All Episodes
March 11, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
47:20
Episode 1679 Scott Adams: More Fake News and Propaganda and Some Even Funny. Let's Sip 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: Has "The News" ever been real? Huffington Post version of the pandemic Could Ukraine win the war? Fake news hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard Who wins a Ukraine supply chain war? Victoria Nuland and Ukraine biolabs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 everybody and welcome to the highlight of modern civilization.
We're not so sure about the ancient world, but I have a feeling, given their lack of modern dentistry, It's probably better to live now than then.
And so that would make this the highlight of all civilization in all likelihood.
Can't prove it, but I mean really, common sense would lead you to that conclusion.
Now, Is there anything that you would like more than the simultaneous sip?
Don't answer that question. I can feel your answer.
It's coming to me directly from your thoughts.
And the answer is, this is what you need.
It's what you want. And all you need to participate is a cup, a mug, a glass, a tank, or a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a drink, a flask, a vessel, and a guy.
Come over with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure...
The dopamine stream of all time.
I'm going to open that faucet.
You might start to feel your dopamine start to surge in a little bit.
And by the way, if I keep telling you it's going to do that, it's going to do that.
It really works. Do you feel it?
Do you feel the dopamine kicking in?
Go! Oh.
Wow. That was probably the best one of all time.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
There's a party foul.
This is rather distressing.
I saw in the comments, I almost hate to say this, but somebody prematurely sipped.
Would you raise your hand, the premature sipper?
Make yourself known in the comments.
I don't mean to embarrass you.
And so, I think we should drink to you, the premature sipper.
High achiever. High achiever.
Not only do we sip to you, we salute you for being ahead of it.
You might even get in two sips to other people's one.
Good job to you.
We sip to you.
You know, that's what I've come to expect from my audience.
Yes.
High achievers. Some of you were thinking, oh, one sip would be great.
That would make my day. And then there's somebody out here who's like, what if I sneak in two sips?
Twice as good. I salute that thinking.
Well, I just had a weird situation.
In the title I was writing to this live stream, I tried to write, let us sip a beverage.
Let us sip a beverage.
And then spellcheck kicked in, and maybe, you know, I was actually talking to text.
So the talk to text didn't work perfectly, and instead of a beverage, it changed it to of, O-F, of beverage.
And I looked at it and said, and I thought, let us sip of beverage.
And I thought, I think it improved it.
And then I started to wonder, could I write Shakespeare accidentally By simply using voice-to-text and mumbling a little bit.
And then the voice-to-text would sort of misinterpret a word here and there, and it would sound exactly like Shakespeare.
Because here's what doesn't sound like Shakespeare.
Let us sip a beverage.
Right? You would know Shakespeare didn't write that.
Let us sip a beverage.
No, that's not Shakespeare.
But how about this? Let a sip of beverage, right?
It's that simple.
You could write Shakespeare, too.
Just mumble into your voice-to-text.
One of the problems of having an economics background, as some of you do, and I do, is that sometimes you can see ugly truths that you wish you couldn't see.
Because if you know how things work economically, it's almost like you can see the gears of civilization somewhat obvious to you.
Because follow the money pretty much always works.
But if you don't have a sense of business models and that sort of thing, you might not be able to follow them as easily.
But once that's your filter, you've learned economics or business, you just see it everywhere.
Here's my problem with the news.
Is it possible that the news, or the news business, has ever been real news?
Because, just correct me if I'm wrong, there was a time in our, let's say, American history, when the big newspapers were owned by billionaires, like Hearst, William Randolph Hearst.
Was the Hearst newspaper involved in actual...
Accurate news reporting?
I don't think it was, right?
Don't we know for a fact, historically, that you were seeing the editorial opinion of the publisher?
And I would assume that every other publisher was the same.
So, if you understand economics, you understand that at some point in history, the You know, the concentration of publishing power certainly was in the hands of rich people.
And why in the world would they give you the news straight if they didn't need to?
If they could give you a slanted version of the news and completely get away with it, there's no penalty.
If they could do it, why wouldn't they do it?
And the answer is, of course they would do it.
