Episode 1769 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About The Kangaroo Court And Chuck Schumer's Impeachment
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
House Dems block bill to protect justices?
Joe Biden on Jimmy Kimmel's show
Did Chuck Schumer incentivize Nicholas Roske?
Mocking the Democrats J6 "insurrection" HOAX
Simon Gwynn incited hunting Republicans
Hunting Republicans is being normalized
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 another highlight of a civilization.
It's the kind of moment that makes you glad you're alive.
Or at least glad I am, because otherwise you'd be looking at a blank screen.
And that's no fun.
So instead, why don't we ramp up our enjoyment?
Let me get your dopamine pump working.
A little oxytocin, too.
Serotonin coming online.
Everything's going to feel better in a moment.
Do you feel a tingle? Is it a building?
The excitement, the anticipation, the camaraderie, the fellowship.
It's all happening now.
And it's thanks to the simultaneity of it all.
And all you need to make this another special experience is a cupper mugger, a glass of tanker, a chalice of stein, a canteen jugger, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
All of your chemistry is starting to come together.
It's the simultaneous sip that happens now.
Go! Sublime.
Well, yesterday was my birthday and Many good people took time out of their day to say nice things.
And I appreciated it a lot.
But we're back to normal now.
So, back to a normal day.
I hate going back to normal.
I like it when everybody's extra nice to me for a day.
Birthdays are cool. All right.
Do you have the same experience I have that you get up and you think, I'm going to go to my computer and I'm going to do some work.
And then the computer Decides that it's going to make you hack into it.
Today won't be a day you just put in your password.
Like, it starts with a little foreshadowing, doesn't it?
And the foreshadowing is a little message that pops up and says, hey, you know, I'm just, I thought you might know, want to know, there's another operating system available, a new update, and you might want it.
And the first time it pops up, you're like, hmm, later.
Make it go away. Day two, just a suggestion.
Hey, hey, hey.
You know, still, it's day two, just want to remind you.
After about day 65 or so, it starts getting really sort of asshole-ish, if you know what I mean.
It's like, not only when you click it, does it take over your screen instead of just going away, but it'll start to slow down your computer, I think.
Now, I can't prove this, but I feel like it's slowing down my computer to punish me for not upgrading.
And today it was giving me all kinds of warnings about things.
Now, do you know why I don't upgrade?
Because it seems like it's free, and it makes your computer better, right?
Why wouldn't you upgrade?
The reason I don't is because I don't want to lose an entire day of work.
Because I know when I upgrade, it won't work.
Like this morning. I've been trying all morning to just, you know, update my software on my machine.
But, you know, it's not done.
And it only got me to the point where everything that I was logged into, it logged out of.
Now I have to re-hack into every open app.
Because do you think I'm just going to open them and put in my password?
And then the app will say, oh, welcome back.
No. No, that's not going to happen.
Every app is going to make me fight.
It's going to be a fight. We might email you a code.
Oh, you didn't get it?
Well, why don't you check your spam?
Oh, you did check your spam.
Why don't you check it again?
Why don't you reboot?
Why don't you click it again and ask for it again?
No, you can't get back.
You can never get back. You can only get further away from the apps.
So yeah, the whole app ecosystem is a complete disaster.
Here's a question for you.
So Ted Lieu was doing some grandstanding on the question of, I don't know, something about LGBTQ rights.
He's pro-LGBTQ rights, as everybody should be.
And he said he wanted to make a point.
So he said he thought he would now recite for you.
He did this, I guess, at the House in public.
He said, I'm going to recite for you what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality, Lou declared, before standing there silently.
Oh, I get it.
I get it. He stood there silently, because the point was that Jesus Christ didn't have anything to say about homosexuality.
And so I guess his point was...
That if you're a religious person, you can't be looking to your religion for your guidance on LGBTQ stuff, because Jesus never mentioned it.
That would be his point.
Now, I don't care about that, but it made me wonder, correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus could cure diseases, could he not?
He could. And...
Since I believe, some of you don't, because you're terrible people, that people come in all types, so there's nothing that's exactly normal.
Everybody's just different.
And so I don't rank people by their differences.
But it makes me curious.
Could Jesus turn you gay if he wanted to?
Because Jesus could cure a disease...
Could turn water into wine, could walk on water.
And I'm just curious.
I'm not saying he would want to.
I'm not saying there's any reason to.
I'm just saying, would he be able to?
Could Jesus take a hetero person and just turn them gay?
Now again, no reason to.
It was just sort of a curiosity.
Could he? Anyway, I'll let you think about that for a while.
So I guess the Republicans tried to get some bill that would give more security for Supreme Court justices and their families, and the House Democrats blocked it.
What do you think of that?
