Episode 1750 Scott Adams: Biden's War On Babies, Musk Mandates And Hillary Gets Away With Everything
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Carbon sucking industry gets boosted
Bill Maher on the trans kid trend
Elon Musk calls out Russia Collusion HOAX
2000 Mules pushback to the pushback
Is China preparing for war?
Hillary & Obama & what they did
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I think we'd all agree that nothing has ever been better.
And if you'd like to take it up to a stratospheric, multidimensional level, and I know you're the kind of people who do that, Am I right?
Do you settle for ordinary?
No. You wouldn't be here if you did.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a tiny canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now if you will.
For the unparalleled pleasure, it's the dopamine hit of the day with a hint of oxytocin.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And wow, is it going to just set you free today.
Go! Perfection.
I'll tell you, when you've been drinking crappy hotel coffee for a week...
The good stuff really tastes good.
Am I right? How many of you have heard of the coat hanger test that's going around TikTok?
Has anybody heard of that? Heard about it for the first time today.
No, it's not about abortion.
Stop it. Stop it.
No, there's a little test, which apparently is based on science, in which you take a A co-hanger that can stretch.
So it'd have to be the kind that stretches.
And you stretch the wide part and you put it on your head.
And then once it's on your head, it causes you to involuntarily turn to one side.
And people don't believe it's real, and they'll put it on their head, and as soon as they put it on their head, they'll go...
And they'll be like, what?
So I was planning to do the challenge for you live.
But I thought to myself...
I think I'd better test this before I do it on live.
Although it'd be funnier if it failed live.
So I found myself the only coat hanger I could find that would bend in this house, because I have mostly wooden ones.
And I stretched it and I put it on my head.
And now I'm told that 98% of people will experience this head turn.
But apparently I'm in the top 2% again.
Or the bottom 2%, depending on your perspective.
Because I didn't feel anything.
And then I thought, is this a prank?
This isn't even real, is it?
I don't know. It sounded like a prank.
Because am I in the 2%?
I mean, did somebody actually get me to put a coat hanger on my head?
I feel like I got pranked.
But if anybody's tried it, let me know.
I might try a different coat hanger just to find out.
I heard an argument that was a good counter to my argument.
And you like it when I'm wrong, don't you?
Or at least you like it when I point out that there's an argument that's better than my argument.
Now, I don't know if it's better, but I had not heard it before, and it had to do with my argument that logically...
If we knew that the amount of initial viral load made a difference to your outcomes, then masks would at least work that well.
Even if everybody got infected, some people would get less of a severe outcome because maybe the mask prevented some of the load from going in your face.
Well, Anatolyan Lubarsky had a counter to that argument, which I don't know if it's right, But I consider it well worthy enough to repeat.
So this is attacking my own argument.
Everybody ready for this? I will now dismantle my own argument.
It goes like this. If it's true that the amount of initial virus makes a big difference to outcomes, we probably would have seen it in the data, right?
So this is the first question.
And I don't think we did.
So at the macro level, it doesn't look like there's any big difference.
If there's a difference, maybe somebody's teasing it out with statistics, but it's not big enough to warrant the mandates, in my opinion, because it didn't look like it made a difference at any macro level.
But I still argued that logically it had to make a difference if we knew this fact, if we knew that the initial dose made a difference.
And then Anatoly adds this argument.
He says that the viruses essentially replicate in a logarithmic way, meaning really, really quickly, such that the difference of, you know, a few hours or something, over a few hours, you would end up being at maximum virus no matter what.
So that the amount of difference between getting a small virus and then it instantly replicates to a huge level versus getting a larger dose in the first place and then it also replicates to its highest level, there's not much difference in timing.
How about that?
Now, I would say that's at least worthy of putting on...
that's at least equal to my hypothesis.
It's at least equal. Hey Alexa, cancel.
I hate it when my devices wake up and start talking to me.
How about that? Would you accept that as a reasonable debunk of my opinion which I've held for now two years?
Reasonable or no? It's reasonable enough to make me rethink my position.
That's all. I definitely would rethink it.
But we'll see. Alright, a little update on the Amber Turd trial.
I saw somebody call her Scamber.
Scamber Turd. That's maybe an upgrade, I don't know.
But apparently her own witnesses haven't been so good for her.
And it looks like she has proven that she was the abuser.
So if you look at social media, social media seems to have decided that Amber Heard was the abuser.
What do you think of that?
