All Episodes
Feb. 14, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
51:16
Episode 1654 Scott Adams: Racism Got Weird, Pandemic Ends, Ukraine Still an Enigma, Lots of Fun

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: 2nd Nobel nomination for Jared Kushner, Avi Berkowitz No current reporting on Illegal immigration? Racism is both a problem and business model Biden Admin urges hiding Dominion audit result? Ukraine evolving situation President Trump was right, they spied on him ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, and welcome to the highlight of your entire existence, and that includes Valentine's Day.
Now, a lot of you are going to have incredible sex today, and still, this will be better.
Yeah, I know, I know.
It doesn't seem possible, but you just watch.
Now, as I was just watching before I got out here on YouTube, I was watching the memes streamed by on Locals subscription platform, and one of them was that today is Singles Awareness Day.
Is this the worst day in the world to be single?
I don't know. It might be.
So, let's take it up a notch.
Let's have a drink.
To Valentine's Day.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And aren't you glad you made it for this?
Wow. Go.
Mmm. Mmm.
Okay, in the comments, how many of you are having sex right now?
Anybody? Am I the only one?
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm not. All right, okay, some of you are tubing.
I realize that I gave you that little setup there, and you grabbed it.
You grabbed it. Alright, here's a little safety tip for you.
Two tips. Number one, have you ever seen those automated traffic speed signs in your neighborhood?
So there'll be a little wheeled cart that the police will put there.
It's got a little radar on it.
There's no person there.
It's just a robot.
And it tells you what your speed is.
Now, when you see that your speed is above the speed limit, what do you do when the robot is telling you that?
Do you slow down? How many of you slow down because the robot told you to slow down?
Probably a lot of you. That's why they do it.
Do you know what I do?
Well, I have a degree in economics, so that's how I see the world.
And is there anybody else here, before I give you the answer, is there anybody else here who has a degree in economics?
Probably, right? There's somebody here.
And don't give away the answer.
If you have a degree in economics, you say to yourself, is the police force, which of course has a shortage of resources, because everybody does, do you think the police force is going to put a robot there that slows you down, and then also a speed trap?
It's the one place in the world you can guarantee you're not going to get a ticket.
Because the economics of it would be absurd.
You don't slow people down and give them tickets at the same time.
So when I see one of those, I'm like, oh, free pass.
I guess I can go whatever speed I want.
No, I'm not saying I speed up.
I'm just saying that if you have an economics filter on life, as soon as you see that thing, you say to yourself, well, I guess I don't have to slow down.
It's the only place I can go today that I don't have to worry about a ticket.
Now, let's take that concept, and I'm going to expand it and extend it to something that's closer to you.
How many of you use encrypted apps because you feel safer?
Anybody? Who uses an encrypted app because if you've got that encryption, you're all safe, right?
Okay, economists.
Anybody? Any economists?
If you were, let's say, the CIA or some intelligence agency, would you go looking around and just everybody's unencrypted messages looking for the good stuff?
Or would you likely put all of your energy into looking at how you can get into the encrypted apps because that's where all the good stuff is?
The economics of it guarantees that the place you're most likely to get caught doing something terrible is on an encrypted app.
Now, maybe not immediately.
It might take them a while to figure out a backdoor.
I don't know if they crack the apps or if they just coerce the management or they get an insider that they bribe.
However they do it, right?
The intelligence agencies can just chip away at it until they succeed.
Because there's no cost in failure.
If you can't crack it, well, you just didn't crack it.
But you're going to keep trying until you do.
And the intelligence agencies, of course, would succeed in the long run, one way or the other, either by human corruption or cracking the code with quantum computers or God knows what.
So I would say to you, get rid of your encrypted apps, because what they're going to do is lure you into saying something that you should not put on an app.
Hear this really clearly.
If you have an encrypted app, it's going to make you feel safe.
And then you're going to put something in that app that you should not ever write down.