And anybody with an economics degree would understand that.
They'll say they can do it, It would be greatly to their advantage.
Do they do it?
Yes. Of course.
But then, what about in the, let's say, the 60s?
Just to pick an era.
You know, was Walter Cronkite just straight news?
In those days, was the news business more of a lost leader at the networks, but they thought it was their responsibility?
Yeah, you're getting ahead of me in the comments.
Or was maybe the CIA and our government directly involved in brainwashing the public for our own good, I think they would have said, To make us more consumers and to make us hate the communists and all of that stuff?
Well, I don't know if economics predicts it, but can't you predict that if all you needed to do was, let's say, corrupt a few people, that it'd be easy to do?
Imagine the CIA going to the head of any news network in the 60s, let's say.
And they have lunch, and the CIA guy says, you know, the CIA has many ways to guarantee that you're very profitable and successful for the rest of your career.
And the head of the network says, what?
They say, yeah, you know, I can't give you specific examples, but trust me.
You're going to see a lot of opportunity.
You're going to get a lot of scoops.
You're going to have, you know, access to the good stuff.
Basically, everything about your life would be better...
If you maybe cooperate with us and if we tell you to put a slant on something, it's for the good of the country.
And if it's for the good of the country anyway, and it would make money for you, what's to complain about, right?
You're a patriot. Now, what publisher would not fall for that?
Maybe a few, but you have to assume that the news business has always been corrupt.
But just for different reasons.
And now we have this clickbait model in which the more fake the news, the more profitable.
Would you agree with that statement?
That's not hyperbole, even a little bit.
The more fake the news is, the more you go, what?
Are you kidding me?
That really happened?
And you're like, click, click, click, like a monkey getting a pellet.
Or a chicken getting a pellet.
Whoever gets a pellet, you know what I mean.
We all like pellets.
And so for at least three different reasons, anybody with an economic degree would say to themselves, I'm pretty sure the news has never been real.
Moreover, it never can be.
That's the bad news.
It's never been real.
And it never can be.
It never can be.
What might be different is the influence from foreign entities.
That part might be different.
Because they would have more ability to penetrate social media than they would, and put fake stories here, they would have more ability to do that now than they would have co-opting an American billionaire.
To print a story that was good for Russia, for example.
That probably was pretty hard to do.
Am I real? That's a good question.
The answer is no.
All right, so this brings me to, you know, we've talked about the Gelman amnesia, where if you're an expert on the story yourself, you know it's fake.
But if somebody's not an expert, they can't tell.
Looks pretty good to them. So...
You're going to hear a number of stories about me in the coming days.
But here's the filter you should put on it.
And by the way, this is a filter that I used successfully the other day.
So the other day somebody said to me, I heard that you said X. Now X, it doesn't matter what it was, but X was wow.
If somebody had actually said that?
And so here's how I successfully made that fake news go away.
I said, given everything you know about me and every interaction you've had with me, do you believe that that's something I actually said?
No, I'm not talking about my ex.
No, I said, is that something that you actually believe I said?
And the moment you put it in that frame, people say, oh, No.
No. Because sometimes if you just say, really?
Really. Based on everything you know, that sounds like something that really happened.
Right. So, here's a...
We're going to use this filter a little bit, right?
Here comes one.
There's a viral video going around of a local TV station...
Where there was a reporter who was standing on an intersection.
This is a brand new thing.
Standing on an intersection, and the story is about how this intersection is like the most dangerous intersection in L.A. A lot of accidents there.
As he's talking, behind him, there's a fairly serious vehicular accident.
Two cars just... Just duke it out behind him as he's talking about this being the most dangerous place for a traffic thing.
Now, is it real?
Really? Really?
Did that really happen?
Now, it looks real, doesn't it?
And there's probably somebody here who saw it live, so it probably was real.
If I had to bet on it, I'll bet it's real.
But could you be sure?
So I'm going to say it's real, in my opinion.
But it could be wrong.
But I think it was real. But here's the thing I want you to think about.
How easily it could not have been real.
Am I right? Because all it took was a reporter in the foreground...