Now, that doesn't mean the trial will go that way, but social media seems to have decided that she's the abuser.
Now, let me tell you something about her alleged personality type.
She's in that cluster two or category two, whatever it is, personality, according to one expert's testimony.
If you're in that cluster B category, what is one thing you can know about them for sure?
Now, you don't know if they did a specific crime, but what is one thing you can know about?
Yeah, that's right. Not only do they lie, here's the key.
Not only do they lie, they lie about everything.
See, that's the thing people don't get.
If I told you, oh, Amber Heard has a personality type where she would be a liar, you say to yourself, well, but she's going to save that...
She'll save that lie for the important stuff, right?
She's not going to lie about just everything all the time.
Nope. Nope.
That personality type lies about everything all the time, to the point where it's unbelievable.
It's like you can't even believe it.
Even when there's no purpose to it, there's no point to it, there's nothing gained, just...
Wall-to-wall lying about everything.
Now, what happens when you take somebody who's a wall-to-wall liar and they can't stop?
They literally can't stop.
That's what the personality type is.
They can't stop lying. And then you put them on trial.
And you put them under oath.
And then you have people who are witnesses to the various things come on.
What's going to happen? Well, what's going to happen is what happened to Amber Heard.
Amber Turd. So there were claims such as, you know, one day he broke her nose, and then the defense for, or whatever it is, the attorney for Johnny Depp shows a photo of her on the red carpet the next day looking perfect.
And her claim is that he broke her nose.
And then there was one other example where it was just as equally obvious that she lied, and And I think Johnny Depp is going to win.
I think he's going to win.
I don't know. So we'll see.
But I feel like there's something important happening here because people are learning for the first time that such people exist.
How many of you have said to yourself, oh my God, I know somebody who's married to an Amber Heard?
Or maybe you were.
How many of you said, oh my God, I know her, and I had some...
Yeah, look at that. My sister's a herd.
Yes. It is a personality type of which there are so many of them.
And the problem is that you imagine they're normal, and they're not.
The people in this personality type are closer to monsters with human DNA than they are with, like, just people.
Because they're there to destroy.
The average person is there to help out.
That's our most natural impulse, is you put us in a situation and we'll be like, oh, how can I help?
I'll help the tribe, help the family.
We're basically a helpful species.
But the cluster B types are super selfish.
So selfish that you can't even imagine.
Like, selfish on a scale that's mind-boggling.
And now you know that they're real.
And there are lots of them.
All right. Richard Grinnell was tweeting about the Pennsylvania vote, which apparently is still not completed.
And he said, so this is the...
Dr. Ra's thing, right?
So they're still counting votes, and he tweets, Pennsylvania voting is totally broken.
It doesn't take this long to count.
Why are people so silent about this?
Isn't it because we've been too beaten up about it?
Is that why? Or is it because social media is censoring it in some way we don't know?
But I did my usual asshole tweet whenever I see anything about the election integrity.
I say something like this.
Reminder. So I retweeted Richard Grinnell's tweet.
As a reminder, every previously trusted institution in America has been proven corrupt.
Except for all 50 states running independent election systems in different ways with different people.
Those are fine.
So stop asking questions.
Really? Really?
Really? Yeah.
So if you really want to mock reality, try agreeing with it, but agreeing with it really hard, because that's what I just did.
Yes, it's true. Every institution has been proven corrupt, except for all 50 states run by different people in different ways.
They all nailed it.
But wow, pretty big coincidence, isn't it?
Yeah. Yeah. Try saying that to somebody who is absolutely positive the election was appropriate.
Just say what I said and watch their reaction.
Do you know what they can say to that as a counter to that?
Allow me to give you a play in one act.
This would be me at a party in which we imagine I drink cocktails, which I don't.
Here I am with my imaginary cocktail.
Sorry. And a person says to me, oh, that election was fine.
The 2020 election was fine.
There were no problems. To which I say, yeah, yeah, there were no problems.
And that's really incredible.
And we should be so lucky.
Because every single institution in America has been shown to be corrupt in the last few years.
From our intelligence agencies to Congress to the medical and scientific community.
Really, every single entity...
Has been shown to be corrupt.
And even the Democrats, it looks like they ran a giant Russia collusion hoax and they worked with the media.
So yeah, every single entity, from Congress to the media, through science to the FBI, CIA, intel agencies, 100% of them are corrupt, and we know that.
That's beyond question at this point.
But you're right, Bob.