Am I right? How many people have written something in an encrypted app because they said, well, at least this is safe?
Don't. Everything you write down is discoverable.
There's just no exception to that.
Alright, that's your advice for the day.
Congratulations to Jared Kushner and Avi Berkowitz for being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for their work in the Abraham Accords.
Now, this is the second time they've been nominated.
Is that right? And how does that work?
Can you be nominated time after time?
I'm not sure if there's any kind of eligibility per year or anything like that.
I guess you could. But this is quite an accomplishment.
And what's interesting is that Trump is not nominated.
Is that weird? How did any of this happen without Trump?
It doesn't really make sense, does it?
I mean, it just seems such an obvious snub.
You know, maybe the problem here is, you know, and nobody's disputing that who did the hard work was Jared and Avi.
They obviously did the work.
But doesn't the president get a little bit of something?
Nothing? I mean, that feels a little unfair.
You know, I get that not everybody is putting in the same amount or type of work into every project, but...
I mean, I can't imagine it would have happened with a different president, but with all credit to Avi Berkowitz and Jared Kushner.
So... God.
So mask mandates are going to end tomorrow.
In California. Allegedly.
But not for students.
So this is how absurd things have become.
So yesterday, you know, it was the Super Bowl, obviously.
So how many people celebrated with other people for the Super Bowl?
In the comments, how many of you were in some kind of a group situation?
Pretty much, probably 70% of you, right?
Did anybody find themselves in a group situation with friends where anybody was wearing a mask?
Anybody? Was anybody at home or had some friend's home?
No masks, right?
Now, so in my neighborhood...
The kids went to Super Bowl games because, you know, the kids are involved, whether it's directly or indirectly for them.
They're always there. So the kids were in some big crowds, you know, all weekend.
Then probably something like half of all the kids in my town were involved in a sleepover someplace over the weekend, right?
Everybody within a certain age group, they're all doing the sleepovers.
Do you think they're wearing masks?
No. No.
Nobody is. So you have this massive, like, close quarters mingling, and the only time that they wear a mask is in school, inside.
And do you know what is the one thing you can't do in school, inside the building?
You can't get really close to other people.
Because that's the time you're going to be sitting in your little chair.
Right? Right?
It's the only time you're not that close to people.
But as soon as they leave, they take the masks off, and they're hugging each other, and they're crawling over each other, and they're giving hickeys, and they're making out, and they're hooking up, and they're, you know, they're passing bongs around, and whatever God knows things, and having sleepovers.
You know, there'll be a pile of kids in a sleepover.
So literally, the safest place those kids will ever be in terms of COVID, the safest place is when they're sitting in desks that have to be at least a few feet apart from each other.
All the other time, they're all on top of each other like a big old pig pile.
So everything about this is just upside down and crazy.
But at least tomorrow-ish...
Masks would be off. Now, for some of us locally, the masks have been off for some time.
And I can tell you that only once was I ever asked to put on a mask.
Only once. In the last few weeks.
And that one time was a local business, and I didn't want to make trouble for the employees, so I complied.
All right. Apparently 70% of Americans, according to a Monmouth University poll, 70% of Americans want to accept COVID-19 and get on with their lives.
Now, this poll was published at the end of January.
So the last two weeks have been pretty important in terms of understanding where the pandemic is.
So wouldn't you imagine that the 70% who want to accept COVID and just get on with life, that's higher than 70 now, right?
Because it's only going to move in one direction.
So I would say 75%.
What have I been telling you about the magic number 75?
Well, it's coincidentally, you know, if you take 75% of something, what's left over is the solidly stupid 25% of the public.
25% of the public just shouldn't count for anything because they always get every question wrong.
The thing, I don't know if it's the same 25%.
Maybe it's a different 25% for every question.
But if 75% of the public wants something...
That's as obviously a good idea as this.
How often do they get it?
And I think the answer is almost always.
I mean, maybe not on day one, but with a supermajority of 75%, that's as close as you can get to 100% of the smart people.