And then a green screen and a traffic accident in the background.
It would be somewhat easy to fake.
Now, I don't think it was faked, but think how easy that would have been.
Would you have known if you just saw it on social media and nobody had vetted it?
You know, it wasn't like it was on CNN or something?
I know, I know. But, you know, I suspect it was real.
But just keep that in mind, that it's hard to tell.
And the really filter won't work every time, but it's pretty darn good.
Now, if you'd like to take a little, let's say, a vacation in the other reality.
So I think I know my livestream audience pretty well, because I've asked you enough questions to get an idea about who's watching.
If you go over to Huffington Post and read what they say about the pandemic, It's like a whole different reality.
And I'm going to give you the two realities that within, I think, 24 hours, both of these realities existed simultaneously.
Now, if you think I'm going to tell you which one I think is true, you're missing the point.
I'm going to tell you that there's two different realities.
I don't know which one's true.
I honestly don't.
I can't tell. I mean, I could guess if you, you know, gun to head, I could make a guess.
But I can't tell.
So here's the Huffington Post reality that masks definitely work, and that the science has proved it, and they link to a study.
I'm not saying the study's good.
I'm not saying masks work.
I'm just saying what Huffington Post says, okay?
So stay with me. And the distancing works and the vaccinations work.
And in the Huffington Post world, these are unquestionable statements of fact that don't require much explanation.
It's just context before they tell you something else.
In a separate reality, at exactly the same time, within 24 hours, I just saw a tweet, a thread from Dr.
Rajeeb Ali, who's a medical doctor from the UK, I guess.
And he talks about a very important paper published in The Lancet.
Now, if you don't know, The Lancet is a very well-established, respected publication in science.
Could you tell I was kidding?
There's no such thing as a respected publication in science.
But if you were going to make a short list of ones that people say are respected, that would be on the list.
So I'm not going to tell you that because it's in the Lancet, that means it's real, because that's not how the world works.
I'm just telling you it's in the Lancet.
So I told you what's in the Huffington Post.
I didn't tell you it was real. It's just there.
So here's what the Lancet says.
Basically, I'll summarize the whole thread, but it would purport to say that you couldn't see any difference in the country's total mortality.
You couldn't see any effect of masks or policy.
The only thing that made a difference was vaccinations.
According to this study.
Again, this is not Scott saying it.
I know you're going to say I'm pushing vaccinations.
That's not what I'm doing.
Blah, blah, blah. I'm just saying what it says.
So these are completely different worlds.
In one, it's now been proven that masks and distancing and policy made no difference at all.
But vaccinations did.
And in the Huffington Post world, at least they agree on the vaccinations.
That part they agree on. But in their world, oh, those masks totally work.
Here's the science. I don't know.
I don't know what's going on.
All right. Here's a trick for predicting the future.
If there are two things that could happen, and people are saying, hey, I think things will go this way or it'll go this way.
Predict... That it will go a third way, whatever that is.
Because you're probably going to be just as likely right as the people who are saying it's going to go one way or the other.
Let me give you an example of this.
Don't the experts say that the only things that could happen in Ukraine are that the Ukrainian resistance could hold out long enough...
That maybe Putin, his economy would get squeezed to the point where he'd just have to make a deal.
That's one thing that could happen.
I don't know that many people think that will work.
Let me ask you. Do you think that will work?
Do you think that's a strategy, first of all?
Do you think it would work that they could just hold on long enough that the economic pain causes Putin to get flexible?
We're getting an audio hiccup.
Alright, it looks on Locals is getting an audio problem, but I can't see that there's anything I can do about that.
Sorry. Well, I don't know what to do about that.
You can still sound as okay over on YouTube.
All right.
I don't have anything.
Amen.
Thank you.
Yeah, I don't have any Bluetooth anything on.
All right. So we'll just be talking to YouTube because we lost the sound on locals, I guess.
So here's the question.
Can Ukraine hold out long enough for the economic stuff to work?
I don't think so.
Let's get rid of this guy.
Hide user on this channel.
The trolls are out.
The trolls are out.
All right. Let me get to my point on Ukraine.
