Episode 1768 Scott Adams: The Slippery Slope Met The Brick Wall Last Night. Let's Sip And Discuss
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Super progressive San Francisco DA recalled
Using craziest Democrat beliefs against them
George Takei sees value of having AR-15s
Pulling the promising from bad environments
Will J6 backfire on Democrats?
Adam Schiff on J6 committee?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Because you know for most of civilization, I hate to break it to you, you weren't even here.
You were a little bit irrelevant to most of civilization, but now that you're here, wouldn't it be great to take it up a notch, to go to the height, the height of happiness on my birthday?
Today's my birthday.
Happy birthday to me.
And if you'd like to celebrate my birthday with me, turn 65 today, All you need is a special birthday, a copper mug or a glass, a tiger, a jalousy stein, a canteen 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, the special birthday sip.
Happens now. Go. Now, in the comments, someone nicely said, I deserve a nice day.
Well, that's not true at all.
I don't deserve anything.
Nobody deserves anything.
We kind of get what we get.
But, how would you like me to give you an idea that would make all of us, 80% of us, much happier?
It goes like this.
And it's all I want from my birthday.
Have you ever tried to send a text message and you're kind of worked up, you're angry about something, and you're going to use that F word.
And you've got your text message and your body is shaking and your thumbs are quivering and you're like, that effing thing.
And you get to the end of your sentence and you get ready to send and spell correct has changed it to ducking.
D-U-C-K. Now, I don't know about you, but on a statistical basis, the number of times I've wanted to type ducking, but, you know, didn't, very small.
Very small times I've ever wanted to use, such as I was ducking the debris.
I mean, it doesn't really come up that often.
And I can see why the impulse for the spell correctors would be to give us the clean word, just in case.
But I would like to suggest the following.
Number one, they have picked the very worst time, the worst time, to duck with me.
Because when I'm already mad and I'm sending a text message with that F word in it, do you know what is the only thing that can make me more angry at that moment?
It's having to pause and scroll back.
Scroll! Scroll!
Scroll! Scroll!
Not D. Not D. Delete.
F. Yes.
Yes! Yes!
Yes, I mean it. Now, compare that to the alternative.
Here I was already mad and it made me more angry.
And I still sent the bad word.
Did they gain anything at all?
No. No goodwill.
Nothing was helped. But imagine if they went the other way.
Flip it around. 180.
Suppose if every time you tried to write ducking, As in, you were ducking the pitch or ducking the golf ball.
What if it autocorrected to effing?
Am I right? Because then when you got one of those messages that somebody accidentally sent, it would be hilarious.
It would say, when the gunfire rang out, I hope you were fucking.
And you would read that message and you'd say, what?
Why would you, well, it's a nice thought, but oh, oh, it got auto-corrected.
It got auto-corrected.
It should have been ducking.
And then what would you do?
You'd laugh.
You'd laugh.
You'd laugh and you'd laugh.
Could you ever have a better day than that?
No! That would be a total gift.
So let me summarize.
Current method, Takes an angry person, makes them angrier.
Makes you hate their product.
Bad. And you still send the bad word anyway.
My way, everybody gets a good laugh.
Oops. Oops.
I meant you should have been ducking.
Sorry, Mom. Come on.
You tell me that wouldn't be funnier?
There are very few situations where it's all upside and no downside.
I think this is one of them.
And that's all I want for my birthday.
By the way, it's Johnny Depp's birthday tomorrow.
I don't know why that's important.
I believe Kanye, who I call Ye, has his birthday today too.
All of that means absolutely nothing, because Michael Schellenberger did not succeed in getting into the final two in the governor's race in California.
But I've got to say, I'm really proud of the campaign he ran, and I feel as if something good should come out of this, meaning that at least people saw what it looks like To run a rational campaign in which you're focusing on proven solutions, you're not trying to be political.
Now, why did it not work?
Almost certainly because he wasn't part of the established Democrat machine.
So there was no amount of good ideas, no amount of effort, no amount of qualifications that really could make a difference in our state.
We're just so constipated with Democrat politics.
But I would argue that Andrew Yang did not have as practical solutions as Michael Schellenberger promotes.