Right? Because you have the 25% of dense people that can't be reached on any topic, no matter what.
So if you can get 75% of the public for anything, it doesn't matter what the question is, if 75% are there, the government has to give it to you.
It just has to.
Because there's just too much pressure.
So I think we're in good shape there.
Now, some have asked, what about Denmark that dropped its restrictions recently and is experiencing a huge surge in their stats?
A negative surge.
So there's more infections and more deaths and everything.
So, did Denmark make a mistake?
The data suggests that as soon as they dropped their mandates, things went south.
Well, as Andreas Backhaus points out, there are other countries that didn't drop their mandates and had very similar curves.
So you have to be careful who you compare them to.
That's the first problem. So the first problem is we've still never figured out why some countries do what they do.
We just don't know why some country will go up and another country will go down at the same time while doing the same things.
Why can they do completely different things but get the same result?
We don't know any of that.
So if you're comparing what Denmark had as an experience to other countries, that's first of all absurd because we know that's not going to tell you what you think it is.
Secondly, as was pointed out by others, our statistics right now are a weird blend of the carryover from the Delta, the crossover from mostly Omicron.
So now we've got this blended data that's not really telling us about the future or the past.
It's like a future past.
Like somehow we average the future and the past.
And what I mean by that is the Omicron predicts fewer deaths in the future, the Delta predicts more, but they're sort of merged in the data at the moment.
Eventually it'll be pretty much a full Omicron data set, but not yet.
So at the moment all of our data is useless, basically.
Because you don't quite know what's in the mix.
Is it the bad stuff or the good stuff, Omicron?
So any comparison of Denmark to anything else is probably useless at this point.
There's not a big enough difference in Denmark to say that it has anything to do with the change of their plans.
Anyway, and then you've got the problem that Omicron is so weak, relative to the past, that you have tons of admissions of people getting in the hospital who just coincidentally have it.
So in the old days, with Delta, if you had Delta and you were hospitalized, there was a really high chance that it's because of the Delta, right?
It might be comorbidities, but it's the Delta that's really making the difference.
But today, you could be in the hospital for damn near anything and still have a high chance of having Omicron that you didn't even know you had.
So suddenly it looks like the hospitals are getting filled with Omicron people, but only by coincidence, right?
Not because of Omicron, but by coincidence they also have some mild Omicron.
So the caution here is that all of our data is going to be useless for a while.
And Denmark isn't the only place that's going to apply.
So everything you see about data, whatever skepticism you had a month ago, just triple that for about, I don't know, three weeks.
And then maybe the data will settle down into an Omicron-only, more sane way to look at it kind of a world.
I don't know. Maybe it won't.
But anyway, we don't have a history to look at that makes our lines make sense anymore.
Whatever happened to the giant problem of illegal immigration on the southern border?
Does anybody know what happened?
Why did we stop talking about it?
Well, you're saying winter, but isn't winter the right time to go?
Am I wrong? I thought summer was the wrong time to go, because it's too hot.
But isn't winter exactly when you want to go?
So, did it just slow down because it's the coolest part of the best time to go, and it'll be a little bit better in a month?
Or why are we not hearing about the caravans being formed?
So if it's still going, then why aren't we reporting on it?
Isn't it still a problem? Wouldn't there still be videos of huge masses of people crossing?
So here's the question.
There's something going on.
Because, well, I don't see Fox reporting it.
I'm seeing here that Fox is reporting it.
But I haven't seen anybody report it lately.
And I don't know if it's just because other news is more interesting.
But it feels like...
Here's my macro point here.
So, independent of whether there is or is not a major problem with immigration.
I assume there is.
But we're not hearing about it.
Isn't this exactly the kind of story, and I'll give you another example in a little bit, where it's obvious that the media decides what's important?
And at the moment, the media, both the left and the right...
So I see you're saying that Fox reports it every day, but I read Fox every day and I don't see it.