So the Democrats blocked the bill to provide more security in the context of, we know, some guy actually had a plan and weapons and went to the House of Kavanaugh to try to murder him in his sleep, or at his house.
So this just happened, like a real murder attempt was thwarted.
And the Democrats block a bill from the Republicans that would have given more security to Supreme Court justices.
What's your first reaction to that?
Is your first reaction, damn those Democrats who can't stop being political?
That wasn't my first reaction.
My first reaction is it's fake news.
Here's what I mean.
I haven't seen the details of this Republican bill, But I'm going to start with the following assumptions.
Just start with the assumptions and see if you agree with me.
If you don't agree with the starting assumption, you won't agree with what comes next.
The starting assumption is that every member of Congress is a worthless asshole.
That's the starting assumption.
If you're not with me on that, then the rest won't follow.
And so, what would worthless assholes do in this situation?
Well, ask yourself what helpful people would do, and then it would be opposite of that.
A helpful person might come up with a good, clean bill that would keep Supreme Court justices safe.
Do you think the Republicans did that?
Do you think the Republican bill, if I looked at the details, would it be a nice, clean bill, nothing really to argue with, it's just keeping those Supreme Court people safe?
Or do you think they put something in it to make it a poison pill so that the Democrats would have to turn it down and then they could spin it as the Democrats not protecting the Supreme Court?
Which one of those happened?
Now, I don't know the answer to that because I haven't looked at the bill.
But if your first impression was that the Democrats are turning down a perfectly good bill to protect the Supreme Court, you haven't been paying attention to anything.
Because I would assume that they're like these competent, you know, good people on one side in Congress, but then the evil Democrats are keeping them from doing what they want.
I don't see anything like that.
I see a bunch of incompetent assholes who do not have your best interests in mind, who are just involved in a skunk fight.
That's my base assumption, until proven otherwise.
So if you take your base assumption that they're all just useless assholes, why would the Republicans even bother coming up with a good bill that could be passed?
Why would they bother? There would be no point in it.
Because that's what good people do who are trying to help.
And if we had elected good people who want to help, wouldn't things look a lot different?
Clearly. So let me go out on a limb here.
I have not read the bill.
Because, as I mentioned, a little technical difficulty this morning.
I would have, but I ran out of time.
Without even reading the bill, and based on the assumption that everyone in Congress is a worthless asshole who doesn't care about you at all, I don't believe that bill was legitimate.
Can anybody confirm or deny that?
Has anybody seen the bill?
Because if you think the Democrats were the bad guys in this story, I say maybe.
I say maybe.
I can't rule it out.
But it's not my first assumption.
And if that was your first assumption, then you're a little too gullible, even if you're right.
It could turn out you're right, but it shouldn't have been your first assumption.
First assumption should have been skullduggery, because that's what they do.
Did you see Joe Biden on Jimmy Kimmel?
There are a number of...
Clips that are being shown by the RNC. The RNC has a Twitter site that just shows embarrassing clips of Biden and his people.
Oh, my God!
You get the very clear intention that Jimmy Kimmel knows he's talking to somebody who's not mentally capable.
So look for that first.
The way Kimmel is sort of trying to lead him to the right answers and gently coax him along, he does not look like he's talking to a politician or anybody who has any power whatsoever.
He looks like he's talking to a patient.
He looks like he's talking to somebody in a hospital.
That's what it looks like. And that's not even hyperbole.
If you watch it, you'll say, oh, he's talking to him like great-grandpa who's got two months left in the dementia ward.
So it was really cringy, as others have pointed out.
But among the things that he said, he's blaming his...
He's blaming his low approval ratings on the fact that the media is not getting his message out.
In other words, he's pretty sure he's doing good things, but the media is not telling the rest of the world, so he's going to have to prime the media more so that they can inform you of all the good things he's doing.
And I'm saying to myself, how close is that to blaming his ratings on fake news?
Because is he not saying that the reality is that we're doing a good job, but the news is not reporting it in an accurate way?
That's fake news.
I mean, everything that I said about Biden is coming true.
Now, a lot of you said the same thing.
So this is definitely one category where I'm not going to say, hey, I'm the only person in the world who got this one right.
But weren't you concerned...
That Biden would have to basically become Trump to get anything done.
Because being the anti-Trump meant you had to pick policies that don't work.
Because to the extent that Trump made stuff work, and I'm not saying he made everything work.
I got my complaints, too.
But here again, basically Biden has, you know, instead of make America great again, he's build back better.
Instead of fixing all that lying, he just brought more lying into the office.
You know, and now he's blaming fake news for his problems.
He's basically just Trump-like.
You know, here's something I've said about Biden since before he ran against Trump.
And the reason that I thought Biden would not run against Trump is that when I look at him, here's what I think.
