Could you tell me how? Oh, it's that easy?
Oh, okay, I'll just do that.
Climate change solved.
Fentanyl? Oh, I just have to ask a friend how to stop the fentanyl problem?
I mean, just any friend?
I mean, literally, I could just stop somebody on the highway or on the street, and I could say, hey, how do you solve this fentanyl problem?
And they would just tell me, and then the problem would be solved.
The only problem in the world that you can solve just by talking to anybody.
Anybody. You could walk into a crowd, close your eyes, and just go like this until you touch somebody on the shoulder and say, oh, hey, excuse me, could you help me?
I don't know how to vote. Do you think that person would be able to help them?
Probably. The world's easiest problem to solve.
And we don't really need our republic to have more people who can't figure out how to solve that problem to be adding to our decision-making, if I may be so impolite.
Well, let's talk about...
February 1. So Feb 1, the public is done.
We're trying to get behind this hashtag so that we can, let's see, assist our government in making the decision it needs to make.
Now, some of you are from other places with other governments, and I'm hoping you can get in on this as well.
But there are things working in our favour.
Deaths are still declining, I think.
Give me a confirmation.
COVID deaths are declining, right?
Pretty much everywhere. So that's good.
Even though infections are up, deaths are declining, I think.
We've got the COVID pills coming, right?
We've got the rapid tests coming.
These are all, like, in the next few days, right?
I don't know how... Can somebody give me a fact check on when the first day you could get a COVID pill, you know, one of the approved COVID treatment pills?
Does anybody know when that's going to happen?
I haven't seen a date for that.
Now? Is that right?
Somebody says March? Other people are saying right now.
I'm a little skeptical about right now.
Oh, actually, enough people are saying right now that maybe that's convincing me.
Okay. So you're going to have your rapid test pretty soon.
I've already ordered mine from the free government website.
Thank you, Omar, for the link.
And WHO, the WHO, I saw a clip saying they can think of no reason to boost kids.
So we're thinking we don't need boosters for kids, or at least who says that?
The French, following the UK's lead, the UK lifted a lot of restrictions.
I think they lifted them all.
Did the UK lift all the restrictions?
I need a fact check on that.
France did not lift all the restrictions, but they're opening up quite a bit, but they're still requiring masks indoors.
So France, good move.
You're in the right direction. It's the right timing.
It's the right direction. But think about the masks.
It's time. Now, what did I... Does anybody remember me telling you that after UK went, who I wanted next?
Does anybody remember that?
Yeah. After the UK made their announcement and I was saying France...
Come on, France. Because you always root for France when it's a question of freedom, right?
Because France is sort of synonymous with freedom, historically, as well as tied with our own freedom.
We have this weird, in the United States, we have this weird French connection, if you know what I mean.
It's like this weird historical connection.
That seems permanent.
I don't know if anything's permanent.
But it seems permanent. Like we're somehow connected in this whole freedom thing.
Not so much connected in, you know, the other ways.
But France and the United States do have this unspoken...
Well, maybe it's spoken, you know, Statue of Liberty.
I guess that's pretty spoken.
I was going to say it's an unspoken understanding, but it's pretty spoken.
And it meant a lot to me to see France making a move.
Not enough.
Not enough. Got to get rid of those masks.
So, and the other thing is that Omicron is basically the primary virus now.
I guess there's a D.C. march.
How many of you know about that?
Do you know that there's, I think it's Sunday?
Yeah. There's a march in D.C. to drop mandates.
How many of you are aware of that?
I don't even know if I have the details right, because I've only seen references to it.
I haven't seen, like, a flyer or something.
All right, well, before you go, make sure it's not organized by neo-Nazis.
And that's just good form.
Anytime you're going to a political demonstration, make sure you look at the flyer.
Don't make the mistake that a lot of people did in Charlottesville in 2018.
I talked to one of them who hadn't seen the flyer.
He went to the event and then later he saw the flyer.
He's like, oh shit! I went to a neo-Nazi march accidentally.
That actually happened.
I actually talked to somebody who did that.
So before you go to any political things, just make sure you see the flyer.
All right. Thomas Massey is one of the leaders, I think, in the government for getting rid of the mandates.
He also tested positive for COVID, possibly for the second time.
He thinks he might have had it once before, but he just got some sniffles for a day and he was fine.