Not reported the way it used to be reported in terms of, you know, a disaster.
It's more like it gets thrown into a conversation.
I think if Fox reports it today, it might be just like an add-on to another story, right?
You know, why are we defending Ukraine's border when we don't defend our own?
So I would agree with you that Fox does sort of include it in a lot of conversations.
But I don't think it's a story.
Have they not done a package with a video lately?
I don't think so. So here's the thing.
I think you have to be careful what you worry about.
And maybe this is one of those things to add to your...
how to reframe your own anxiety.
One of the things I remind myself is that I'm only worrying about things people told me to worry about, which does not seem to correspond exactly to what's important.
Because there's somebody who wants you to worry about something, and they have the influence to make it happen, and you start worrying about this thing that somebody put in your head.
But it's not your biggest problem.
It's just the thing somebody told you to worry about.
So when you... Yeah, and fentanyl's weird like that, too.
Because every once in a while we'll talk about it, but then it'll just disappear as if it's not killing 50,000 to 100,000 people a year.
It's just weird. So just be hyper-aware...
The degree to which you're being manipulated.
Because they just took things that people were on fire about and just decided that you're not on fire about it now.
You're going to be thinking about something else.
I have four words to describe the ongoing story about Bob Saget's cause of death.
Leave Bob Saget alone.
Next story. How about that Super Bowl?
So I watched enough of it to feel like an American.
And I swear sometimes that's why I watch it.
I'm not a big sports guy, as you might know.
I like playing them.
I'm not a big spectator type.
I'm a big fan of participating.
But watching, it's hard for me to do.
So... Here is my sort of impression of the whole event, ignoring the sporting part of it for a moment, because that'll be talked to death.
One of the things that I'm reminded of is that racism is not just a problem, but it's also a business model, which causes some weird things to happen.
And by a business model, I mean that there are individuals who benefit from The racism topic.
So if they can keep it going, they've got a reason to be on TV, a reason to sell books, a reason to be, etc.
And so what would happen to a problem if it got solved and yet there were a whole bunch of people who benefit by it not being solved?
I was asking the same thing about how many people in the CIA are Russia experts and Versus other kinds of experts.
It makes you wonder if you just have too many experts of one kind, even if you solve the problem for which you had those experts, don't they have to kind of tell you the problem's still there?
Like, what if climate change got solved tomorrow?
You know, it won't be.
But what if it were? What if climate change just got solved?
You know, somebody came up with a fusion reactor that you can build in a year and it's totally safe.
Well, what would happen to all the scientists whose entire careers depend on scaring you about climate change?
Would they say, yay, we're done, we're going to change fields now?
Some would. Or would others just say, you know, sure, we changed the problem the way it was, but what about this new version of the problem?
What about that? What about the thing you weren't thinking about?
Huh? What about the different way of looking at the same problem?
So you always have to say to yourself, if there's a business model around a problem, can you ever solve it?
Because there will always be somebody telling you it didn't really get solved, it just got transferred into a different form, so now you have to worry about that new form.
And watching the Super Bowl reminded me about, let's call it direct racism.
So I think there was a time in human history where if you said, hey, my group of people are awesome and this other group of people, there must be something wrong with them, you at least had some observational basis for it.
Meaning you may say, hey, look, my city is doing great.
And this other bunch of people have not developed technology or whatever.
They don't have much money. So we must be the good ones, and they must be the bad ones.
Now, as it turns out, it wasn't because of their genetic makeup, and that's something we know in 2022 that everybody is succeeding in all kinds of fields, and it's more about the individual.
So... The direct kind of racism is largely dead because once you've got a black president and then the Super Bowl really rubbed it in.
The Super Bowl was a whole bunch of black millionaires who were athletes with a halftime show that was primarily black millionaires.
And the biggest controversy around it that wasn't sporting-related was, why don't we have enough black coaches in our league that's 70% black players?
And pretty much everybody, well, I won't say everybody, but society largely looks at that question and says, you know, that's a pretty good question.