If you started with Trump as your base model, and then you subtracted out of Trump everything that's good and interesting, what would be left would be Biden.
Biden is what's left after you subtract down all the good parts from Trump.
It'd be like the part you throw away.
That's what it feels like.
Even the things that Trump gets the most criticism for are generally some element of what makes him effective, right?
His ability to get attention, to persuade, etc.
So... The other thing that Biden said is something about putting Republicans in jail.
You know, Kimmel was saying, you know, why can't something be different or get done?
And Biden makes some kind of sweeping, joking generality about putting his enemies in jail.
And I'm thinking...
That's what you're doing. He's saying that right around January 6th.
Right around the hearings tonight.
By the way, what time are the hearings?
It's prime time, right? So the January 6th kangaroo court, which, by the way, you shouldn't call it anything else.
Because I don't think you have to be anti-Democrat Because even the New York Times is basically saying it's a show trial.
So even the Democrats would admit that the point of it is just political.
So nobody's arguing that anymore.
It's a settled fact that it is a kangaroo court.
A show trial. So we shouldn't talk about it any other way.
We should talk about it as a show trial.
Now, believe it or not, This is making me extra mad at Republicans.
I know that seems opposite, right?
Like, I really hate everything about this kangaroo court, but here's what's bothering me about the whole situation.
And I'm going to hold my fire for a little bit.
So, let's say I'm a little premature in my criticism because I'm expecting an outcome.
But I could be wrong. And here's why I'm so mad at Republicans.
Democrats have accidentally...
Created a gigantic opening for Republicans to dismantle their whole hoax-generating machinery in front of the public when the public has to pay attention.
Because they've said this next thing is going to get a lot of attention.
And even though the members of the committee are either rhinos or Democrats, you can't have a story this big without talking to Republicans.
Republican voices will be heard on this topic, somehow.
You know, even if it's just people making provocative statements on the steps of the whatever.
So, if no Republican can eviscerate their entire hoax machinery when they give them this big of an opening, I don't know what can.
And here's what I'm talking about.
You've all seen this news, I think.
You've seen the clips of Chuck Schumer We're good to go.
About the blowback that they would get, personally, for their bad decisions.
Now keep in mind that these are not elected people, they're appointed for life, and therefore, the one and only way that something bad could be happening to them is outside of the political process.
Basically, violence or some kind of retribution.
Now, that video exists At the same time that we know this guy actually tried to act on it because he thought he'd be a hero if he murdered a Supreme Court justice.
And that's because their side said that's true.
I mean, Chuck Schumer basically said that the decisions from the Supreme Court are likely to be so bad with these conservative justices That they will...
And the context in which he said it was that they deserved it.
He didn't use that word.
But he basically made a case for their assassination.
That's what I heard. What did you hear?
Because how else would you keep somebody who has got a lifetime appointment from doing their job?
What's the other way to do it?
I don't know of another way to do it.
Do you? Court packing?
Court packing is not them being personally impacted.
He was very specific that the impact would be on them personally.
Right? Listen to the video.
It's very specific. He's not talking about the country or Republicans or anything like that.
He's talking about those two people by name will be sorry.
What else is it?
Now, if you're a Republican...
And you get to talk about anything about whether Trump said something that incentivized these protesters.
Why would not your answer be, all right, let's put it in context?
So here's some context.
And don't even say any defense of President Trump.
Here's how I would do it if I were a Republican.
Now remember, this is a show trial, so what I'm going to say is for show.
It's not practical in any way.
So what I would do is, if I were a prominent Republican, I'd say, you know what we should do?
We should combine two cases.
We should combine the Schumer case with the January 6th Trump case, because whatever you decide for one should apply to the other.
That if you decide that what Trump said caused violence, then let's just get it over with and say at the same time that Schumer caused this attempted assassination.
Now, would you figure out that Cheney and Kinzinger are in on the show?
Yeah, no, I know the RINOs are in on the Democratic side of this.
But the Republicans are still going to get to talk.
I mean, there's going to be somebody who's either a witness or something.
They're going to get to talk. So when they get to talk, or even if they're just talking about it, you know, somebody in the Senate, for example, could say, I suggest that we treat these two as the same story because the public wants to see both.
And there's nothing really to investigate when it comes to Chuck Schumer's statement and this guy who got picked up, because those are facts that are in evidence, right?
Nobody's arguing that there was no assassination attempt.
Nobody's arguing that the guy didn't say his motives clearly.
He explained his motives.
And nobody's arguing that that audio and video So there's nothing to investigate.
Just combine the two stories and say, let's treat them the same.
The day that you decide that Trump was responsible, should you decide that, you should also ask for Schumer's resignation.