All 50 states run independently by their own systems.
Very complicated, but all 50 states got it right.
And Bob, may I toast to you for your perception?
Your common sense approach to this and your, I'd say your patriotism.
Bob, this is to you for correctly pointing out that everything is broken except all 50 states which are operating great.
Here's to you, Bob. And now I'd like to do Bob's reaction.
Now I'm Bob. So you're a big Trump supporter, huh?
No, that's a little off point.
Maybe there's some truth to that, but that's really not on point.
So you favor the drinking bleach guys while you say, no, no, that was a hoax.
That was a hoax. No, what I'm saying is, independent of who was running, is a comment about just the election system.
So good luck with supporting the Nazi.
Good luck. I better fill my drink.
Goodbye. And scene.
That's every conversation in America, if you use my technique.
All right. The Biden administration has decided to boost the carbon removal industry, which is nascent.
I have never used that word before in public.
It's nascent.
Go look it up if you need to.
But most of you don't need to.
These big carbon-sucking machines are going to put $3.5 billion toward boosting the industry to suck the CO2 out of the air to solve climate change.
There are three bad takes.
If you had any one of these reactions, I might be mocking you for being an NPC. Here are the three bad takes to the story.
Number one, it's called trees.
It's called trees.
Yes, trees do remove carbon dioxide.
However, I'm going to point out that if trees would do it well enough, we'd be using trees instead of big, giant, sucking machines.
Because the scientists who decided that maybe we needed big, giant, sucking machines, they've heard of trees.
They've heard of trees.
I know, it's weird.
But scientists have heard of trees.
So they probably calculated the impact of trees before they made their decision to do it a different way.
Bad take number two.
That's not going to work.
That's not going to work.
Come on. How's that going to work?
That's never going to work. It's not efficient enough.
To which I say, that's why you're testing it.
It's $3.45 billion to boost it, but primarily to make sure you're doing it right.
right how do you know it doesn't work until you try it it's sort of like those Wright brothers those bicycle makers they'll never make a lighter than air aircraft well why don't you let them test it maybe they might surprise you i'm not saying this stuff will work how the hell would i know i'm saying that if you can test it At a reasonable cost, relative to the problem you're trying to solve, test it.
So if you're saying that it won't work, well, you might be an NPC, because you don't have to ask, will it work?
Just say, can we test it at a reasonable price?
And apparently we can. So we'll find out if it works, and we'll find out if the technology can be improved to the point where it's cost efficient.
We're not there yet. And then the third bad take is...
CO2 is plant food!
With lots of O's for food.
Don't you know that CO2 is plant food?
Yes. Yes, I do know that.
Guess who else knows that?
I'm just... I'm not sure.
Scientists. Scientists have heard of trees.
Scientists... Have heard of CO2 being used in greenhouses to boost production.
They've heard of it. I know!
I know! So I'm thinking they've factored that into their decision making.
What happens if these machines are too good and they suck all the CO2 out of the air?
And then the plants will all die because they need some CO2! Well, I feel like we would pull back before that happened.
I don't know. Call me an optimist.
But if we saw that our CO2-sucking machines were destroying the food supply on Earth, which would be sort of obvious, I feel like we'd pull back.
If you think we'd just keep on going, well, I don't know what to say to that.
All right, those are your bad takes.
So Elon Musk continues to be the most interesting person in the world.
So he announced on Twitter that Tesla is building a hardcore, he calls it, hardcore litigation department where we directly initiate and execute lawsuits.
The team will report directly to me.
Now, this is just a wonderful brushback pitch.
Because you know he's going to be attacked with all manner of accusations.
The accusation yesterday that he exposed himself to a massage therapist on his private plane.
Which, by the way, if you're going to be accused of a crime and you got to choose, I would choose that one.
I would like to be accused of exposing myself to my personal massage therapist on my private jet.
If I could get that going, that would be like...
Now, I'm not saying that that's, you know, excusable.
If, in fact, he did something inappropriate, well, then I don't support that at all.
I'm just saying that if he had to be accused of something, well, that's the one I'd pick.
I'm pretty sure I'd pick that one.
Like, out of all the things you could be accused of, yeah, I'd take that one.
Thank you. But to me, this looks like Elon Musk negotiating in public.
In this case, I use negotiating loosely to mean he is warning people that if they come after him, it's going to be really expensive.
And by the way, he's the richest person in the world.
So if you'd like to come after somebody...