He is, and I guess the D.C. vaccine band-aids kicked in, and Thomas Massey said that my office will not comply.
We will not show papers, meaning to eat at a restaurant, I guess.
We will not order takeout from restaurants that require papers for dine-in.
We will get our food from Virginia, or we will bring it to work.
Shame has befallen our nation's capital.
So you've got, you know, the...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the movement is in one direction.
Can I say that? Is the movement pretty much all in one direction at this point?
It looks like it. Now, there's not enough.
I mean, I think you're just seeing, like, the first domino.
You're now seeing, like, dominoes a little bit.
Yeah, that is old news, but I'm looking at just the trend line of things that are moving in that direction.
Yeah, J.P. Sears apparently is one of the hosts of this D.C. thing.
And if you don't know, J.P. Sears is a very gifted, would you call him comedian?
He does videos that are parodies, and they're really well done.
You should follow him. Here's my take on, you know, if I had to pick one thing about the mandates, it would be masks on kids.
Would you agree? I suppose if you're in a situation where the vaccines are mandated, that's worse.
Well, maybe. I guess that's worse.
I'm not in that situation.
I don't have any mandates for vaccines.
But would we agree that masks on kids would be the first thing you would target if you wanted to change one thing?
Like, I'm sort of ambivalent about masks in grocery stores.
Honestly, because I don't spend much time there, you know, half an hour a week or something.
And, you know, I could deal with that.
But watching kids put masks on to go to school is torture.
Do you have that? Do you have that feeling?
It's just torture to watch kids put masks on and go to school.
And my brain can't even hold that.
So here's a question I've got.
When do the kids start leading?
And are they capable of doing that anymore?
Do you have this same feeling that I had that being 16 when I was a kid is just not the same as 16 today?
In lots of ways.
In lots of ways. But they're really different, right?
When I was 16, it would have been normal for us to already be organizing a protest against masks.
Is there anybody in my age range who could confirm that?
Let me say it a different way.
My generation would have already been done with this because the kids would have revolted.
Right? Now, or is this just old man talking?
Am I just old man yelling at the clouds?
Because it could be, right?
You have to always guard against you just became old and now you're just saying old people stuff.
But it does look different to me.
When I look at the teens in my town, I don't see any fight.
I don't see any fight in them.
They just march to school.
I can't even imagine that.
Because, you know, I grew up in the Vietnam War protest era, hippies, you know, Woodstock, all that stuff.
I just can't imagine that we would have put up with that for this long.
I mean, we might have done it temporarily.
But I've got a super racist question to ask.
But I'm going to try to make this like the opposite of that.
Somebody's going to take it as racist, so it'll get taken out of context.
But I guess it is racist.
I think it is racist.
All right, so let me self-identify as saying something racist.
The only reason I can say this is because I identify as black.
Now, if you're new to me, I've been identifying as black for at least a year because I have an affinity for that because I've lost several jobs to racial discrimination.
True story. If you don't know about it, just accept that the other people watching this do know the story.
So I have lost three jobs for being a white guy.
That's a true story.
So I have an affinity for anybody who is suffering racial discrimination.
Because it's one of the biggest influences in my life.
So I'm going to say something super racist right now.
You may never see me again.
Here it is. I want a photograph, not a posed photograph, but a spontaneously taken photograph with a smartphone of a mostly black, Class, so the students are, let's say, mostly black, in, let's say, an inner city place where masks are required.
Do you think that a mostly black classroom in an inner city, you can get a picture of them sitting quietly at their desks with all their masks on and worn properly?
Because here's the racist part.
Black people still have some fight.
Am I wrong? I mean, it's super racist, so I'm just going to say it.
Black people in this country still have lots of fight.
I'm not wrong about that.
You know I'm not wrong about that.
It's racist. It's totally racist.
But I'm not wrong.
They still have fight.
I want to see a picture of one mostly black classroom, let's say age 16.
Just one. Just show me one actual natural picture.
They're not posed. Where they're wearing their masks in the class.
I don't think you can find one.
And I don't think anybody will tell you that.
Am I wrong? It's sort of the dog that's not barking.
I want to see one picture of black kids with masks in school because I don't think they would put up with it.
They still have a fight. Kids in my town...
No fight. No fight at all.