Yang had ideas that were a little bit more futuristic, so they might work.
And I definitely think a lot of his ideas were worth testing.
But that was a more speculative kind of futuristic.
Whereas I think Schellenberger really says far more practically, we already know what works.
We don't really need to experiment.
The experiment's done. Just implement.
So the most rational message anybody ever brought to the electorate, and the electorate largely, I think, maybe were not aware of him because it's just so hard to break through.
So I think that probably is the whole story there.
Let's talk about the slippery slope.
You know, one of the things I've always disliked about that slippery slope theme, which I've grudgingly decided does exist, there is a slippery slope.
I have said in the past that it's just bad thinking, but I'm coming around that there are some situations in which the best way to describe them is a slippery slope.
However, I insist on adding this visual update to the slippery slope.
Here's what I'd like to add.
At the bottom of every slippery slope, there's a brick wall.
If you give me that, we're on the same page.
I'll give you the slippery part.
But I've always said, yes, you don't have to worry about it, because at the end of the slippery, there's always a brick wall.
Now, you might say to yourself, that's not true.
Here are all these examples where it just keeps going.
To which I say, it just hasn't hit the wall yet.
In retrospect, you'll look back and a lot of people will say that was progress.
You hit the wall when everybody agrees you've gone too far.
And that happened in San Francisco last night.
Where the San Francisco DA, who was the super progressive one who basically thought criminals should be set free, was recalled.
So even liberal San Francisco said, you know, I feel like we're done with this.
I think we would like law and order in San Francisco.
So... Did the lawlessness and the Democrat craziness, was it a slippery slope?
Yes. Yes, it was.
I mean, we slippery sloped all the way to destroying San Francisco.
If that's not a slippery slope, what is?
But, turns out, there might be a brick wall at the bottom of the slippery slope.
And I think the voters, depending on how you want to use this imagery, hit the wall last night.
And they just said, up, up, up, this is too far.
Now, you don't want to say there's a trend building on one day of voting or anything like that.
But there did seem to be some trends that maybe are surfacing, maybe, One would be the school choice people had a good night, I guess, in Iowa.
There was a lot of, you know, victory for the school choice people.
That feels like a wall, doesn't it?
It feels like the, you know, the schools were a slippery slope into horribleness, and they were certainly in horribleness, and maybe, maybe school choice is the brick wall.
It's like, okay, okay, that's far enough.
So it's always hard to know when you're sliding like crazy and when you're actually one second away from hitting a brick wall.
But it's useful to know that usually a brick wall comes up.
Not every time. Here's sort of a messaging persuasion thing I've been noodling with.
What would happen if Republicans...
Started using their own solutions, but using the Democrats' arguments.
And I think you'll see there are a few examples of this.
And I can't tell if there's a way to do this more generally or just a few interesting examples.
Let me give you this one example.
So I tweeted today, if you lived in a country bristling with white supremacists, what kind of tool or device would help you protect your family?
And the choices were a stick, a gun, or the third choice was I don't like my family.
And, of course, the message here in the humorous form is that if you actually believed that white supremacists were a rising force, I feel as if you'd want to have some guns if you were a person of color.
And so what would happen...
I'm just sort of noodling through it.
I'm not saying this is a good idea.
I'm just sort of noodling.
What would happen if the Republicans just started embracing the Democrats' most crazy statements and acted as though they believed them?
It could make things worse.
Let me give you the most extreme example.
Suppose Republicans did a pro-gun ad in which they used the...
The Charlottesville fine people hoax, but they treated it like it really happened.
The really happened part is not that there were neo-Nazis.
That did happen, obviously.
But the part of the hoax is that Trump praised the neo-Nazis.
What if they just...
They didn't have to say anything about Trump, so they wouldn't have to lie.
They could just show the imagery of Charlottesville and say, you know, maybe...
If you're worried about this, maybe you should own a gun.
Second Amendment. Now, is it a terrible idea?
So, one of the things that was at the San Francisco Chronicle headline, I saw a Joel Pollack tweet on this, that San Francisco is interpreting this recall of their progressive DA, They're looking at that as, oh, it has nothing to do with what the right wing wants.
It's just people want a city that works.