With a strategy, a legal strategy, he's basically telling you that at this point he's going to destroy you.
He didn't say it directly.
But if you've got this hardcore litigation team that's going to be aggressively going after things and reporting directly to Musk, yeah, he's going to make it expensive to mess with him.
So I like the fact that he put it out there as a sort of a self-defense thing.
Speaking of climate change, Bjorn Lomborg, who you know as one of the most rational evaluators of climate change and other issues, and he was looking at the adequacy of batteries if we had a world that was powered by solar and wind.
Now we know that you need battery backup for those because they're not continuous sources.
Wind and solar is not.
So he gives this estimate.
And I would love to know if Elon Musk agrees with this estimate.
He says Europe uses, and he gives some statistics of how much energy they use.
So they have enough battery storage now for 1 minute and 21 seconds.
So all of Europe's battery backup...
If they use it all, we'll give them another, you know, a little under two minutes of power.
All of it. By the year 2030, that number should go way up.
The estimate is. Up to almost 12 minutes.
In 2030, we might be able to get the amount of battery back up to almost 12 minutes of the whole day.
Now, isn't this the part where Elon Musk needs to explain to us how we can get enough battery backup?
Because he makes a good argument, Musk does, that you need just a tiny corner of the United States with solar panels, so tiny that I don't even know if you'd notice it from the space station.
If you were looking down on it, I don't know if it would be big enough.
Even to see it from space.
But it would power the whole United States.
And Musk gives his description of how big that space would be.
Now, of course, that's conceptual, because you can't put all your power source in one place.
The grid couldn't handle it.
But suppose you distributed that around...
But I've never seen him address how much battery backup you need.
Has anybody seen that? Send me a link to it if you have any recent statements where he mentioned whether you could get enough battery backup.
Wait a minute. Do you need battery backup if your grid was sufficient?
Let me ask you this.
If you had your solar powers spread around the country, and then you connected your grid so that any grid that needs power can get it from anywhere else in the country, that may be impossible, I don't know.
So that's the part I need you to tell me if it's possible.
Because the longer you send the electricity, the more it gets degraded, right?
There's less of it by the time it gets there.
So there's some practical limits about sending electricity long distances, right?
But could you put enough panels in enough parts of the country that no matter which ones were dark, there would still be enough light in the other part of the country?
Or wind? I guess you'd have to go global, because the country's dark at the same time.
So that doesn't work.
But you could take care of cloudy days.
At least cloudy days you can take care of.
So I don't know if the grid can solve any of this or it just needs to be batteries.
I have a suspicion it has to be batteries.
All right. Bill Barr was talking about the trans trend.
And I didn't know this, but apparently the percentage of trans people in the general population seems to be doubling every generation.
As Bill Maher pointed out.
Now, it probably doesn't actually double, does it?
Maybe we're just learning of it.
Maybe there were more people than we ever imagined.
And doubling it up to 2% could be just a statistical aberration.
But apparently it's up to like 20% or something in some places.
20% trans children, like in L.A., You're saying that if you go to a dinner party in LA, several people will be talking about their trans children?
Several? Statistically, it can't possibly be true.
And the implication here is that it's more socially driven than biological.
What do you think? Do you think that people could be socially driven to question their actual gender identity and then change it?
Do you think that social pressure is enough to make people change their gender identity?
Yes. Yes, it is.
It's plenty. The answer is unambiguously, totally yes.
It just wouldn't affect everybody.
Persuasion is like that.
Persuasion doesn't work on everybody.
It doesn't work all the time.
It's a statistical thing.
So yes, if you have a society that's promoting anything, or at least removing the disincentive to anything, you get more of it.
You get more of it, right?
So I think society is largely driving it.
Now, suppose it's true, I don't know it's true, but suppose it's true, that society is driving a number of people who would not have made the decisions they made otherwise.
In a different time and with a different social situation, it just wouldn't have happened.
Now, is that good or bad?
Because here's the thing.
If you're promoting and you're really, let's say, welcoming of any trans situation, do you not guarantee you'll get too much of it?
Too much of it meaning people who really maybe shouldn't have made the decision make the decision.
But it could go the other way, right?
The other way, if it was totally suppressed and discouraged, there are probably a number of people who would have been better off with the transition and then wouldn't do it.
So who do you make the losers?
Because you have to pick a winner and you have to pick a loser.
Do you just go by numbers and say, okay, which one has the greatest number of unhappy people?