They'll just do what they're told. There's got to be somebody in this whole fucking country who can put up a little fight, and I'm going to hope that it's going to be led by the kids.
And if it's going to be led by the kids, I don't know if the white kids have any fight left in them.
I really don't. I just don't know.
So maybe the black students are going to have to lead us out of this.
Which would be terrific, by the way.
Take some leadership. You know, it's kind of interesting because the Republicans and a lot of the black population are agreeing on a lot of the COVID stuff.
And if you ever wanted to make yourself beloved by Republicans while getting what you want for yourself...
Do this. If you want Republicans to respect you more than whatever you imagine you're already respected, and who wouldn't want that?
Just show us how to fight.
Please. Please.
Just show us how to fight, because we don't know how anymore.
I'm exaggerating a little bit, but you get the point.
Let's talk about Russia and Ukraine.
We're not going to have a war with Russia.
Do any of you think that we're on the cusp of the United States and Russia having a shooting war?
Who in the world thinks that's possible?
Do you know why it's not possible?
Because of Putin. You know, there may be some country that's dumb enough to take a shot at him, but he's not dumb enough to shoot back.
Is he? No.
I mean, I don't think so.
And now, you can imagine that, you know, there'd be mistakes, right?
Things would spin out of control, whatever.
No, that's not going to happen.
Because literally 100% of the people over there don't want anybody to be shot.
The minimum requirement for a war is that somebody wants one.
Who wants it? I don't think Putin wants it.
I think he wants to push as hard as he can to get whatever he can with that in the war.
Now, if it looked like we would tolerate a minor incursion or something, he might try to push everywhere he can push, but everybody does that.
Everybody's going to push every door that's open, if they're a leader.
So, I don't want to get...
Totally gaslighted or brainwashed or whatever's happening into thinking that there's even a possibility of war with Russia.
And by the way, if we find ourselves in a war with Russia, it's time to overthrow our government.
I mean, I assume every situation would be unique, you know, but it's hard to imagine.
But if we blunder into a shooting war with Russia, you just have to get rid of the whole government.
Like, that's the point where you would march onto your Capitol, right?
Except that would be the real one, you know, not the protest one.
If Biden brings us into a shooting war with Russia, we need to go to the Capitol and get rid of Biden.
So it's just not going to happen.
Right? Now, I can talk tough because it's never going to happen, right?
He's not going to go to war with Russia.
So, Tucker Carlson has been asking exactly the right question.
Why are we pushing Putin into getting closer to China?
Because that's sort of the default, right?
Putin is probably going to need one of the two superpowers on his side.
Or he could play us both, I suppose.
But why don't we get him on our side?
Here's what's missing and what Trump could have done, maybe.
Well, no, even Trump could have done this because Trump was too tarred with the pro-Russia brush, so he couldn't have done this.
But if the Democrats had not ruined his Russia-dealing reputation by making Russia collusion a fake story for years, Trump could have easily said this.
Why is Russia and the United States at odds at all?
We have no strategic long-term disagreements.
I think the question should be how to fold Russia into NATO. I mean, not literally, but how to make Russia part of our security apparatus, not NATO. But why aren't we saying, instead of how do we defend against you, why aren't we saying, why aren't you on the same team?
Somebody said he said that.
Who said that? Who's he?
Trump did say that?
When did he say that?
After the presidency or during?
During. Interesting.
So he actually said out loud that we should be on the same team as Russia for security reasons?
The CIA saw Trump's intentions and then took him out with a Russia hoax.
Well, I'll be damned. Well, that was exactly the right thing to say.
And then the suggestion here is that the CIA couldn't handle being friends with Russia, so they took Trump out, or tried to, with the Russia collusion hoax.
I don't know that that's true, but at least the parts fit.
At least there's a logical way that that could be true.
It's believable. I'm not at believing.
I suspect that the Russia collusion thing was maybe more connected to just politics than really Russia.
Russia is Christian Orthodox.
They don't trust our third world democratic utopia.
They don't have to trust us.
You know, do you think they trust China?
You know, a lot of these alliances are not really trust-based.
They're just self-interest-based.
See, that's the thing, is that Russia's self-interest and the United States' self-interest, it would be so easy to make them identical, wouldn't it?
I mean, we'd have a little bit of competition for energy, but that's just competition.