And I thought to myself, a city that works?
You mean do all the things that the Republicans say you should do?
That's how you get it to work.
Literally being more aggressive about crime.
Or punishing crime.
So... I just wonder how many of these arguments could be turned around.
You know, my favorite one is if you embrace the systemic racism, let's say you're a Republican, you embrace systemic racism as a primary thing, like a primary force and a reason that you're running.
And then you say, and we have to work at the source, which is the teachers' unions.
So you totally accept their argument, the systemic racism, but you use that argument to dismantle the thing that actually is the biggest problem.
Like, would people start to notice that you kept using Democrat arguments but Republican solutions?
Because I think you could do it all day long.
I'm not sure. But I feel like a lot of the things you could cast that way, and you would be impossible to ignore.
If you ran as a candidate who literally said, I'm going to give you a Democrat view of the world, and then I'm going to show you how to dissolve it with Republican policies.
Now, it's not going to work for abortion, right?
There are going to be a few things that it just doesn't work for.
So how about you say, you know, there's a group that wants to promote more LGBTQ awareness or openness or whatever, however they would say it, in the schools, and a lot of the conservatives would say, no, that's too young.
You know, we want our kids to do it.
So how about instead you say, we need...
You need to be able to send your kids to a school where they can learn to appreciate all people.
That would be the Democrat version.
And then say the solution to that is school choice.
So that you Democrats have a choice to send your children to exactly the kind of school you want to send them to.
Why should you send your kids to a school which Republicans have designed?
Does that make sense to you?
No. So you take the Democrats' own argument that you want to teach your kids to be educated about openness and the differences among people in a productive way.
How about we help you?
How about we help you get that choice?
And then we get out of your business.
And the Republicans would say, there's nothing I want more than to get out of your business.
I just would like the same.
In return, I would like you to get out of my business.
Think how often you could use their arguments and then a Republican solution.
All right. So maybe the country is closer to sticking together than we think.
Over in the United Kingdom, they're going to test a four-day workweek pretty seriously.
So there are 3,300 workers and 70 businesses across a whole range of industries that are going to participate.
And apparently this has been done before.
In Iceland, they did a study between 2015 and 2019.
And they found that the employees who volunteered, I guess, to work the shorter work weeks had the same productivity.
Now, what do you think about that?
Do you think that, in general, a four-day workweek would work as well as a five-day workweek?
Because I don't think it's four times ten.
I think it's 32 hours instead of 40, I believe is the idea.
Well, one way to look at it is that you can reduce most business expenses by 25%.
It doesn't make a difference.
There are a lot of things that you overspend for that if you just stop doing it, you find it didn't work out as poorly as you imagined.
So it wouldn't be shocking at all if people could figure out how to do fewer meetings and more work.
That wouldn't surprise me.
I don't know.
I will watch this with interest, but I've got a feeling that there are other reasons that people go to work.
And so one of the things they say is that people are more productive if you can teach people to stop bothering each other at work and dropping in and having meetings that are too long and stuff like that, you'd be more productive.
But I feel as if for everyone who wants someone to stop dropping into their cubicle, There's someone who really needs to do the dropping in.
Because the people who are always doing the dropping in are like lonely people who need to talk to somebody because they don't have anybody at home.
There's a huge social part to work.
That if you decrease that, I don't know that people are happier at their house.
Wasn't one of the big problems with the pandemic that it caused people to be home more?
And people are like, you know, two days at home with my family?
That's just about right.
Five days at home with my family?
Oh, that's a lot of family.
So I've got a feeling that there's some unintended consequences of the short work weeks.
But I am glad that they're testing it.
Why? Because we should test everything that can be tested.
Just a general statement.
If there are people who want to do this, it's funded.
We're all curious about the outcomes.
It matters. It's important.
Yeah, let's test it.
So thumbs up to the UK. We're being leaders in at least testing this stuff.
So here's another story that fits into the theme.
So George Takai, do you follow him on Twitter?
So he played Sulu in the original Star Trek.
And he's pretty active in left-leaning politics on Twitter, especially anything with LGBTQ stuff.
So he tweeted this yesterday, I think.