I don't know. Or do you say, do no harm, and it's worse to injure somebody than it is to not help somebody?
I don't know, is that a reasonable standard?
Based on what? Why would you say that's reasonable?
And so I always separate the two questions.
Question number one, is it a good idea the way we're messaging and handling the trans situation?
Is it a good idea to do it that way?
And then secondly, you know, is trans a real thing with real people making real decisions, or is it all psychological or whatever?
So I say let people make their own decisions, knowing that many of them will destroy their lives, like everything else.
I let people make their own decisions on a motorcycle.
How many people will dump their motorcycle at one point or another while they own it?
If you buy a motorcycle, are you going to go down?
Does anybody own a motorcycle?
People who own a motorcycle, answer this question.
If you own a motorcycle, are you going to lay it down?
Are you going to lay down your motorcycle if you own one?
Yes. Yes.
You buy a motorcycle knowing you're going to lay it down, meaning at some point you're going to have a situation with it.
Right? Nobody buys a motorcycle and says, I'm not going to wreck this thing.
If you do, you're not really being rational about it.
Buying a motorcycle means buying a wreck.
You're going to be in one.
You're going to lay it down.
At some point or another, you're going to be laying by the side of the road and your motorcycle is going to be sideways.
Right? Right? Anybody who owns a motorcycle can confirm this.
You buy a motorcycle with the knowledge you bought yourself an accident.
You just hope you don't die.
That's it. Same with a bicycle.
Who buys a bicycle saying, I won't fall off my bicycle?
Nobody. Nobody.
You're falling off your bicycle.
That's going to happen. So, I don't like analogies because they're always too imperfect.
But getting you to the way of thinking only, you know, just let that analogy go.
We don't need to defend it. I'm just saying that lots of people will make personal choices about, you know, transitioning that you and I would not make.
And sometimes we would have made the right decision.
And sometimes we wouldn't.
Because we don't really know.
Because unfortunately it's one of those things you don't really know if you're going to be happier.
You've just got to guess. So this is a case where if I were the emperor and I were in charge of everybody's life, I'd probably slow down this transitioning stuff.
I'm sure I would make it illegal before a certain age.
Am I going to be cancelled by social media?
Because we treat everything else like that, right?
Anything that's a big permanent decision kind of thing, we say you have to be a certain age to do it.
Now medical stuff...
Medical stuff, parents do get to decide.
So it's not really the kid deciding in the first place, ultimately, because they can't make that decision.
So I'm not sure that a parent should make a decision for a kid about transitioning.
I can say that it's always a decision whether you decide to do it or not do it.
It's still a decision. But I think the decision to wait and let the kid make their own decision, let's say when they turn 18, That just makes more sense to me.
Now, is that anti-trans, to say that the trans people should make adult decisions instead of child decisions?
I don't know. Is that taking it too far?
I don't know. I try to be the most aggressive defender of anybody who's in a situation where they're a minority, basically.
I like to aggressively defend them all.
It's just a better world that way.
So I hope... Well, anyway, I hope the best for the trans community in all cases.
If I had to guess, I would say that the transitioning among kids is 80% social.
Am I wrong? I don't know.
It might be. It might be 80% biological.
But it feels, without the benefit of any science, based on everything I know about everything and the trends, I'd say 80% is a social pressure and maybe 20% is biological.
But again, that's not good enough to ban it or to say that you can't do it.
I do generally want parents to have the final say on medical stuff.
But I don't even think they should have a say in this case.
Because they're really making a decision for an adult who hasn't arrived yet.
Right? The kid. So did you see that...
Did I talk about this?
That Elon Musk called out the Clinton campaign...
He tweeted this. He said,"...I bet most people still don't know that a Clinton campaign lawyer using campaign funds created an elaborate hoax about Trump and Russia." Makes you wonder what else is fake, he says.
Now he's called out the bleach-drinking hoax as fake.
He's called out the Russia collusion thing as fake, including the knowledge certain that a Clinton campaign lawyer was behind it, or the major part of it.
Makes you wonder what else is fake.
He hasn't gotten to Charlottesville yet, but I feel he's circling it.
That might be too much of a third rail even for Musk.
That would certainly be pushing the risk-taking there.
But it's the biggest remaining hoax.
It's the tentpole hoax, yes.
It is the tentpole hoax, the one that supports all the rest.
We'll see. And you all saw the Elon Musk tweet about his wiener.