Right? I mean, you do have your people pushing back on it because it's irrational.
Right? It is irrational.
Because if we're not complaining about the 70% of the players being black, you really have to question the logic of questioning any percentage.
Like, there are reasons, but maybe those reasons are racism.
You don't know. So...
As I'm watching this, the Super Bowl is really one of those things.
And then even if you looked in the rich people box, it would be a whole bunch of white people up in the expensive seats.
But also, almost all of those boxes probably had famous black athletes and billionaires and entrepreneurs and whatever.
And when America watches the Super Bowl, who is thinking racist stuff?
Like, I mean, I guess it's in the sense that it's always in the air, yes.
But when Americans watch the Super Bowl, it's just about America, isn't it?
Does anybody have any other feeling about it?
Like, it just feels like the most perfectly American thing.
And it is so wonderfully free, I mean, just spectacularly free, of what I would call historical classic racism.
Where you just say, the people who look like that are bad, and the people who look like me are good.
Like, that part's just gone.
Because there are so many individuals who have excelled from every category of life.
And even more directly, the LGBTQ community is, you know, just like a rocket, just doing great.
So as long as there are lots of individuals who are excelling, that old kind of racism went away.
But not the business model.
So you still needed some racism.
Even though the direct stuff seems to have gone away.
That's where you get the stuff like systemic racism, etc.
But the trouble with systemic racism is, it's really more about class, isn't it?
That rich people do well, and if you're not already rich, you've got quite a barrier to break through to become rich.
So it seems to me that the whole racism thing has become something of an absurdity.
And the absurdity is that we're not treating all poor people alike when we just watched the most revered American tradition, lately anyway, the Super Bowl, where it really is an enormous celebration of black achievement.
I mean, it's really, really impressive if you look at the individuals and the level of talent that was involved there in all kinds of different fields.
So I feel like we're just in this weird situation, and I guess it all came together when the only person who kneeled, or is it knelt?
The only person who knelt at the Super Bowl was, did you watch it?
The only person who got on one knee to protest racism in the United States was the white rapper in a black business, Eminem.
The fact that he was the only one was just perfect.
Because that capped the absurdity of the whole thing.
Now, do you think that the police brutality against black motorists or black suspects were stopped by the police?
Do you think that ended and Kaepernick got what he wanted?
Or are we being clearly signaled that that was never real and it was just a media invention to be anti-Trump?
I mean, that was just sort of an anti-Republican, anti-Trump thing, right?
So as soon as Biden's in charge and the Democrats own the Congress...
Well, suddenly the problem went away, and the only one who didn't get the memo was the white guy.
The white guy didn't get the memo.
So Eminem's like, oh, I guess I'm still two years ago.
So... I don't think that we're making a big enough deal about how far this country has gone.
And this is one of the things you have to do every once in a while.
It's easy to complain about what's not right yet because that helps you work on it.
It's good to complain because it tells you what to work on.
But every now and then you just have to pause and say, damn, things have gotten really good relative to where they have been in the past.
But still work to do, I guess.
All right. Here's a reframe for racism.
In order to be racist, you have to irrationally take credit for the accomplishments of strangers, which doesn't make much sense.
And I use this example...
So Thomas Edison and his company invented the light bulb, the modern light bulb.
And he was white, and I'm white, so I get some of the credit, right?
How does that work?
How do I get credit for just having a coincidental, similar pigmentation?
Like, well, I didn't do anything.
I wasn't even bored.
Right? So how in the world do I get some credit because white people invented a lot of stuff?
It doesn't really work that way.
It just doesn't work that way.
So I think it's a useful reframe that if you're finding...
And I guess this is where it starts.
People say they find pride in their race.
I feel like that should be discouraged.
Right? I'll bet that's offensive to some of you, isn't it?
If I say it again, let's see if this sounds offensive.
I don't mean it to be offensive. But you should never take pride in your race.