He says, Now, is that not an example of a left-leaning person completely agreeing with Republicans, but they just can't say it out loud?
Because here's the other way to say what George Takei just said.
The only reason the United States doesn't have to worry about being overthrown is we have 20 million AR-15s.
Now, it's not like I was worried that Canada was going to overrun us anytime soon, but I do feel safer with knowing that my fellow citizens, which always sounds sexist to me, what's the non-sexist way to say my fellow citizens?
Is there a non-sexist word for that yet?
My they citizens.
My they citizens.
My comrades. Sounds wrong.
Now, that didn't trip off the tongue just right.
We citizens.
Well, I'm glad we citizens have 20 million AR-15s.
Although I admit that whenever there's a mass shooting, I say to myself, what the hell?
What the hell? So this feels like another one of those situations where you could agree with George Takei and just sort of like make a commercial end of his opinion and say, and that's why Russia isn't invading America.
I mean, that's the ridiculous version.
So Rasmussen, in their polling, reminds us that the top voter concerns in this order, number one, inflation.
Number two, election integrity.
And number three, violent crime.
Do these things seem like the same priorities that you're seeing on television and from your politicians?
Have there been a lot of CNN specials about how to improve election integrity?
No. There have been lots of specials telling you that the elections were fine.
They're just fine.
It's the number two issue in America.
Think of all the issues we have.
We've got some pretty bad stuff floating around, right?
And still, number two is election integrity.
Because people know, people know intuitively, that if you don't have that part right, all of the other stuff doesn't get fixed.
Emily, you've taken away your ability to do anything, really.
I think Rasmussen does a great job for the country by reminding us that our politicians and our news services are not giving us what we're asking for.
What we're really asking for is, can you at least make sure the elections work?
Please? Can you please just give us one, one thing?
Just one? Can you just get on the same side that the voting machines should count the actual votes?
Can we agree on that?
It feels like something we could get to, you know, we could rally around.
but not in our divisive country.
Here's a reframe that I've been working on.
Those of you who know my life story, you might know that I grew up in a small town, Wyndham, New York, in upstate New York.
There were 40 people in my graduating class, maybe 2,000 people in the town.
And the first thing that I did after I graduated college, and I went to college in a nearby town, Oneonta, New York, the first thing I did was move to San Francisco.
Why did I do that?
Yeah, it was Hartwick College.
I got a degree in economics.
Why was the first thing I did to move to San Francisco?
It's because I was chasing luck.
Over on YouTube, somebody says, because you're gay?
No, follow along.
Try to get back on track here.
It was funny, though.
No, I went to San Francisco because it's where the energy was.
It's where the energy was.
And I wanted to go somewhere where there were more opportunities, more chances to get lucky, and just more stuff happening.
And I thought to myself, okay, I was lucky that I could do that.
Like, it was physically possible for me to do that.
Now, imagine you're looking at any impoverished inner city area.
Let's take Chicago.
You've got high crime and, you know, economics are terrible in certain parts of the city.
How would you fix it?
Well, I'll tell you the worst way to fix it.
Keep everybody where they are and try to make it better there.
That might be the worst way to do it.
Because the concentration of troublemaking people is probably too high.
And so that nothing you do there is going to make a difference.
It's like donating food to countries where they have warlords.
You can give them all the food you want, but the warlords are going to steal it all when it hits the ground.
It doesn't help.
It doesn't help to help because of the people.
There's just too much of a concentration of criminal element or whatever.
So, in my opinion, the number one thing that you need to do to help anybody who's in that situation is to move them.
And I'm wondering how much poverty and I know every problem in the world could you solve if it were real easy for poor people to move.
And that is really the hardest thing in the world.
It's really pretty hard to just say, okay, I'm going to move to San Francisco just because it's a better place to be.
Like, who can really do that?
I mean, I was very, very fortunate, and it was a point in time, and let's be honest, I was a white male...
Things were easier if you were a white male in those days, right?
So I had everything going for me, in a sense.
But imagine if you could pick out the B students and above in every poor place.
And you just say, all right, you got a B average on your own by sixth grade.
I'll just pick a random...
Great. So you got all the way to sixth grade and somehow, somehow you pulled at least B's.