Now, at the very least, every Republican should be asking for Schumer's resignation.
Because you could argue that what Trump did was ambiguous, But you can't argue what Schumer did was ambiguous.
That was pretty direct.
So it could be that maybe Republicans don't want to pair those two stories, because if they're both guilty, that includes Trump.
But the more appropriate way to treat it is to say that it was messed up in both cases.
But we don't put people in jail for that necessarily.
Yeah.
I would also, if I were the Republicans, use the opportunity to call out all of the hoaxes perpetrated by the Democrats.
And as long as you get to talk, I'd say I'd like to read into the record the list of the top ten Democrat hoaxes so far.
And then I would say, we're looking at adding number 11 to the list, Which is the idea that Republicans will bring guns to any event except an insurrection against their government.
And that the reason they have guns is to protect against the government, but then when the one and only time they didn't bring them or use them, I guess some people had them in possession, but they were not used, was the one time that they say they would use them.
You know, to protect the republic.
So I would just put it in the context of the 11th hoax.
So if you were a casual viewer of the news, and you were just sort of dipping in, and you just heard there was this thing about Trump getting the protesters all riled up, and the question was whether Trump did or not, I would also want you to hear that the defense is this is the 11th hoax.
Because calling it number 11, like, makes it real.
Whereas if you just said, hey, it's a hoax, that just sounds like noise.
Yeah, everything's a hoax.
I get it. Everything the other side says is wrong.
I get it. There's no traction.
But if you say, here are the top ten Democrat hoaxes, and I made that list so you can get it from my Twitter feed, And here's the 11th one, and that's the one we're talking about today.
And the way the 11th hoax has worked is that they're convincing you that the only place that Republicans don't bring and use guns is to the one place that anybody would bring and use a gun if they planned an insurrection against the government.
And to say, if you believe this, then this is the 11th hoax that you've accepted, and you should consider expanding your news sources.
Now, if they said, go watch Fox News and everything would fall apart because people would be blah, blah, blah, Fox News.
But if you said, I would encourage you all to expand your news sources because the government has turned into a hoax operating system.
The Democrats largely produce one hoax after another as they're essentially the energy they use to run the country.
And wouldn't you rather be run on science or on principle Or on the Constitution, instead of on hoaxes.
And I would just frame the Democrat Party as the hoaxing party while they're doing a hoax in public.
Because there's nobody in the world who can hear me say, it's the only place Republicans don't bring guns is to an insurrection.
That's the beginning and the end of the argument.
It really is.
You could just say that every time somebody said something else.
They'd say, Mr.
Jones, what were you doing that day?
And no matter what the question is, you'd say, well, I'll tell you what I wasn't doing.
I wasn't bringing any loaded firearms to what you're calling an insurrection, so I guess I'm not really good at insurrections, am I? And no matter what the question is, I'd answer it the same way.
You know, we didn't bring guns.
Do you have any idea how many guns I own?
Really? The question would be, Mr.
Adams, can you tell us your profession?
And I'd say, yes, I can.
But first, I'd like you to know that I own 17 guns, and I didn't bring any of them to what you're calling the insurrection.
And my profession is cartoonist.
I wouldn't say anything else.
Just that one fucking thing over and over again.
Because here's what the Republicans are getting wrong.
They're treating it seriously.
I suppose the outcome has a serious repercussion.
But the Republicans don't have anybody who can mock this thing the way it needs to get mocked.
Because they're treating it like it's a court case, or they're calling it a kangaroo court, or they're treating it kind of politically.
This should be treated as humor.
Because this is the most ridiculous fucking thing we've ever seen in public.
You know, you could argue that some of their other hoaxes, you could see why people believed it, but if they're arguing that there was an insurrection without weapons that the Republicans were leading, they're so far into mocking territory that we shouldn't treat it any other way.
We should treat it as a fucking joke.
And if they had anybody on the Republican side who could do that, and they don't, I don't think they have anybody who can do that, it would be incredible to watch.
Now, in the Senate, I'd say Senator Kennedy could do that.
Am I right? But I don't think he's part of the procession.
He'll probably get some good quotes in.
Thomas Massey, very capable.
I don't know if he's got the stand-up comedian chops.
Matt Gaetz, he's got a little baggage on him at the moment, so I think he's sort of on the bench a little bit on some of these big topics.
Chip Roy is very effective.
So I saw his defense of the Second Amendment, and I thought, you know, I'd want him to be my lawyer.
He was very effective in making his argument, but it wasn't funny, because it was about Holocaust and whatnot.
Very effective. But this January 6th stuff, we should be treating as a mockery.
It should be treated as a mockery, and it should be used to dismantle the Democrats completely.
So they've sort of exposed their soft underbelly, which is that they literally are a hoax operating system.