That's okay. How many of you are watching the saga of Matt Walsh appearing on Dr.
Phil? That turned out to be a way better story than I thought it was gonna be.
If you're not following the clips and the back and forth on that, and I'm not even going to get into the politics of it.
That's separate.
But watching that back and forth was just really interesting.
And I'm not going to tell you that I agree with Matt Walsh on all of this.
Here's where we disagree.
He's one of the few people, based on the opinion he said in public, he is one of the few people that I think you actually could call transphobe, transphobic.
The phobic meaning afraid of.
Because he does talk about the risk of rape if, you know, there's a man in the bathroom with blah, blah.
So he does talk about it in terms of, like, rape.
So I think that would be transphobe, wouldn't it?
Does that fit the definition without any ambiguity whatsoever?
If, for example, he were saying we don't want black people to use the same bathrooms as white people, let's say it was decades ago, and he might have said, well, because it might be dangerous, you would say, oh, that's blackphobic or something.
But you would definitely say that's fear, right?
Because let's not get raped is a fear-based thing.
So while I don't think that most of his argument has anything to do with transphobia, you know, it's more about its impact on him and us, I think that he weakens his argument when he throws in the rape thing.
So just from a persuasion perspective, forget about the politics.
This is not a political opinion.
This is a persuasion opinion only.
If I were Matt Walsh and I wanted my opinion to have extra persuasiveness, I would drop the afraid of people getting raped by trans in the bathroom.
Because it's, first of all, gross.
Second of all, not the biggest problem in the world.
And it detracts from his better points.
Here's the better point.
Why are your problems affecting me?
I don't know if I'm characterizing it right, but why do I have to use a different pronoun?
Like, why do you get a special pronoun?
Because that affects me.
Now, that's fair. Everybody gets to complain about how anything affects them, right?
The most reasonable complaint in the world is, well, hey, that affects me.
So, therefore, in my opinion, you're going to have to listen to it.
I love the fact that Matt Walsh is taking this on as directly as he is.
I don't like the Bathroom rape thing.
I think you should get rid of that.
But the argument about, you know, how do you handle sports?
How do you handle bathroom assignments?
How do you handle pronouns?
These are all things that affect him.
Or us. You know, just other people.
So yeah, those are absolutely fair things to say.
Which is not to say, not to say, that I agree with his opinion.
Right? All I'm saying is that's a very valid opinion, that what you're doing is affecting me, so you're going to have to listen to my opinion about that.
Perfectly okay. I'm not as extreme as he is on the pronouns, and here's why.
I've said this before. Gets into just manners.
And I tend to be in favor of good manners, even if they're new ones that come into the mix.
So I'm generally in favor of anything that's just respect or good manners.
Unless it's, like, really inconvenient.
But you know what is really convenient for me?
I'm going to give you a little secret here.
The best part about the whole trans, you know, non-binary thing is the use of the word they.
Now, hold on. Hold on.
Let me complete my thought about the pronouns.
I'm okay with the pronouns with one must-have.
If you're asking me to use your proper pronoun, the thing I must-have, Is a future, let's say, absolved of all mistakes.
I will agree to try to use your pronoun if you will agree that if I use the wrong pronoun, that you will shut the fuck up.
Now, this is just personal, right?
I make no recommendation about how you handle it.
You should handle it any way that you're comfortable with, and I'm good with that.
But just personally...
I will try to use whatever words you think are respectful, but if I get one wrong, fuck you.
That's got to be the deal.
That's got to be the deal.
Because you've got to give me the same thing you're asking of me, which is consideration.
If somebody's asking you to use a certain term, they're asking you to show respect in the way that they recognize they're showing respect.
Well, the way I recognize you showing respect to me is don't get on my shit if I use the wrong word.
I want that level of respect in return.
So I could try.
Try to get it right. If I get it wrong, just fuck off if I get it wrong.
That's my stand. And by the way, I don't promote that stand for any of you.
You know, you can all do your own thing.
Wouldn't it be easier to arrange bathrooms by penis versus vagina?
Like, why are we even talking about gender versus sex or anything about bathrooms?
Because bathrooms are literally designed to accommodate a penis or a vagina in terms of, you know, the percentage of different types of facilities that are in there.
So doesn't it just make more sense that if you have a penis, you use the penis bathroom as urinals?