I think the possibility that has been ignored, the possibility that's been ignored, is that the Ukrainian military could win.
And it's looking more and more like that might be the case.
Here's why. Let me ask this question.
What number of shoulder-mounted weapons, high-tech American weapons, from stingers to anti-tank weapons, what number of shoulder-mounted weapons could cause the Ukrainian military to win?
Is there a...
Is there any kind of situation?
And here's what I think.
I believe that in theory, there's some number of shoulder-mounted high-tech stuff that could cause the Ukrainian resistance to completely destroy Russia.
Putin's big equipment.
And if they take out the big equipment and they take out the supply lines, don't they win?
Am I wrong?
And... Right, yeah.
An experienced hunter.
It seems to me...
That the Ukrainians, if they...
Somehow we still are able to get stuff into Ukraine.
So as long as we can still get stuff into Ukraine, there should be an endless amount of shoulder-mounted weaponry.
And in theory, there's some number of that that would cause them to win the war.
Now, how many are we sending, and could we reach that number?
Somebody says, no, you still have the air campaign.
Here's what I'm saying. If the Ukrainians on the ground...
This is weird.
I put you in timeout.
hide user on this channel.
But am I crazy?
Am I crazy?
To say that if the Ukrainians had enough shoulder-mounted high-tech equipment, they had supply chains that are working, couldn't they win?
Because even if Russia had air superiority, Putin can't afford to lose his army, can he?
Because I think the actual Russian conscripts would maybe just surrender.
Oh, the sound is working back on Locals.
Okay. Yay.
Welcome back. I hope on Locals some of you went over to YouTube when you had.
So the point, if you missed it on Locals, was I think if the Ukrainian resistance had enough shoulder-mounted rockets, they could win the war outright.
They could just win the war.
They would need logistics and, let's say, targeting...
And satellite stuff, but I'll bet they have that help.
So if they have satellite and maybe other kinds of aerial surveillance, if they can communicate, and they know how to use the weapons, because I don't know how hard it is to train, isn't it just a question of how many there are?
I'd like somebody to actually answer this question.
How many are there and how many would it take to win outright?
And if there's somebody who's an expert who says it can't be done, no matter how many you have, I mean, I would listen to that.
But I think we've boiled it down to the number of shoulder-mounted weapons.
Yeah, Russia can drop vacuum bombs any time it wants to, but I think if it loses its army on the ground...
They're going to have to make a deal.
Because what are they going to do?
Keep bombing and never send in a military?
Because they have to conquer it to hold it, right?
So yes, they can do horrible things in the air, but I think the Ukrainians can actually win the war.
All right. People are unusually bad today.
Alright, so that's enough about that.
I think that's the totally underrated question, is what happens if Ukraine actually just wins outright.
China's getting more COVID, especially in Hong Kong.
What do you think is going to happen over there?
Do you think China is going to successfully contain COVID that hasn't yet ravaged the country?
I still feel like there's something we don't understand, and I've never believed that their zero policy was really why they had such low infection rate.
There's just something unexplained happening over there.
Maybe we'll find out.
All right, here's something that if you were to Google me, you would believe that I said.
Let's put the really filter on this.
Have I ever done this one before?
If you googled me, you would see that I had once said that all men are rapists.
That's what the internet says.
Now, do you believe that? Do you believe that?
Think of everything that you've ever heard me say and ask yourself, do you think that I would ever make a sweeping statement about all people do a certain thing?
Would I ever do that? In fact, I might be the least likely person who would say all people act alike.
All people in the category act alike.
That's almost the most opposite of my brand of anything there could be.
But on the internet it says I said it.
So it must be true. Here's another one.
I'll bet some of you think this one's true.
Years ago, if you look on the internet, there's a story that...
Okay, I remember the word.
Then I went onto a bulletin board, you know, posting site called Meta, Meta something, and I pretended to be another person, as a sock puppet, to promote myself.
Do you believe that happened?
And then I got busted trying to promote myself and calling myself a genius online.
Well, in all these stories, there's always something like it that happened.
But now that you've been sort of educated by the last five years of fake news, and you've seen that every story about a celebrity is wrong.