That's irrational. You should take pride in perhaps what you did.
I think you could arguably take pride in what a child of yours accomplished.
I would extend it to that because you have a lot to do with how the child turns out.
But how would you be proud of anything else?
Like, it doesn't really make sense to be proud of anything except what you do, or as I said, maybe a family member that you've helped in some way.
So, every time somebody says they're proud to be black, or proud to be white, it just sounds racist as fuck to me.
It doesn't matter who says it.
The moment you say you're proud of your race, like, I'm not even sure I want to hang out with you anymore.
I don't care what your race is.
It's like, if you're proud of that, you're proud of other people's accomplishments.
I'm not comfortable with that.
How about be proud of your own stuff for a change?
So there's a story about the Biden administration saying, Officials at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, you know, the CISA, are urging a judge to not show us the Dominion Voting Systems audit, I guess. So there's some kind of audit in Georgia of the Dominion Voting Systems, and the Biden administration doesn't want that audit released.
Now, to be clear, the audit does not allege, as far as we know, any fraud.
Because I think people are taking the story wrong.
I think people are taking the story as they found some fraud and they're trying to hide it.
But that is not the story.
The story is that allegedly, and it's still allegedly, there were some security holes.
Now, security holes means that there was an opportunity.
Perhaps. For something to happen.
Not that something happened. So, does it make sense for the Biden administration to block that?
Presumably because they say it would be bad for cybersecurity or election security.
Right? Do you think that's a good enough reason?
That whatever came out of this would be bad for election security?
Because you could make the argument...
That if the public knew how the audit was done and what it found, that that would teach hackers how to hack the system.
Is that true? Do you think that would be the case, that it would teach people how to hack the system?
And if we have a system that can be hacked, is the problem that the hack...
If it's even true that this information could be harmful, you have to take those systems offline right away.
Am I right? You would have to, if you believed that there was an audit that legitimately, you see, if you believed it.
And I would say that I'm well short of believing this is true, by the way.
So I wouldn't take anything about this story as verified yet.
But if it were true that there were security flaws that would allow somebody to change an election, the moment you know that's true, your strategy is not keep it from the public.
Right? That's not the strategy.
The strategy should be take them offline immediately until you can fix them.
All right. Let's talk about Ukraine.
Ukraine. Apparently China is not evacuating their embassies.
So what does China know that the other people don't know?
Well, I'm wondering if the United States evacuating its embassies was just a signaling move.
What do you think? I think that we were just calling Putin's bluff by saying, if you're going to attack the country...
We're ready, and we're evacuating our embassies or pulling down staff, because not only are we calling your bluff, but we're preparing for the outcome.
So I've got a feeling that China does not need to call anybody's bluff.
So don't you think China is signaling that they know that there's no imminent attack?
Or is China in league with Russia...
And they're trying to help Russia mount a sneak attack by acting like they don't know.
Oh, we don't think there's any attack.
And then Russia attacks.
And you say, darn, even China was surprised.
I don't feel like China would be working with them on a trick.
I feel like China just knows that there's not going to be an attack.
So that's still my prediction, is that there won't be an attack.
Or at the very least, if there's an attack, it would not involve wherever they have their embassies.
So they might know it won't involve just that location.
It seems to me that Putin is negotiating so well by threatening with military action that he's got Ukraine kind of negotiating with itself.
Do you know what I mean?
Have you not heard people say, well, why don't we give Russia this?
Or, you know, we could say we promise not to join NATO. Basically, a lot of people are floating ideas for how Ukraine or NATO could give up something.
But you don't really see the same thing happen on Putin's side.
I mean, we float ideas, but there's nobody in Russia floating an idea about how Putin should change his mind.
So I feel like Putin has his adversaries negotiating with themselves, which is a sign that somebody doesn't know what they're doing, meaning that people negotiating with themselves are sort of lost and they're just flailing.
But then I heard this interesting factoid that I wondered how important it is.