We're going to give you the option to pull your whole family out of there.
And some kind of, you know, government greased, you know, you don't want the government to get bigger.
I know. But there's probably some way to create even a private, you know, app kind of situation where you can get people out.
And get them to a job.
Now, I've talked about this before, but the more apps become ubiquitous, the more practical this is.
Imagine if you had an app that was designed to help people escape where they live.
Let's say domestically.
Eventually it could include other countries.
But just domestically. And let's say you're a single mom and you know you just can't do enough for your kid.
You want to, you just can't do enough.
So you go on the app and you say, like, I need to escape.
I need to get out of here.
And then other people go on the app and say, I'd like to help you escape.
Like, I'll be one of the people.
I can't afford to do it all myself, but I could give, you know, 20 bucks or whatever to help you escape.
But in return, here's the deal.
You've got to show us your kid's report card, and it's got to be at least B's.
For, let's say, one year or something.
Whatever it is. So the mother says, alright, I've got one thing to do.
I'm going to make sure my kid gets bees.
It might be a Herculean task.
You might have to lock them in.
But maybe for one year you could do it.
If you were really incentivized.
And then you meet that simple test.
Yeah, there would be fraud. There's fraud in everything.
You know, you do your best to get past it.
But you get to that point and then you get an option that people put together a moving package.
And they say, all right, here are several options.
You can move to this town.
We'll help you connect with the people who will make that easy and inexpensive to do.
And we've even got a job lined up for you that's in your field.
And we'll get you trained.
I feel as if individuals helping individuals and then following their story would be more entertaining than actual entertainment.
Let me say it again.
Suppose you could go onto an app and pay 20 bucks to help somebody that somehow has been vetted to be not a fraud.
That you're actually just part of their cheering community to help them out.
So you get to follow somebody's life.
You follow them on social media.
And maybe that's a requirement or a suggestion.
You say, look, we'd like to be able to follow your life.
So post as much as you can on social media.
And we'll just follow you.
And if you're doing well, we'll give more money.
But if it looks like you're in with a bad crowd or something, if there's some way to find out, maybe we won't.
But if you do well, we'll back you, and we'll give you advice, lots of advice and connections, and we'll help you get a job with somebody we know in that town, and stuff like that.
But I feel as if all these kids are trying to become social media stars when they really just need to be good people.
Imagine, if you will, that a kid said, hey, I could use social media and TikTok to help my future life.
And all I have to do is offer myself up and say, hey, I need help.
I'm in a bad situation.
I live in a tough town.
I'd like to get out.
Can you be my virtual mentors?
And in return, I will keep you informed of my life so you can see that whatever you do is helping me or not.
And I'll give you some transparency about how I'm doing.
And you could just sponsor me.
And then the people sponsoring could argue among themselves whether they're doing a good job.
So the sponsors would police each other.
It'd all be transparent.
The In every case, the parent would have to have access to everything.
The parent has to see all of it and approve it.
That has to be.
You want to turn people into social workers?
No. So if somebody says you want to turn people into social workers, as soon as you added a worker, you lost the idea entirely.
There's nothing about this that's work.
That's the idea.
See, the greatest untapped resource in the world is people's generosity.
Let me say that again.
The biggest untapped resource in the world is people's natural generosity.
And the reason that it's not activated is that we don't trust the people asking for it.
You just don't trust that if you use your generosity, it's necessarily going to be turned into something positive.
I think I've done this before on the live stream, but let me do it again.
Do you know how many times I've tried to help somebody who had a financial situation or some kind of a big problem?
A lot. Because for three decades I've been in a situation where I had more than I needed.
So lots of times I've tried to help somebody who was in a bad situation.
Now let me ask you this.
How many times did it work?
As in, once you solve this temporary problem, somebody went on to a good, successful life.
Okay, here's the answer.
It's not zero.
It's not zero.
It might be 10%.
It might be 10%.
And probably 20% really did make a big difference.
80% is just people revert to whoever they were.
So the person who got into trouble is the person who's going to get into trouble again, unfortunately.
Helping people temporarily doesn't really, by definition, doesn't have a permanent effect.
But it's totally worth doing for the 10%.