All of them. Sometimes the facts are right, but they're so out of context that they effectively reverse what it was.
Now, that's actually just reported as a fact.
If somebody wrote a biography of my life, that would be written as a fact.
But of course, the context is all missing, which would completely change what you thought about the story.
Anyway, just keep that in mind.
All right, here's one. The Daily Beast.
Oh my God, the Daily Beast got a scoop.
You know, you think the Daily Beast has some fake news sometimes, but not always.
Sometimes they nail it.
And here's an exclusive that the Daily Beast got.
My God. This is pretty damning.
I don't know. I think you're going to be blown away when you hear this.
I'll read the headline.
It says, from the Daily Beast, Russian-American national Elena Branson was indicted this week for lobbying for pro-Kremlin policies while not registered as a foreign agent.
She gave to one U.S. politician...
Tulsi Gabbard, holy crap, this is quite an exclusive.
Are you telling me that this Russian agent somehow gave money to, you know, she was an American citizen by then, so it was legal, but she gave money to one politician, Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused of being a little too pro-Russian, and now, smoking gun, smoking gun!
How much did she give?
God, this story is just...
My jaw is dropping!
The total amount over multiple donations...
Wow! $59.95.
Almost $60 total.
Can we have a standing ovation from the Daily Beast for coming in with this exclusive, this exclusive, that a Russian agent gave on multiple occasions, a total of, when all of them are added up, $59.95, completely buying Tulsi Gabbard's loyalty, and I didn't think she'd go that cheap.
I didn't think she'd go that cheap.
Honestly, I thought Tulsi would be almost $500.
If you're going to buy a major politician in this country, I did not know you could get one for less than $60.
It could have been a pandemic special.
I may have missed the special.
But I would have expected to pay at least $500 for Tulsi's total loyalty to my country.
And now I'm wondering, if I were to offer more, could we buy her back?
Now that she's totally turned to a Russian propagandist for that $59.95.
They don't say if that's after...
How much does Tulsi get to keep?
Yeah, I guess it's not taxable, so might keep the whole thing.
Wow. Better than I thought.
So that's in the news.
So just when you think all the news is fake...
This one's not fake.
This is some real news right here.
A real $59.
Exclusive. Well, do you know why the United States government has decided to extend...
The use of mandates of masks on transportation, like airplanes and buses.
They're extending it to April 18th, and the reason they gave was...
Let me see if I can find the reason.
The reason is we in the government are a bunch of fucking assholes.
We don't care about the public or the science, and we think that Tulsi Gabbard has been purchased for under $60.
Wow, that's very specific.
Now here's something I didn't know.
Apparently the fine for refusing to wear your mask on an airplane is $3,000.
I might be willing to pay that if I could get them to leave me alone.
If I flew first class, and this is a rich person thing, so I get it.
I get it. I get it.
But still, there are a lot of things that have to be started by the stupid rich.
Have you ever heard that phrase?
When I worked for the phone company, that's actually what we called that segment.
We called them the stupid rich.
Because you could sell overpriced things to them first and then get the market going.
So if the stupid rich didn't exist, then the rest of the market wouldn't come along later.
That's how you build the market, by stupid rich people.
So as a member of the Stupid Rich People Club, what if I just flew first class to Hawaii, just for an example, and I said, would anybody mind if I just pay the fine?
I'll just pay the $3,000 on top of my sea cost, and would you leave me alone for six hours?
What would they say?
Because they don't arrest you, right?
If the stated penalty...
Just bear with me here.
I'm getting to a point you're going to like.
If the stated penalty is the $3,000 and if you agree to it politely and say, you know, I understand the penalty is $3,000.
If it's okay with you, I don't want to get into any kind of an encounter or anything because, you know, I respect your need to do your job, but would you be okay just taking my name and fining me the $3,000 if it's okay with me?
Now, what would happen if enough rich people said, you know, I'll pay $3,000 to not have a mask for six hours?
What happens if first class doesn't have masks because they all just agreed to pay the $3,000?
Because they could afford it if they wanted to.
As soon as that happens, there's a revolution.