I didn't realize that he was talking to one of the co-creators or creators of YouTube, somebody named Chad Hurley.
And Chad was asking him to hurry up and close his Twitter deal.
And Tesla responded, fine, if you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.
If you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.
You can't tweet better than that.
All right, I told you I watched Dinesh D'Souza's movie 2,000 Mules, to give you an opinion, and that there were some pushback on it, and the pushback, I thought, was reasonable.
Reasonable pushback.
But you have to also wait for his reasonable pushback to the pushback.
The first criticism of the movie was that using geo-tracking to push somebody in the vicinity of a drop box for ballots doesn't mean they put ballots in the box.
Maybe it means that's where their Starbucks is, and they go to that location repeatedly, and it's just next to a box.
Right? Reasonable.
But then Dinesh says, that's why we eliminated everybody who didn't go to ten different drop boxes.
Okay, if one person was in the vicinity of ten different drop boxes...
That's a pretty good argument.
Because there aren't 10 Starbucks next to 10 drop boxes.
It's statistically impossible.
So I think that Dinesh makes a completely solid argument that the geotracking for this purpose is good enough.
It's accurate enough because they eliminated all the data from somebody who didn't go to 10 drop boxes.
If this data were people who went to at least one or two drop boxes, then you could say to yourself, but that's just the normal flow of people.
There's always going to be one person walking by a drop box, but he didn't do that.
It was like, when does one person go to ten different drop boxes?
Because it's not like they're evenly distributed.
So the statistical likelihood of one person being within a few feet of ten different drop boxes on, let's say, a short period of time, pretty close to zero that that's an accident.
So I would say that Dinesh's response to that is the winning argument.
It's stronger than the criticism.
Number two... Criticized for not showing videos of the one person doing those multiple drawbacks.
They're videos of one person doing it once, but he hasn't produced the one person doing it multiple times, which would really be the hammer on the case.
He says that they're working on it.
And the reason that they didn't is because the, you know, in many cases the video doesn't exist because there's no video surveillance in that box.
And in many cases it's so poor that you can't make out if it's the same person.
But if the video has a time signature, as does the geo-tracking, you presumably, and I think this is what he said he was doing, but I'm not 100% sure, I think he's looking to sync up The exact time of the video with the exact time of the geo-tracking to make sure that the person putting it in the box is probably the same person.
Now, if he can come up with that, and even if those videos are grainy, if it looks like it could be that person and the geo-tracking says it is, I would buy that argument.
That would be pretty solid proof.
But you haven't seen it yet, have you?
Unless you see that, the criticism is stronger than the argument.
That's where I'm at today.
My current view is that until you have at least one video showing somebody doing it to ten boxes with some confirmation, without that, the criticism is still a little bit stronger than the movie is.
I would put the criticism as stronger than the claim for now.
But remember, Dinesh says he can produce this.
Now the other criticism is, show us the data.
You've told us the result, but we need to see the data.
How's that criticism?
Very good. It's good.
So until you have access to the data, and other people say, oh, it does say this, and until you can see one video, ideally you'd want more than one, of somebody who's clearly doing this activity, I would say the criticisms are slightly stronger than the movie right now.
But wait. Hold your opinion.
Because Dinesh says he can produce exactly what you're asking for.
Now, if he produces that, I would say that the movie is stronger than the criticism.
Is that fair? Is that a fair analysis?
That if he produces an answer to these criticisms...
Probably, then the movie is going to be stronger than the criticisms.
I would guess it's fair at that point.
Somebody said it's not fair, but most of you said that's fair.
So we'll wait and see.
We're going to give Dinesh his full opportunity to make the case.
All right. Kyle Bass, who's a big China critic, as big as I am, so he's very well known for criticizing China, says, China is preparing for war.
Uh-oh. Let me read his tweet, see if you are convinced.
So Kyle Bass says, China is preparing for war.
First, Xi orders Chinese banks to risk, assess, and insulate against potential U.S. sanctions.
Now Xi is directing Chinese nationals overseas to divest of any assets.
China has been hoarding grain for over a year.
Xi's playbook is obvious to anyone willing to connect the dots.
In January 2020, China updated their, quote, foreign investment law, which gives Beijing the power and ability to nationalize foreign assets and investments under special circumstances, which would include war.
In mid-2021, Kyle Bass says, China's new counter-foreign sanctions law enables Beijing to seize corporate assets and detain expat employees if the underlying corporation simply is complying with foreign sanctions.