If you don't have a penis, you use the bathroom that has no urinals because you have more capacity?
Like, who would have a problem with that?
Doesn't it just take the whole argument away?
Your bathroom is either built for penises or vaginas.
And if it's built for both, it usually has a lock on the door and it's for one person.
So why is this even a problem?
I want a penis bathroom.
That's it. How offended would you be if someone who had an outward appearance of female...
Walked into the male restroom and walked up to a urinal and just started using it.
Would you say to yourself, my God, I'm so uncomfortable because there's a woman in here?
Now, that individual might identify as a woman, but why the hell would you care?
You're both in the penis bathroom.
It's the penis bathroom.
That's it. Here's some fake news, a couple of fake news stories.
How many of you saw a clip featuring MSNBC's Melissa Harris Perry in which this sentence is in it?
She said, we have to break through the idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.
How many of you saw that?
And how many of you said, my God, these communists or socialists, they've gone too far now.
They want to have control of our kids, and parents do not have control of Marxists.
Marxists. How many of you know it's fake news?
How many of you know it's fake news?
It isn't real. This never happened.
Now, the quote happened.
The quote happened exactly as I read it.
But do you know why it's fake news?
Here's the context. We should fund schools more because when kids get better educations, it's good for everybody.
That's the entire context.
The entire context is, yes, You know, you have a family, and that's important.
But you know what's also important?
Is that society itself needs your kids to be well-educated.
So why won't we...
We should give more money to your parents, or for the benefit of your parents, I guess, so that your kids can get a good education.
So somehow this turned into some Marxist thing where the socialists want to control your kids, when it was exactly the opposite.
She wanted to give more money so that your kids can get a good education.
That's it. All right, fake news.
Here's another one.
MSN has an article today in which, once again, they have resurrected the fake news, and this is their exact sentence.
Donald Trump infamously urged to fabricate, talking about his call with Ukraine, and they say that he asked...
Ukraine to fabricate...
No, I'm sorry. I have the whole wrong story here.
All of his phone calls, I get mixed up.
This was his call to the Georgia head of the elections.
Who was it? I forget who it was.
But he never said, I want you to fabricate anything.
He said, I want you to find those votes, meaning that he thought the election was rigged.
And when he said, Rassenberger, yeah.
And when he said, I want you to find them, the context was in a totally legal way by doing an audit and finding out that he really won.
And MSN has changed that to fabricate.
He asked Georgia to fabricate 11,000 votes for him.
Literally 100% opposite of the news.
And it's on MSN. How many people would read MSN as their main source of news and say, oh, my God, Trump asked somebody to fabricate votes?
Everything they say about him is true.
But they just literally just made up a number or made up a word and insert it fabricate.
Anyway. So I hear Jack Posobiec had a breaking news item yesterday, that ESPN will not send reporters to the Beijing Olympics.
Wow. So now NBC is having trouble selling ads, we hear.
ESPN will not be sending reporters, we hear.
And as I tweeted today, if your moral compass allows you to watch the Omicron Olympics, like if you feel okay with that, That spending time watching an Olympics in China...
If you want to spend time in that...
Of course you have that...
You perfectly have that right, of course.
But don't talk to me about it.
Like, if you start to tell me what you saw in the Olympics...
I'm going to turn and walk away.
Because your personal shame is not something I want to share.
If your moral compass allowed you to watch...
The most disruptable, just a horrible country.
That largely murdered my stepson.
So I have a personal stake in that.
If you can do that, go ahead.
But just keep it to yourself.
Because that's your private shame.
Just don't expose me to it, please.
Now, let me check my notes and see if I missed any important things.
I don't think I did. MSNBC actually thinks that fascism is going to be the top thing taking over.
So, if you look at the news now, and I think I don't have to travel today.
Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm good for another few minutes.
So, yeah, meatloaf died.
I usually don't cover the people died.
Oh, I forgot the best story of the day.
The best story of the day was, were you aware that Martha Stewart was dating Anthony Hopkins?
You knew that, right?
I didn't know until recently.
They're both in their 80s. But apparently Martha Stewart broke up with Anthony Hopkins.
And the reason was that she couldn't separate him from his famous movie role.
And when asked if she was afraid he would eat her, she said yes.
So, this is...