I can't see any world...
I can't see any world in which the rich could get away with having no masks in exactly the same airplane as the other people who have to wear masks.
I just don't think it will last.
Now, on the other hand, if it's only going to be another month or so, it's not worth the fight.
But I wonder about these things.
Rasmussen did a poll and found that 85% of the people say they're following the Ukraine war closely.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that 85% of the public in the United States is following the Ukraine war closely?
I don't think so. Have you talked to anybody who isn't watching this live stream lately?
I don't know if anybody's following it closely.
Alright. Here's a question for you.
If the Ukraine war devolves into a supply chain war, which it might be, might be devolving into a supply chain war, who wins?
Now, There's a completely reasonable opinion that Russia would win because they have a border, they've got so much military control, and they've got a port, I think, pretty soon, if they don't have it already.
So you'd say Russia, right?
But I feel that the further you get toward Kiev, the less that's true.
And that they've got to have Kiev, or they don't win.
And I feel like the Ukrainians can just keep cutting off their supply lines if they have enough high-tech stuff.
And I think that they will.
So I think one of the surprises here is that the supply chain war might be winnable by the Ukrainian resistance.
Now, I talk to you all the time about proof that we're a simulation.
Well, I'd say evidence, not proof.
We can't prove it.
But I do believe that the math suggests and the likelihood suggests that we are some kind of simulation.
I offer you the following evidence that you live in a simulation.
And it starts with this assumption.
The assumption is that there would be a purpose for creating a simulation.
So in other words, we're not randomly created.
We would be created for some benefit...
For whoever created us.
Now what benefits would those be?
One would be scientific, let's say researchy.
Get some research. Find out some information that you can't find out in the real world because you don't want to kill real people.
You'd rather just simulate it.
Like a simulated war, right?
A war game or a simulated war is how you find out without actually killing anybody what's going to happen.
So wouldn't you imagine that one of the most likely reasons a simulation would be developed is to test different scenarios and see what happens?
Is it a coincidence that our supply chains in the world, our global supply chains, have been tested once by the pandemic, once by our trade war with China, and once by a real war now in Ukraine?
Back to back to back.
Is it a coincidence that our supply chain was the central player in a lot of this?
Because even the vaccinations were a supply chain logistical problem.
It wasn't just how easily you create them, it's how easily you get them into people's arms.
Again, I'm not promoting vaccinations, I'm just talking about stuff.
Yeah, and the trucker protest, too.
Exactly. The trucker protest was yet another...
You could argue that that's the pandemic, though.
Now, again, it's not proof, but every time I see something like a continued assault on one problem, it makes me think we're in a simulation and somebody's seeing what happens to their supply chain under a variety of situations.
I feel like we're testing it for whoever created us.
Weird, huh? All right.
What do you think? Should we buy Russian oil or stop buying Russian oil?
If we stop buying it, does that mean that our prices for domestic oil go up?
Or don't we just buy it from somebody else, and then somebody else buys it from Russia?
Do you know what the word fungible means?
We people who study economics, we like to use words like that so that we sound smarter than other people.
Fungible. Fungible just means there's a thing that you can take anywhere and use it anywhere.
And oil is fungible because it doesn't matter where you buy it or where you use it.
It can come from anywhere, it can go anywhere, it can be used anywhere.
It's fungible, meaning it can just go anywhere.
So it shouldn't affect our prices that much, if at all, if we stop buying Russian oil, should it?
Unless it's the cheapest oil that's ever been made.
Wouldn't the only thing that happen is, I don't know, some other country would buy Russia's oil and then we would buy the oil that they were buying from somebody else or something like that?
Yeah, and it's a small percentage.
So I'm not sure that...
It makes any difference at the gas pump, whether we buy Russian oil.
So I think the only difference or the only point of it is to demonize Putin.
It makes a point.
If the point we're trying to make with all of the economic sanctions is that you shouldn't do business with Russia, then we shouldn't do business with Russia.
And I don't think the argument that we'll pay more at the pump doesn't quite track with the fact that oil is fungible.
It shouldn't make any difference at all.
I don't think we'd notice it.