Everything they do requires a hoax, or it doesn't work.
Like, you could find the hoax behind every single policy.
And... Then, of course, there's also the mood of the country that's working against the Democrats, because Biden's approval level is in the basement, and at least the recent election shows there's some pushback against the progressive agenda with the progressive prosecutors.
And Bill Maher.
Bill Maher?
Now, there's a...
Bill Maher is a national asset that...
I'm not sure we completely understand how powerful that is.
Now, he hasn't quite used it to move the needle on a topic in a big way, but imagine if he just took this on.
And just said, look, you know, we've got a hoax operating system on my team.
He could say, you know, I vote Democrat, and my side has to stop running hoaxes and acting like that's government.
Imagine that message.
Stop running hoaxes and pretending you're governing.
Those are completely different techniques.
Yeah, but you'd have to mock it first.
I think he could mock it like nobody could.
So yeah, he'd be great. I feel like people like Bill Maher and, you know, you could argue Joe Rogan and some other people like that are a little bit like the break glass in case of emergency people.
You know what I mean? I feel like there are some people who are just sort of In some ways, they're the internet dads.
Maybe Bill Maher is ironically an internet dad.
Somebody who's famously childless.
But I feel like...
Yeah, maybe Tulsi.
Maybe is another example.
You can think of other ones.
But I feel like there are some adults...
Who are... Elon Musk, yeah.
People who are capable of seeing both sides with a little bit of clarity, who are sort of like the emergency break glass in case everything goes wrong, is the people who could tell their own side to calm down.
There aren't many of them.
So if you could tell your own team to calm down, you're a national asset.
What is club random?
Never heard of it. Yeah, Alan Dershowitz says the J6 committee is a new McCarthyism, and the arrest of Navarro was unconstitutional.
I can't remember the last time I disagreed with Alan Dershowitz, but any time I find myself disagreeing with him, I immediately discard my old opinion, just take his opinion.
Because the statistical odds...
That disagreeing with Alan Dershowitz is a good play on a legal constitutional question is pretty bad odds, right?
And every once in a while you could tell yourself, well, I think I got this one.
No, you don't. No, you don't.
He's better at that than you are.
He's way better than that.
That's why he's Alan Dershowitz and you're not.
The NFL's Carolina Panthers have a new...
What do they call them now?
Cheerleader. I didn't know if there was a more woke word for that, but I guess there's still cheerleaders.
Called Justine Lindsay.
And she has revealed that she's a trans cheerleader.
And I just put that out there.
And here's what I wonder.
Do you remember when... The cheerleaders would often be featured before and after commercials.
And you thought to yourself, oh, the showing of the cheerleaders, because they're sort of overtly sexy and dancing provocatively, it's kind of like, it's almost not like a family show.
It's like the cheerleaders have gone from cheering to something a little sluttier.
And so I'm not wrong that they don't show the cheerleaders anymore, right?
Is that correct? They don't really show the cheerleaders.
And I'm wondering if the addition of a trans cheerleader will change that.
And I wonder if, let's say all of the cheerleaders became LGBTQ, would they start showing them during halftime?
And then make a show of it.
I'm not saying I recommend it or not.
I'm just saying it's a thought experiment.
If all the cheerleaders were LGBTQ, I'm pretty sure that they would show them, wouldn't they?
They would get airtime.
But at the moment, they're not really shown.
I'm not recommending it.
It's just a thought experiment.
Just wondered. All right, now, I told you I had a little technical difficulties.
So I'm going to check my own Twitter feed here because the things I tweeted were the things I was going to talk about today.
Just make sure I didn't forget anything.
Did I forget anything? Are all of you going to be watching the hearings?
And who among the Republicans...
Have the Republicans picked somebody who's going to be sort of their main go-to spokesperson?
I'm not sure I'll watch it.
I'll probably just get to clips.
All right, you're still back on the cheerleading story.
You know, I don't know if you've deduced this yet, but part of my fascination with the whole LGBTQ evolution, I guess, is what it does to our brains.
You know, I've always been the let people be people, and it's not my business.
So, you know, everybody's the same, blah, blah.
Everybody's the same because we're all different, basically, is my philosophy.
But the whole thing is fascinating.
Just watching how much trouble people have, you know, incorporating it.
So this is something else.
So the RNC research Twitter feed has all these bad clips of Biden talking to Jimmy Kimmel.
And here's something Biden actually said.
Because Kimmel was talking about not enough progress on climate change.
And Biden says, we have made some progress.
The reduction on the use of oil also increases the need to find alternatives.
What? He actually said that.
Let's see if I can play it, because you're not even going to believe he said that.
Oh, hold on.
Climate is something we could all look back at these days and go, oh my God.