If I look at the people who, you know, for whom I have made an actual difference, it really did make a difference.
And so, you know, I'll be able to enjoy my senior years knowing that at least 10% of the people I tried to help genuinely got helped.
Like really, really made a difference.
And that is very, very rewarding.
Now, How entertaining is it to know that you help somebody?
It's one of the greatest pleasures you can receive.
So my generosity is automatically rewarded when it works.
The problem is that generosity doesn't work.
We live in a world in which we're not tribal.
So I could send my generosity out into the world and it just gets absorbed and Taken for granted, right?
It doesn't come back in any way.
So right now, if we had an app that simply captured generosity and made sure that it wasn't...
At least...
Maybe the trick is to...
You have to diversify your generosity so that you can see the 10% that worked.
So maybe you're always investing in more than one person.
Perhaps. A fund of people.
You could even have somebody who organizes a fund to see who's worthy to be part of the app.
So anyway, you could imagine a situation in which you could untap generosity, people would get something immediately in return for their generosity, and you would create a virtuous cycle.
All right? Well, that's the best idea you've heard all day.
But if I were a Republican, the way I would put it is, we're going to help Democrats move out of Democrat cities.
See? See how many things you can take as a Democrat argument with a Republican solution.
Democrat cities have too many guns.
Too much gun violence.
We Republicans will help you move out of those places and live where there are just as many guns, but no gun violence.
It's called Wyoming.
Or something. Now, have you seen all the advertisements for ADUs?
What's it called? You can put an extra little house on your property.
ADU, what's that stand for?
Something unit, dwelling unit, affordable dwelling unit, ADU. So that industry has recently exploded, and there are a whole bunch of companies that make basically a house in a box.
And one of them, I think, is called Boxable, and I think Elon Musk actually has an investment in it.
And it comes in a truck and it unfolds into a proper little house.
That's got a bathroom and a bedroom and a tiny kitchen kind of situation.
So here's what I think is going to be the big thing.
Somebody's going to develop some land in a remote place that has good weather and lots of water and Wi-Fi.
And they're going to say, you can put any kind of ADU here and live there.
The ADU will just be...
Where you live. And you could have more than one.
So you might have a family that needs two of them.
And you just stick them together.
And people like me could invest in them.
So you'd say, Scott, you can invest in this little square piece of land in Wyoming, and we'll tell you how to invest in any one of these ADUs, and we'll put it there.
You don't have to do any work.
You just have to put the money in.
You'll own the land, you'll own the ADU, and we'll rent it for you.
The rent will be low, That's the whole idea.
But since it costs so little for you to invest in that little piece of dirt, in that little ADU, you'll get your money back.
So you might want to invest in several of them.
And I say, oh, actually I do.
I wouldn't mind owning several ADUs, like little mini-investments.
And then you say to the people who are maybe living there, you know, If you will manage the one next door, I'll give you a break in rent.
And then suddenly they've got work.
They've got a place to go.
They can work remotely.
Anyway, I think we need a place to take people who have promise and some drive, pull them out of their situation, put them in a good situation, stop talking about the guns that are in the bad situation, and start talking about pulling the people out and getting them into a A place where they can be educated and safe.
Most investors are not generous.
Well, that's true. That's true.
If your mode is investor, you're not generous, right?
Because those are different. Being an investor is being selfish.
That's what it's supposed to be.
It won't work if you don't try to be selfish.
So the Steve Bannon situation got interesting.
I guess there were 12 jurors wanting to convict Steve Bannon, associate Timothy Shea, and there was one holdout.
So there was one Trump-supporting holdout who just hung the jury, and it just turned completely political.
But of course, this is in the backdrop of the larger story, Which is, it does appear that conservatives are being treated differently by the government than the left.
Does that feel true?
I don't know if it's true.
I'm not totally sold that the prominent anecdotes we've seen really show us a trend, but it sure looks like it, doesn't it?
Like, the anecdotal stuff is...
Very persuasive. I just don't know that we aren't being fooled by anecdotes.
Does anybody have that suspicion?
Because if you ask me if it's persuasive, totally.
But if you ask me if it's really true, I don't know.
How would I know?
How would you know? I wouldn't know.