It sounds like it's important.
That Ukraine has built into its constitution that it will try to get into NATO. To which I said, I don't think Ukraine knows what a constitution is.
A constitution isn't a business plan.
That's a business plan.
Or a strategic plan, maybe.
But a strategic plan might be We have every intention of getting into NATO. That would be a good plan.
That's not something you put in your constitution.
Because if you put it in your constitution, then if the situation changes, you can't change your mind.
That's not really Chen, is it?
So...
I can't tell if that's somebody impersonating Chen or actually Chen.
So... Am I wrong that it was a gigantic mistake to put the NATO thing in their constitution, which they can't easily change?
It's like a gigantic mistake, right?
I feel like this is like a Dilbert problem on a global scale, that they confuse the constitution of the country with a business plan, And they put the wrong thing in it.
And that now they have a paperwork problem that's going to cause them to lose their country.
For paperwork. I think that's happening.
Do you think that Russia would be treating Ukraine the same if their constitution didn't say we have to be in NATO? Because I feel like Russia could count on them maybe changing their mind or not joining NATO if they didn't have it right in the constitution that they had to.
Or at least had to try.
And I think it's more and more clear, especially since I got a little background on this whole Putin versus Hillary Clinton thing.
So I guess Hillary Clinton, Putin blamed Hillary Clinton for activating the protests against Putin in 2011, I think.
And then in 2016, Putin may or may not have returned the favor by trying to hack something.
I'm not saying we should abandon them.
I'm not saying we should do something different.
I'm just confused.
As to why we're not better off instead of worse.
Let me ask you this.
How many problems has Ukraine caused the United States in the last five years?
Am I right? Look at the number of problems Ukraine has caused the United States.
Now, how many of those problems would we have had if Ukraine and Russia were basically the same country?
None? None, right?
So at the moment...
Ukraine looks like this big, expensive problem that we're pumping money into, and because of corruption, it's ruining our politics, because we've got this Hunter Biden connection to it.
It's ruining our NATO alliance.
I mean, at the moment it's getting stronger, but I think that's temporary.
I feel like Ukraine is nothing but trouble.
And by the way, we caused that trouble ourselves by trying to build a base on Russia's doorstep.
Why did we think we were going to get away with that?
It wouldn't have worked the other way.
They couldn't have built a base in our doorstep.
Why are we fighting the idea that the superpowers should have a sphere of influence around them when we have one and we think it probably works pretty well?
I guess there are a lot of questions on this Ukraine thing that we're not thinking about too deeply.
Do you know what CNN stands for?
CNN stands for?
Certainly not news.
I don't know if anybody's used that one before.
Okay.
So Fox News, of course, has been reporting on the Durham's latest filing.
Okay. And the idea that the Clinton campaign was paying somebody to spy on Trump and get into his computer stuff.
And then I see this.
John Brennan had briefed Obama At one point, on Clinton's purported proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian Security Service.
So apparently this is in evidence, sufficiently so that it's part of the Durham report, which would say that Brennan and Obama knew for sure that Hillary was doing a dirty trick about this Russian connection, And that they either tacitly approved it or at least ignored it, shouldn't they all be in jail?
Shouldn't John Brennan and ex-President Obama be in jail for that?
How is that not a huge crime?
I'm not sure what crime it would be, actually.
But shouldn't it be a crime for the President of the United States and the head of the CIA to be aware of a campaign trying to overthrow an election with a fake...
a story that would potentially plunge America into war?
If they were aware that she was doing this, they should have shut her down immediately.
And if they didn't, they were part of it.
You know, I actually googled RICO yesterday, because I wasn't quite sure what it takes to make something a RICO situation.
But what we're seeing here is very clearly, now it's being laid out, a conspiracy that obviously included Obama, the CIA. I'm sure we could connect it to the fake news, right?
So you had the fake news people, CIA, and Obama...