We have made some progress there.
Some, some.
But it's moving. It's moving.
My mother used to say that everything bad, something good will come if you look hard enough for it.
So the reduction on the use of oil also increases the need to find alternatives.
Climate. Do you hear what Kimmel said?
He goes, the reduction on the use of oil also increases the need to find alternatives, is what Biden says.
And Kimmel goes, uh-huh.
Uh-huh. And changed the subject immediately.
Uh-huh. So you're saying that failing increases the pressure to find something that doesn't fail.
And I'm thinking... Isn't that always the case?
Isn't that always the case?
That if you fail at something, it increases your incentive to try harder to not fail?
I feel like that's what he said.
And you could see Kibble talking to him like he was a dementia patient.
Because what do you say to that?
Like, you don't have to be an economist to say, no, seriously, you're saying that That our failure to have enough energy is really a positive in disguise because it'll make us really want to find a way to not die.
He's basically saying, we've incentivized you by giving you an option of starving or finding some alternative really quickly.
It's just shocking.
And then Biden talks about the interracial couples on TV, but you have to hear this part.
I mean, people, I'm serious, you turn on the TV, look at the ads, when's the last time you saw biracial couples on TV? When's the last time you saw the way, I mean, people are selling products, they do ads and sell products, and they sell products when people, they appeal to people.
This generation is going to change everything.
We just got to make sure First of all, didn't he say the opposite of what he meant?
He said, when was the last time you saw a biracial couple on TV? To which I say, every time I turn it on.
When was the last time you didn't see a biracial couple?
I haven't even turned on the TV and seen a heterosexual couple making out lately.
I mean, you have to look pretty hard to find any heterosexuals who are kissing on TV. But...
So I think he said the opposite.
I think he was saying that you do see a lot of biracial couples on TV. Did he just say it backwards to how he meant it?
I don't know what TV he's watching.
Is he watching, like, Gunsmoke or something?
Is he watching Matlock repeats or something?
Like, TV is so...
So inclusive, it steps on its own ability to entertain.
I'm all for the inclusiveness.
But it does make it harder to write scripts.
It's just an extra variable that you put in there and it makes things a little harder for the writers.
But it's good overall.
Anyway. Let's see what else is going on.
So I guess...
Liz Cheney is getting smoked by her GOP primary challenger.
Are you surprised? So Liz Cheney will be out of a job, it looks like.
She'll probably get promoted to president for the Democrats or something.
I saw Brad Todd tweet...
In which he shows a copy of the New York Times, and here's what he tweets.
A foiled plot to assassinate a Supreme Court justice days before the biggest opinion in 50 years does not make page A1 of the New York Times.
It's buried on the bottom of A20. Would it be on A20 if it were Sotomayor with a gun case pending?
Uh... Isn't it weird that the New York Times is embarrassed to do the news?
Because if the New York Times said this is the news, that there was this assassination attempt on a Supreme Court justice, if they said that's the news, it's hard to avoid the fact that Chuck Schumer saying that these justices would, you know, would reap the whirlwind and they would pay for it.
It's hard not to include that in the story.
So literally, am I wrong that the New York Times is trying to disappear the story?
Because if the public knew this story, it would change everything about the kangaroo court that's going on tonight.
This is everything about managing the propaganda, isn't it?
That's what it looks like.
I mean, it just looks like propaganda management.
Then here's Biden talking about sending his opponents to jail.
Look, the Republicans don't play it square.
Why do you play it square? Well, guess what?
If we do the same thing they do, our democracy will literally be in jeopardy.
It's not a joke.
And I understand their argument, but also it's like you're playing Monopoly with somebody who, you know, won't pass go and won't follow any of the rules, and how do you ever make any progress if they're not following the rules?
We've got to send them to jail, you know.
So Biden actually said that Republicans should be sent to jail for, quote, not following the rules.
Not following the rules.
Now, if he said for breaking the law, then even Republicans would say, oh yeah, of course.
You break the law, you go to jail.
That has nothing to do with your party affiliation.
But he's literally saying, break a rule.
Do you know who breaks rules?
Everybody. Who's not breaking a rule?
Everybody. And the Democrats get to decide that the Republicans go to jail when they break a rule?
I mean, that's a pretty loose standard there.
Yeah. Because it's sort of subjective who's breaking the rules, right?
Who's breaking the rules and who's using the rules?
I mean, I can't believe...
Well, let me say it directly.
The only reason that Biden can get away with this level of incompetence is that we all see it.
Am I wrong? The only reason you can get away with it is you don't have to argue about it anymore.
The Democrats can see it.
So I think we all just accept that that's our situation.
And we hope that whoever is, you know, guiding him behind the scenes doesn't have a, you know, a twitchy nuclear trigger figure.