Has anybody done some kind of rigorous study that would, you know, That would tell us whether this is really happening.
Now, the prominent cases, it just looks that way, but I don't know.
Yeah, I know the anecdotes.
I know the Peter Navarro.
I know the Stone.
It does look as though they are being mistreated.
In every way, it has that look.
But just because they're being mistreated, I don't know if that's part of a bigger thing.
But it could be. It could be.
I'm definitely worried about it.
All right.
Yeah, if you compare Peter Navarro's situation to the way Hillary was treated, etc.
You know, this January 6th stuff...
Is this going to backfire on the Democrats?
Did you see the David Axelrod tweet in which he was...
I felt he was warning his own team.
Because the New York Times treated the January 6th hearings as a political strategy by the left.
And David Axelrod was saying, I don't think you want to be happy if you're a Democrat and you see the press say it's a political thing.
Because the New York Times basically treated it like it was just a political act.
And Axelrod is saying, I think you need to let the evidence go where the evidence goes.
Now, which is the correct thing to say in public, of course.
What? And I've got a feeling that this is going to backfire gigantically.
Because at some point, the Republicans get to talk, right?
Now, I'm not talking about during the hearings themselves, but a lot of Republicans are going to talk about it.
Are you telling me that the mainstream media isn't going to have any Republicans on?
Don't they have to?
I mean, how often does CNN and MSNBC have a prominent Republican on to interview?
Actually, I don't know the answer to the question.
Does that happen often? Never?
Because there's not as much cross-pollination as there should be.
But I do think Republicans are going to have to get a...
There's going to have to be some kind of response, and it's going to be newsworthy.
But I think that if the Republicans simply use it as a place to grandstand and call out the left for exactly what's happening here, it could really, really work for the Republicans in a big way.
So Axelrod is completely right.
The fact that the left is not trying to hide the fact that it's purely political, that has to have some blowback, doesn't it?
If you're not even pretending, it's anything but political.
It also makes all the other cases, like the Peter Navarro, it makes all the other cases look like they were political too.
Because they largely are.
Right? Yeah, they produced a Good Morning America producer to do that.
Yes, the House, not the Senate.
But still, I think the Senate's going to be pretty vocal about what's going on.
So there are no Republican members of the January 6th committee, you're saying?
But there will still be lots of Republican voices.
Won't there? Won't Republicans be interviewed by the January 6th people on TV? Well, let me ask you this.
Who exactly is going to be talking?
Because it doesn't matter who's asking the questions, it also matters who's answering them.
Who will be the prominent people interviewed during the hearings?
Actually, I have no idea.
Who exactly, are they just going to be showing video and evidence, or are they going to be interviewing people What exactly is happening on Thursday?
Can somebody tell me? Two rhinos on it?
Yeah, okay. Okay, well, I guess I don't know...
I guess I don't know what we'll see, but I'll probably watch it.
Who's going to be watching it?
They can get away with it.
That is why they're doing it.
You know, I think the fact that there are no real Republicans on that committee, that should tell the Democrats something.
Schiff is leading the show?
You're not serious, are you?
Is Adam Schiff in charge of that?
Seriously? How is it that Adam Schiff is not hated by his own team?
Is it only because I don't like what he says that makes me think he's the worst figurehead for your cause?
I mean, he's like the Jeffrey Dahmer of politicians.
Like, I look at him and I have just such a visceral reaction, and I can't tell if that's just because I don't like what he says.
If I liked what he said, would he come across to me as like a reasonable patriot or something?
I don't know. He's just got the look of something's wrong.
He and Swalwell have that same thing.
There's something about their look that I can't get past.
Yeah. Crazy eyes, maybe.
Reptilian. All right.
So have I hit all the big points for today?
Yes, I have.
And can we agree that this is the best birthday livestream of all time?
Yeah, I think so.
And would you join me in a special birthday closing sip?
Some of you would.
Yes. And here we go.
This one's to all of you, my beloved audience.
Thank you for showing up every day.
I'm sure sometimes you have other things to do.
And thank you for supporting me and all of your Good wishes.
And I've got to say that the response is the reason I do it.
I mean, I could be doing a lot of different things.