I don't know how...
No, I don't think she...
She didn't mean literally afraid that she...
But she couldn't get the thought out of her mind.
And she even said that she wouldn't bring him to...
I guess she has a big, scary home somewhere.
And she wouldn't even bring him to be in her big, scary home because she didn't want to walk around the corner in her big, scary home and run into Anthony Hopkins' Silence of the Lambs.
That is the funniest breakup of all time.
Now, like I said, she wasn't actually afraid that he would eat her, but she couldn't get the feeling out of her mind.
All right, here's something that's new.
I think we all know that by keeping Biden away from the public, that probably is what won him the presidency.
Would you agree? That the less we saw Biden, the more likely he would win the election, and that's what happened.
And now that Trump is kicked off of social media, and he's not president, we're seeing way, way, way, way, way, way less of Trump.
And Trump wins every matchup against every Democrat candidate for president.
Hypothetical matchup. So, didn't it used to be that all publicity was good?
Right? Didn't we used to think that all publicity was good publicity?
And now we're getting some real indications that in some cases, the less we hear from you, the better.
Now, part of that has to do with what the media landscape is.
Because anybody who raises their head in this landscape just gets it chopped off.
So if you do anything, you look bad.
The only thing that doesn't look bad is doing nothing.
Because then people can just sort of imagine that you could have done something or they'll forget the bad things over time.
Remember the good things, maybe.
So this is really a whole new world.
This was one of the most basic truths that all publicity is good publicity, and now it's clearly not.
The less we see of these two people, the more popular they are.
Now, it might have something to do with their specific personalities or age or whatever, but I keep an eye on it.
So... And that is all I wanted to talk about today.
DeSantis? All right.
So I've got to go do some other things.
Was there any story I missed?
Any story I missed?
Anything big? DeSantis?
Yeah, DeSantis will get targeted.
Do you have any idea how...
How beat up DeSantis is going to get?
When is Ray Epps going to testify?
Is that coming up? What is the D-I-E? Is he for equity?
Inclusion? What is D-I-E? Diversity, inclusion, and equity.
Yeah. Die.
It's funny that it's die.
What about fascism?
Yeah, so it looks like the Democrat play will be that all Republicans are fascists and they steal elections.
Check out...
It's my language, huh? Oh, Washington Post did a Rupar on DeSantis.
I'll bet they did. All right, here's a question for you.
I saw from, I think it was, was it, I forget who I saw from, but do you think that long COVID is real or fake?
Long COVID, real or fake?
Oh, you're all over the place.
Some real, some fake.
All right, here's my current take on long COVID. Are you ready for this?
If you were to do a natural distribution of pretty much anything, it would be, you know, a few people on the left, and then there would be a big hump where most of the people are, and then there would be a trail on the end, right?
If you have any kind of illness that kicks your ass, some people will get over it really quickly, like way faster than other people, even though it kicked their ass.
Most people would have an average experience and then an average recovery time.
Some people on the far end would take much longer just to get over an illness, but just normally.
Because everything's a normal distribution, right?
People get over colds at different rates.
They heal at different rates.
They're bleeding clots at different rates.
So wouldn't you expect that no matter what the disease was, or the illness, if it kicked your ass for a little while, wouldn't you expect that some people would take longer to get rid of all the symptoms, some people would be right away, But most people would just, you know, pass through it in the normal way.
So I'm not sure that long COVID means anything more than long flu or long heart attack.
Is there long heart attack?
Because there must be people who get over heart attacks relatively quick A bunch of them that have an average experience, and then some of them, some of them, takes them like a really long time to get rid of it.
Do they have long heart attack?
I gave this example before.
That I had minor surgery for some sinus stuff.
So not a big deal, the surgery.
You're up and walking right after.
But it kicked my ass.
And it kicked my ass for months.
I mean months. I was not good physically.
But now I am.
It just took me longer to recover from that specific trauma.
Don't you think that somebody could have had my exact surgery...
I'd gotten over it in like a couple days like it was nothing.
Most people just had an average experience.
But some of us had long sinus.
Did I have long sinus?
Because it took me months to get back to normal.
I don't know. So here's my speculation.
So I'm not ready to say this is an opinion yet.
But I want to put it out there.