Basically, that's our best bet, is that whoever's running him isn't crazy.
Whoever that is.
Um... All right.
So I think... Oh.
So Jeff Pilkington tweeted to my attention a tweet by Juan Morales.
And we're talking about how many Twitter bots and trolls and spam bots and stuff like that are there.
And Juan is saying the better metric...
Instead of counting what percentage of trolls there are, he says the better metric is what percentage of engagement the likes and retweets and comments is coming from spam accounts.
He said a small share of accounts can have large impacts.
In 2013, Twitter closed spam accounts that were less than a half of 1% of Maduro's followers, and his retweets dropped by 81%.
So less than 1% of Maduro's followers were 81% of his activity.
So that's a good question.
Maybe the bots are, you know, what if they're 80% of the political conversation?
You know, it wouldn't be 80% of other stuff.
Anyway. Tom Cotton tweeted...
$5 gas is not an accident.
It's not an unintended consequence.
It's by design.
Now, that's the sort of statement that I would have regarded as a little too far.
But not anymore.
Because Biden actually touted our failure to have enough gas and oil.
He touted that as...
An asset. Because it makes us try harder for substitutes.
So yeah, I think Biden confirmed this, didn't he?
So when Tom Cotton says it's not an accident, it's by design, I think that that is now confirmed by the President of the United States.
So... So Tom Cotton is definitely one of the better communicators and most capable of the Republicans.
But if he also had a sense of humor, he would be president.
All right.
Jack Posobiec is retweeting a deleted tweet.
So let me give you an example of something that somebody actually thought they could put on Twitter.
He says...
So this is somebody named Simon Gwynne, who's got a...
He's a blue Czech, and he's got a little Ukrainian flag there.
And he tweeted, but I guess he deleted it.
He said, interesting real-life trolley problem in America now.
If you had the chance to kill Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the two oldest right-wing Supreme Court judges, should you do it while Biden can get his nominees to replace them, confirmed?
What? And then he followed up with, Simon did, it's interesting as an abstract question, but becomes a real conundrum if, say, you're terminally ill and you have little to lose yourself, but know it could save many women's lives in the future.
So it's basically an argument for murdering Hiller.
And the argument is, but Hitler's here.
And Hitler is the Supreme Court.
The conservatives of the Supreme Court.
Now, as Jack Posobiec noted, he deleted those.
And I don't know if it violated any Twitter guidelines, I think, because it was sort of a thought experiment.
But it really...
It really puts into...
Context that Republicans are being hunted.
Now, you all remember my most mocked prediction?
That Republicans would be hunted if Biden got elected?
Is that what the kangaroo court is doing?
I mean, it's basically part of the process of hunting.
Isn't the Simon Gwynn tweet...
Very close to suggesting that under the right circumstances, a rational person would hunt and kill Republicans.
That's how I read it.
I read it as, there's a situation in which a rational American working for patriotic ideals would have a good reason to murder a Supreme Court justice who was conservative.
I don't know. Alright.
Yeah, and you know, if you, and as Doc Anarchy said on Twitter, a Democrat traveled hundreds of miles across state lines with a gun to Justice Kavanaugh's home and attempted to kill him.
Sounds like Republicans are being hunted.
That's what hunting is.
You get a gun and then you go look for the mammal you're going to shoot.
Or bird or whatever.
Wow.
And I did watch the clip of Representative Chip Roy defending the Second Amendment policy.
So I tweeted that.
Townhall.com had the video.
And I would say it's the strongest short argument I've heard for the Second Amendment.
Because he uses laundry list...
Persuasion. Where he gives a number of notable examples where the population had their guns taken away and then they were rounded up and killed.
The Armenians, the Jews, blah, blah.
Pol Pot. And when you hear them all together, they're very persuasive.
Now again...
Laundry-less persuasion is persuasion that's not just fact, right?
So you have to be careful because it can be more persuasive than it needs to be.
But... Put the Rittenhouse filter on it.
Put the Rittenhouse filter on it.
That he was haunted.
Yeah. I mean, Rittenhouse was literally haunted.
Yeah. I guess I shouldn't say literally.
All right. Civilized societies ban its citizens from brandishing weapons of war.
Do you know why a civilized society can ban its citizens from brandishing weapons of war?
Anybody? Anybody who's good understanding the world?
Why is it that...
Because that was a comment I'm just reading on YouTube.
Why is it that civilized countries can ban weapons of war from their citizens?
Why can they do that? Because Americans have weapons.
That's the only reason.
Do you know why Great Britain doesn't need a lot of weapons?
Because if somebody tried to invade Great Britain, the United States would help them.
And do you know why they don't have to worry that the United States gets invaded and taken over so that they won't be there later in case they need help?