That's a pretty big deal.
If you're even complying with sanctions, China can close you down.
And then Kyle Bass says, the groundwork is being laid for a complete seizure of foreign assets and investment in China.
If you're an institutional fiduciary or any other fiduciary, you better rethink your risk assessment of investing in public or private Chinese companies.
And then he points out investors lost everything in Russia and have tried to sweep it under the rug.
They won't be able to hide the hundreds of billions that will be lost in Chinese investments.
Now, knowing that Kyle Bass is as big a critic of China as I am, do you think this is China preparing for war?
I think yes, but preparing for war is different than planning for war.
It looks like they're doing things which just would make sense.
Because they're watching what's happening in the world, and they're saying, uh-oh, this could come at us.
So I think what they're doing is just mutually assured destruction and protecting their situation.
So it looks like just protection.
But it is nonetheless true that they're preparing for war, because war would be the primary reason that any of this would be activated.
All right.
So keep an eye on that.
The war on Ukraine has been reduced to minor headlines now.
And the minor headline was, Russia claims total control of Mariupol.
Now, there's not much left of Mariupol, is there?
So, I mean, they own a city that's destroyed.
But here's the other thing.
Can they hold it? Isn't it my understanding that Russia has a...
A good attacking military, but their holding ground military is sort of lacking, and they're not even staffed for it.
So I wonder if conquering even means anything.
Because I know it's a major port, so it's strategically important, but can they hold it?
I feel like they're going to be sitting ducks.
Because if the Russians hold it, the targets would be kind of obvious.
And it seems like the Ukrainian resistance or whatever would just be able to just hammer the Russians while they're trying to hold Mariupol.
Imagine being the Russian occupying force in Mariupol.
Every time you went outdoors, there would be a drone there.
There would be a drone on your ass every time you walked outdoors.
If you tried to get together, the drones would bomb the building.
So if you're trying to hold Mariupol and you're a Russian military, you're going to have to be looking up.
You better look in the sky every day, every time you walk outside.
Because there's going to be a drone up there looking to kill you.
All right, so there's a rumor that the Roe v.
Wade decision is coming as early as Monday and the whole hell will break loose and Biden administration is preparing for some kind of violence from their own team, I guess, from the left.
Now, how many of you think that the final decision will equal the leaked version?
How many think the real decision will be basically the leaked version, give or take some minor edits?
Mostly yes.
Or close to it, probably.
Probably. Probably.
But I remind you that one of my worst predictions was that the original leak was fake.
But I included in fake it could be an early draft that doesn't represent the final decision.
So I'm going to stick with my decision, or not decision, but my prediction, which has already been debunked.
This will be the second time I've done that.
The first time was when Kamala Harris got kicked out of the primaries, and I stayed with my decision that she would be president.
Which turned out to be weirdly sort of right while being wrong.
I think there's a non-zero chance that the decision won't be what you saw.
What do you think? Is there non-zero?
I think it's low.
If I were going to put my money on it, I would bet that that decision ends up being just what you saw.
You know, some version of it would be just...
I think it's low.
5% maybe.
And remember...
Part of why it might have been leaked is to judge public reaction.
And if you think that the Supreme Court doesn't respond to the public's emotions, well, then you're wrong.
You're wrong. They do make law based on public emotions.
They just argue it in legal terms, but basically they're very sensitive to the will of the people, just indirectly.
You're sick of Scott being so cocky about Ukraine.
What part is cocky?
What would be my cocky...
I just want to see what...
What did I say that's cocky about Ukraine?
I literally said that it was one of my worst predictions.
I say it over and over again.
They're going to keep it.
Alright, well, I guess that sounds like maybe there's a problem on your side.
Because being cocky and confessing that you're wrong about it seems somewhat opposite.
That's a weird comment.
Alright. Yeah, I'm less of a true optimist than I used to be.
You get beaten down after a while.
Anyway, it looks like Ukraine will remain a country.
At this point, how many of you would say that's a statement?
They're going to lose territory, probably.
But how many of you believe that Ukraine will now remain a sovereign country?
Pretty much all of you, right?
And... You'll regret openly calling for the killing of Russia.
What? You'll regret openly calling for the killing of Russia.
Did I do that? Did anybody see me openly calling for the killing of Russia?
When did that happen?
Have you ever noticed that almost all of my critics are criticizing some imaginary thing?
It's just the weirdest thing.