And if it made a difference, it'd be so small.
Thanks, John. All right.
Let me see. What do you think of that biolab story?
Everything about the biolab story looks like misinformation to me, meaning that I'm sure both sides are wrong.
It seems to be a both-side situation, right?
One side says the U.S. was involved in, I don't know, funding or creating bio labs in Ukraine to do dangerous weaponized stuff.
And another story is nothing like that happened.
No, there's nothing like that.
So which of those is true?
What do you think? Now, both sides are saying that the other one is just clearly ignoring the obvious evidence and...
Yeah, so Victoria Nuland confirmed that there are some kind of labs, but that's different than confirming the details of such.
It's different than confirming the worst of the suspicions.
Yeah, I think this is a fog-of-war story that I'm going to treat gingerly.
I would say that I don't have an opinion about what is more real here.
But I definitely have a question, which is, is it true that Ukraine was being used as basically the world's toilet?
Were we putting our nastiest, most dangerous stuff in Ukraine just because we could?
Is that what was happening?
I don't think anybody comes out looking good in this.
But keep in mind that any story that looks like it's Russian propaganda might be Russian propaganda.
Do you know what sounds exactly like Russian propaganda?
That the US put bio labs in Ukraine.
If I were going to write Russian propaganda, I would say, you know, the United States put dangerous weaponized bio labs in Ukraine.
It doesn't mean we didn't do it.
I'm just saying.
That would be about as on the nose as you could possibly get.
Basically, blaming the United States of something close to a weapon of mass destruction.
It would be an accidental one, I guess.
Yeah, I know.
I think everyone is lying about this story.
That's my take. Everyone's lying.
Because whatever is the truth, nobody wants you to know it.
That part I'm pretty sure.
There's nobody who wants you to know the truth.
Because nobody has an interest in the truth.
If it's innocent, somebody wants you to think it's not.
If it's not, somebody wants you to think, you know.
All right. That, ladies and gentlemen...
It brings us to the conclusion of the best livestream that has ever, ever happened.
And once again, I would like to say that I might have the only different opinions about Ukraine that you ever hear.
They might all be wrong, but I'm trying pretty hard to say something different.
Is there anybody in the TV punditry world that drives you crazy because they only say the talking points and yet they're still on television?
And you're like, okay.
All you did is just repeat the news.
You added nothing.
Oh, that's interesting.
Okay, I'm seeing some names being suggested here.
Oh, let's talk about Jussie Smollett.
I heard a...
I heard the video of the judge dressing him down and basically insulting him for all of this.
And I don't know what your opinion of that is.
Probably if you didn't like Jussie Smollett and everything he did, you thought it was awesome that the judge really gave it to him verbally.
But I didn't have that feeling.
I had a feeling that the legal system did what the legal system did, and that's what it should do, which is decide if there's a penalty, decide if he's guilty.
It did that. I don't think I want my judge putting his opinion into the record.
I thought that was wholly inappropriate.
I think he should be disbarred for that, honestly.
Now, it's all legal, and nobody gets disbarred for that sort of thing, so I realize that's a ridiculous thing to ask for.
But in terms of a standard, I think the standard should be that if your judge is going to give you, you know, it would be one thing if you had a one-sentence opinion.
Like, I wouldn't even care if the judge says, you know, I'm glad you got caught because you're a horrible person.
That's fine. But I just don't want to hear a whole monologue while we're paying taxes to support this system.
I don't need the judge's monologue on that.
I don't know. Because, you know, I'm not supporting what Jussie Smollett did.
I'm just saying that let the punishment be the punishment.
It just feels like the judge is in creepy territory when he does that.
It also makes it...
I think it degrades the system, too.
Because it makes it look like he was biased the whole time.
Right? I mean, if he has that kind of opinion as soon as the verdict is over...
Probably had a little bit of that opinion while it was going on.
I don't want to hear that. I want to hear, here's the decision.
Boom. All right.
Yeah, it costs the city a lot.
Okay, that's all for now.
And I'm pretty sure you've never had a better experience, at least today.
And tomorrow, even better.
Export Selection