It's because we have guns.
You can't take us over.
You could try. It wouldn't work.
So a lot of the places that we look at are role models.
Thank you, John. A lot of the places that we look at are role models are just freeloaders.
Your role model is a fucking freeloader.
They're free riders.
The Americans take the risks.
The Americans take the deaths.
They accept the internal amount of murders that do come along with gun ownership.
We take extreme death to make sure that there's one place on earth you're not going to fucking conquer.
That's it. Right?
It's basically, America is the engine of freedom for the rest of the world, and the rest of the world knows it on some level.
That's why they don't need big armies.
Because we'd be there in a heartbeat.
You know, for one of our allies.
Yeah. So, don't compare us to freeloaders.
Compare us to people who are paying their full freight.
Then you've got a comparison.
Yeah, it's easy to be Costa Rica, isn't it?
So Costa Rica has no military, right?
They have zero military, I believe.
And, you know, they've got great...
And Costa Rica also doesn't exploit its mineral resources that it has.
Rather, they're trying to be a green, touristy country.
Do you know why Costa Rica can be just a green, touristy country with no military?
It's because of the United States.
It's because they're freeloaders.
They're smart. They're doing exactly what I would do.
I mean, Costa Rica is one of the best-run countries, in my opinion.
Like, strategy-wise, it's really well-run.
But it's only because it's free.
Like, it doesn't take any kind of genius to say, well, we've got free stuff, let's use it.
Switzerland is full of guns, and also there's no reason to attack Switzerland.
Geographically, they're sort of irrelevant.
The United States is an economy, not really a country.
history.
I'd have to think about that for a while.
All right, let's think about that together.
The United States is an economy, not a country.
Huh. Provocative.
I like it. All right.
You never see a Costa Rican illegal immigrant.
Boom. I live in California, so I have personally met every kind of immigrant you could possibly meet.
I've never met one from Costa Rica.
That is exactly correct.
I've met probably every other Central American type.
Well, maybe not. I haven't really thought about it that hard.
But I've never met a Costa Rican immigrant.
You're right. Because in Costa Rica, you can just get a job.
They're doing a good job there.
I'm being challenged...
All right, here's my challenge, in all caps.
From the right-lane bandit.
He says, I challenge you to look at murder rate by race of USA compared to other countries.
No difference. So the argument would be that white people in America have a murder rate that would be similar to, say, white people in France.
Is that true? I don't know.
No, to me that has more to do with economic situation.
Oh, somebody's saying that the Joe Biden comment was Rupard, taking that out of context, because when he said you taking that out of context, because when he said you could send him to jail, that it was in the joke context of playing Monopoly.
I accept that clarification, but I don't know that that changes it.
Does it? If the President of the United States jokes...
That his political opponents should go to jail.
I don't think it matters that he was in the context of monopoly and monopoly has a go-to-jail function.
Even if you knew that, I mean, that gives me a little context, so that's a good clarification.
But I don't think that matters, does it?
Because it's still part of normalizing it, isn't it?
I mean, the reason that you don't let, or let's say society does not want you to be able to tell horrible jokes about, let's say, the LGBTQ community or women or minorities, the reason that you don't want to be able to talk about them in a jokingly insulting criminal way is that it becomes normalized.
And somebody thinks, oh, that's just the way we treat that group.
If we can say things about them, then we can certainly just do things to them, because that must be what everybody feels.
We're saying it right out loud.
So there's no way that the monopoly thing softens the fact that Biden just normalized locking up Republicans by joking about it.
Like, ah, no big deal.
Yeah, lock them up. Now, when Trump said about Hillary Clinton, lock her up, He was talking about one person, right?
One person who we now know was behind the Russia collusion hoax.
Now, I guess that's not illegal.
I guess.
You know, somebody who was associated with the Clinton Foundation or whatever it is, that probably was just an influence-buying thing, but probably not totally illegal...
So I think in Trump's case, he was specific to a person.
He wasn't saying lock up Democrats.
If Trump ever...
Let me say it really clearly.
If Trump had ever joked, even in the context of monopoly, if Trump had ever joked about locking up Democrats in general, or like his opponents in general, I wouldn't be cool with that.
Not even a little bit, would you?
But if he says he's going to lock up Hillary, you know, I think he was actually serious about that.
And that was for specific things that she did.
It wasn't because she's a Democrat.
The audience said lock her up, but he embraced it.
All right. Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes our highly entertaining, best thing that ever happened to you, live stream for today.
Let us go forth and build back better and make America great for the first time or again, depending on your point of view.
And would anybody like a closing simultaneous sip?
Yes, you would, but only if you're ready.
Because the simultaneous sip that closes this live stream waits for no one.
Go! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is it for today.