That if every single thing that kicks your ass has a different length of recovery for everybody, wouldn't it always look like there is long COVID? And would it really be something that deserves a name, or is it just telling you that people recover at different rates?
Right? Right?
So how far away are we from just saying it's not a thing?
Right? Because if we said it's not a thing, then we would take it out of the calculation, and then you'd have the risk of the vaccination not balanced by the risk of long COVID. Right now, my decision-making is, well, I don't know about long COVID, but I also don't know about long vaccination, right?
I don't know about long anything, because we're not there yet.
But if you took that balance and said, all right, we're just going to remove one side of the scale and say, yeah, we figured out that the long COVID is really just people take longer to recover sometimes.
It's nothing. Then suddenly the risk of the vaccination looks pretty bad.
And you'd have to weigh that against the risk of dying from the COVID, which is less now under Omicron.
So I think the argument for boosters is pretty, pretty gone.
All right. The media has long Trump.
Yeah. Trying to prolong emergency for midterm elections?
I don't think so.
I think everybody on Democrat and Republican side wants this over.
Nobody wants this issue, I don't think.
I think they want to talk about everything else.
Because nobody looks good on COVID, right?
COVID doesn't make anybody look good.
Maybe DeSantis. But even that's only for Republicans.
Okay. The Democrats need, yeah, they need the January 6th thing.
So everything that...
God, I just realized this.
Is this true?
This can't be true.
But it might be true.
Is everything that the Republicans do aimed at solving problems and everything that the Democrats do aimed at creating a narrative?
Am I wrong about that?
Because the critical race theory seems like a narrative.
January 6th seems like a narrative.
COVID was more of an inherited problem, so that's different.
Russia seems like a narrative.
Right? Now, it's not a 100% thing, because, you know, on the Republican side, you know, the war on Christmas and burning flags and trans stuff and stuff, they're all narratives.
Well, even, I guess, the trans thing.
Is the trans thing a narrative?
I guess it's a narrative to make Republicans look bad, because they're on the other side of it.
The Great Narrative.
That's a book. Yeah, you know, I feel as if everything from voting rights to January 6th to critical race theory, I think it's all narrative, isn't it?
Scott disproved his theory.
Which one?
Scott disproved his theory.
This is like a brand new idea that I'm only thinking about at the moment.
But what would be the...
It does seem like there's a...
Yeah, the Russian narrative.
It just blew your mind out of the back of your head.
That's what happened to me when I thought of it.
Because I thought of it live while you were watching it.
I was just sort of going through the examples and I thought, wait a minute.
Is there a pattern here?
Yeah, the fine people hoax was a narrative.
That the Democrats have completely left the problem-solving field and they're only on the narrative side.
Because even look at the COVID stuff.
DeSantis is clearly trying to solve a problem, wouldn't you say?
Whereas it's not entirely clear what the Democrats are trying to do.
Like, they would say they're trying to solve a problem, but it doesn't look like that.
It's like, make us all safe, win an election, be better than Trump or something.
It feels like that's a narrative, too.
If you're trying to solve a problem, it's going to look more like Texas or Florida, right?
If you're trying to create a narrative, I don't know, maybe it looks all mixed up like it is now because it's part real problem and part narrative.
California is a different case because we do have a crazy amount of infections in California.
So, you know, maybe immigration is part of that.
I don't know. Am I starting to recognize your username?
Yes, GU2. What percentage of the population is trans?
Pretty small. Is fascism narrative also the projection thing?
Yes. Yeah.
Yeah. The weirdest thing about narcissists is projection.
But the problem is, if you tell a narcissist they're projecting, what do they tell you?
What does a narcissist say if you say, hey, you're projecting?
What do they say every time?
What do they say? They say you are, right?
Every time. They'll say, I'm not projecting.
You are. Because they wouldn't project if they knew they were doing it, really.
I mean, it's not a conscious thing.
So they think you are.
And I don't even know.
Maybe they believe it.
I don't know.
Let's see.
What about correlation between...
COVID deaths are...
Somebody said COVID deaths match baby boomers reaching mortality.
That's not all of it.
You think it is conscious?
Rules for radicals.
I was tortured for 12 years by a psychopath.
You know, a psychopath and vulnerable narcissists are like 60% the same thing.
I think you have to look at the vulnerable narcissist as just dangerous.
That's really the only word you should put on them.