I almost never...
Rarely, if ever...
I can't even remember the last time I was criticized for something I actually did.
Because when I'm criticized for things I actually do, such as my incorrect prediction about the invasion, I embrace it completely.
Yeah, that was totally wrong.
All right. Yeah, Putin versus Russia.
It's a different calculation.
Anyway, we'll see if Rovian versus Wade looks like what we thought it would be.
What else is going on here?
So... Listening to, I guess, the ongoing investigation into what happened with 2020 and the Russia collusion thing.
So this is Jonathan Turley's take, talking about the Alpha Bank story.
So it was a fake story that was trying to be pushed by the Clinton campaign lawyer, I guess.
And Turley says, this Alpha Bank story was pushed by Jake Sullivan, now the National Security Advisor, and by Clinton herself.
But the thing to keep in mind is that President Obama was briefed when he was president.
That Hillary Clinton was planning to make a Russia collusion claim against Donald Trump to try to sort of get out of her own email issues during the campaign.
And we now have someone saying, quote, yeah, she green-lighted the Alpha Bank claim.
Which were completely without foundation.
So, Obama knew about this?
Now, we assumed or we suspected he did, right?
But now we have confirmation, don't we?
We have confirmation, at least according to Jonathan Turley's interpretation, confirmation that Obama was briefed that there would be like an illegal, well, not illegal, I guess, but an illegitimate claim that And he apparently was okay with it because he let it happen.
I would say that puts Obama in the most disgraced president list.
I think you'd have to throw Obama in there with Nixon at this point, wouldn't you?
What would really be the difference between what Nixon did and what Obama did if this is true?
If he was okay with Hillary Clinton trying to effect an election with a fake story about Russian collusion, if this is true, then he's just Richard Nixon and fuck him forever.
Am I right? Now, keep in mind, I want to be clear, I supported Obama for president.
I thought it was a good move.
And actually, there's some things he did that I thought were pretty solid.
But if this is true, if this is true, fuck him forever.
You don't get over this.
Now, the other thing that he did that I suggested he should be impeached for was, remember when he said he wouldn't touch marijuana dispensaries?
And then he got elected, and then he went after marijuana dispensaries in my state, to which I said, okay, well, what's your reason?
Why did you change your mind?
And he never gave a reason.
Never. To this day, he's never given a reason.
What's it mean when you don't give a reason?
It means you're corrupt.
It means you can't give a reason.
It means somebody bought you.
So I said that Obama should have been impeached for not giving a reason.
It's one thing to say, I'm going to put you people from your state in jail, and here are my reasons.
And I'd say, oh, I like that or I don't like it, but at least you showed your work, and then I could at least trust the system.
But you can't trust the system if he did this.
I mean, you can't trust Obama at all.
So I would say this is the most disgraceful thing I have ever seen a president do.
Trying to think of something worse than this.
If Obama knew about this and was okay with it, and to this day he's not outing them for doing it, if that really happened, he's our worst president.
There would be nothing that Trump did that would be on this level.
Let me put it in the cleanest terms.
If you accept that this is true, and the evidence is pretty good at this point, that Obama was okay with the Russia collusion hoax being perpetrated, there's nothing that Trump ever did that was that bad.
What do you say? Name one thing that Trump did that was this bad.
Because if you do, you know, the only people who could do it would be Democrats who thought that something that was a hoax was real.
They're going to say, well, you know, certainly the Charlottesville fine people statement was worse, but it didn't happen.
That was a hoax.
Or, well, he told us to drink bleach.
No, that didn't happen.
Didn't happen. That was a hoax.
Well, you know, called the country shithole countries.
No, that was taken out of context.
So there's literally nothing that Trump has ever been confirmed to have done, like this level of confirmation, that would rise to this level.
I can't think of anything.
You think Obama was the worst?
Thank you.
Yeah? Woodrow Wilson jailing critics.
Okay, that would be pretty bad.
But I think that the Russia collusion thing could have jailed critics if it worked out.
So I'd say that's worse.
So Hillary Clinton, worst person in the world.
Obama, number two.
That's my final vote.
George Washington was the worst.
He had slaves. I guess if you're a slave owner, technically, you're worse.
I will accept that reframe.
All right, just looking at your comments for a moment.
you Alright, I think we've done it.
I believe I have achieved my objective of the best livestream in the history of civilization.
And before you argue with me, I think I'll shut down the livestream over here on YouTube.