And the Clinton campaign, all conspiring to do dirty tricks that not only would change the nature of who got elected, potentially, you know, Trump got elected anyway, but could have actually caused a nuclear war.
So, you know, creating trouble with Russia is actually risking nuclear war in order to win an election.
Now, I don't think there's anything I said that's necessarily on the books as illegal, is it?
I mean, people can talk to each other and say bad things, and people can lie, and people can start rumors, and I don't think that's illegal.
But at some point, there's got to be something illegal about this, right?
Right? There's got to be something illegal about it somewhere.
I feel like there are so many laws that you could make anything illegal if you tried, especially something complicated like this.
You're telling me there's nothing illegal in this whole situation?
No lawyer could come up with a law that directly or indirectly seems applicable here?
And the weird thing is, again, this won't be reported properly.
The whole thing...
The entire story here won't even be reported by the mainstream press.
All right. All right.
That is about what I wanted to talk about today.
And I think you've done a good job.
Hacking is a crime, sure.
But that's not what the Clinton campaign is accused of.
Bearing false witness, I guess that's...
Yeah, Carl Bernstein, still not around.
Now, it does look like the...
Yeah, did Jake...
Has Jake Tapper...
I don't think anybody on CNN has mentioned the Durham new filing, right?
Has anybody seen it mentioned at all in any concept?
Any context? Business Insider...
Well, this would be a good test.
Tim Pool, yes.
Newsweek, just to insult Trump.
Nothing in the New York Times.
Yeah, but I don't know.
Just looking at your comments.
Yeah.
New York Post.
Interesting. You know...
Whatever you believed about how much manipulation there is by the media, did you ever think there was this much?
This feels like a whole new level, doesn't it?
Like, every time you think, oh, they can't get any worse than this...
Oh, so June is saying if it's not reported on both sides, it's not real.
Let me tweak that.
So that's a rule that I've used for a BS test.
So the BS test is if one side says something's true and the other side says it's not true, it's probably not true.
Because I usually go with the not true ones.
But in this case, it's being ignored.
It's not being called not true.
In that case, you have to assume that the accusation is true.
Because the other side is not addressing it.
And it's such a big one that if you don't address it, that's saying something.
So the BS indicator would say ignoring it...
It means guilt. But if they said, no, we looked into it, and you're looking at it wrong, or you forgot a fact, or there's some context, then I would go with the debunker, actually, usually.
Doesn't mean they're always right. It's just a general rule of thumb.
David Pakman reports on a completely different world.
He does. Yeah, he and I have talked.
It's interesting, his background is economics as well.
So we can actually speak productively despite being in different movies, which is weird.
All right. It's worse than Watergate.
You haven't heard of Durham's release about Hillary on Saturday morning.
I guess I haven't heard of that.
I don't know what you're talking about. Russiagate was denied.
Was that true?
There you go with the denier.
Oh, you mean Rushgate in terms of it being a fake thing.
Oh, that's true. Yeah, that would be interesting because for the Russia collusion thing, There were two movies.
One is that it was always like a hit job, and the other was that it was true.
But in both of those, there's one saying it was true and one saying it's false.
So they kind of cancel each other out.
That's a weird one. But Trump was right that they were spying on him.
Distance yourself from the left, Scott.
They are truly evil, undermining all of us forever.
I don't think they're evil.
I think that they don't have a good talent stack.
That's what I think. I don't think the left has evil people in it.
Talent stack meaning if they understood economics better, for example, and some other...
I guess if they understood how human motivation works...
Then they might be in better shape.
All right. Evil is banal.
Yeah, I don't like to call things just evil because I think that's just putting words on stuff.
Pelosi is not evil.
Well, Well... I don't know.
It's just too simplistic to label people as evil.
I don't think Pelosi wakes up in the morning and says, let me go do some devil stuff.
I think she has undoubtedly done things that you and I don't like.
It kind of comes with that job.
All right. That is all I've got for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure this is the best thing you've ever seen in your life.
Export Selection