Episode 1786 Scott Adams: Join Me And Find Out Why You Shouldn't Mix Up Meds Before Livestreaming
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Suggestions for the Supreme Court
Ghislaine Maxwell on suicide watch
Max Boot says Supreme Court is illegitimate
Bill Maher embraces America First?
Anna Navarro vs special needs kids?
Ukraine Fatigue, a race against time
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, I think I usually say the highlight of civilization.
But today? Well, anything could happen today.
You're going to find out why in a minute.
And before we delve into that...
Let's jump right into the Simultaneous Sip, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gels, a cyan, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go. Now, I need to start with a confession, because I don't know what you're going to see this morning.
I really don't. And the confession is this.
In order for you to understand this, you have to have some background, a little context.
Some of you don't have this context, so I'll just fill in gaps.
There's a big difference between somebody who's a chronic marijuana smoker, let's say somebody who has a prescription for health reasons, and somebody who dabbles with it and does it occasionally.
And the difference is that one of them will get a real, you know, head high, I guess you could call it, and the one who does it every day will just say, oh, I had a good day today.
But it won't be, you know, weird, I'm so high, I can't do things kind of high.
So that's the first part of the context.
The second part is that there are two main types of marijuana.
One is called sativa, and it can lift you up and make you a little bit smarter and more creative for a little while, especially for the first hour or so.
And it can actually make you better at what you're doing if you're doing something that's creative, right?
Don't try to operate heavy equipment necessarily.
But the other kind is the opposite.
Most people don't know this.
It's basically, you could almost think of them as two completely different medications.
The other is called Indica, and it would be best used by somebody who needs to chill out and somebody who wants to go to bed.
Just have a good night's sleep.
So one lifts you up and makes your brain work a million miles a minute for a little while.
And another one just slows you down.
Well, here's my confession.
So I have a prescription, so I'm a completely legal medical marijuana user.
And because I'm chronic, I can do what a, let's say, a weekend user couldn't do.
Which is, I can smoke a shit ton of marijuana right before I go on a live stream, and you wouldn't know the difference.
If it's sativa.
But, if you were to make the tragic mistake of having a show that has to go on every day at the same time no matter what, whether you're sick, or you've got COVID, it doesn't matter.
Nothing will stop the show.
And then on top of that, You mix up your two lids and you mistakenly take the indica when really what would have been the right solution would have been the sativa.
Now, I don't know what's going to turn out this morning, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be less professional than usual.
That feels good. And right after I made this tragic mistake, I have this recollection of tweeting, and I want to see if I tweeted anything embarrassing.
Did I tweet anything embarrassing in the last few minutes?
Let's see. Checking my Twitter feed.
So I tweeted the show.
That's good. And below that, here's a tweet.
I guess I sent this 18 minutes ago.
Glass half full.
The Supreme Court decision on Roe vs.
Wade is a huge victory for oral sex.
Okay. Well, let's just continue with the show.
First item. Now, I tweeted this the other day, and I think it's an awesome idea.
And... It's based on the fact, have you heard of these ADUs?
It stands for, what's it called?
Additional dwelling unit or something.
But the laws have changed so that you can make a little bit of a tiny little house or a tiny little office in your backyard.
And accessory?
Accessory dwelling unit.
So you can put a little extra house in your backyard, but it's tiny.
And there are a number of companies that make them.
And I had the following thought.
Because a number of people throughout my life have said some version of this.
I'd love to start my own business doing some kind of personal service.
Doing nails or doing hair or massage or acupuncture or something like that.
And always the problem is where to do it.
Because rents would be high or, you know, there's just always a problem of where to do it.
And I thought to myself, why couldn't you make these ADUs, some of them, specialty made for a certain profession?
So, for example, you'd have one that would be just for people who want to do nails.
They could just put it in their backyard and they're in business and nobody has to go in the house.
And I thought to myself, that's going to happen, right?
Because... Well, let me ask you in the comments.
Let me ask you in the comments. I'll bet there's somebody here just watching this right now who knows somebody or is somebody who would be able to immediately start a business if you only had, like, a cheap little nice little office or service area.
How many... Yeah, now let's assume that the zoning laws are going to allow it.
Look, you're already saying yeses go by.
So I think the... The market, yeah, a bunch of people are saying yes.
Actually, more than I thought. I figured there would be a smattering, but there are quite a few people saying yes.
Yeah, because it seems like everybody knows someone who needs an office, and in many cases, that's getting the capital or even the credit, I guess, to rent a space.
It's kind of hard if you don't already have an income or you're not already in the business.
So couldn't you do pop-up businesses?
And if you think about it, there really are a ton of businesses that people could do immediately if they just had a little space.
And I guess it would have to be a zoning law change as well.
Meth lab. Somebody's suggesting a meth lab.
I love my audience.
All right. Here's a thought that I was smart enough not to tweet because it requires a little bit of conversation.
So you know I'm not completely serious, but maybe I am, but sort of.
But maybe it's the bad idea that makes you think of the good idea.
How about that? So don't think that this is 100% serious.
Maybe it just makes you think of a better idea.
So the conversation going on now is about whether the The Supreme Court is legitimate, and whether this decision is democratic, and whether it makes sense to have judges make decisions on things that maybe the majority should be making instead.
Those are good questions.
But I would like to toss this thought into the mix.
Suppose you said, or suppose the Supreme Court had an internal rule That if there was a decision that was primarily about one, let's say, gender's body, that only the supreme justices of that gender would make the decision.
Now, the first thing you're going to say is, wait, that would change some decisions.
Well, maybe it would in the short run.
But it would also tell you you better nominate some women, right?
Right? Now, you wouldn't get the decision you wanted probably on abortion.
So it doesn't work in terms of getting you what you want right away.
But if you were going to fix...
I'm seeing a woman commenting on locals that she's a woman and women are the worst, so you can't let them do that.
No, I think for credibility...
All right, so here's the modified version of that.
It seems that people don't like that idea.
All right, so you don't like that idea.
That's okay. Let's back off that.
We're brainstorming, so we just back off that one.
How about this? If it's a decision about a woman's body, you let the decision, both the majority and the minority opinion, be written by women.
And vice versa.
If it's something that is only about a man's body, let's say.
Because there might be something about that.
How about that? So even if...
Just it has to come from a woman.
No. No. Somebody says, shut up, stoner boy.
Yeah, maybe we'll go to the next issue.
Yeah, I think anything that would change, anything that would risk this audience thinking that they would get a different result would be, you know, it would look bad for you, I guess.
And what is a woman, you ask?
Okay. Did you see the Kamala Harris tweet and the photo of her standing next to a TV on the private plane?
So there's this horrible photo.
I think maybe I have to show it, if I can find it quickly.
Oh, yeah, I can. Look at that.
So if you can see this, so there she is, and she's on a private plane, and she's looking, you know, all serious because she's looking at the Roe v.
Wade decision protesters.
And And what she says is, in the tweet, I know there are women out there who are afraid.
To those of you who feel alone and scared, I want you to know the president and I are fighting for you and your rights.
So here they are fighting, fighting away.
Kamala's fighting. And the way she's fighting is by riding a private jet and watching TV. So look at her in the fight there.
Now, my favorite part of this is that, can you see?
Can you see that there's some kind of an aide who's running out of the door?
And some of the bad rap that Kamala Harris gets is that she doesn't hire good and smart people.
But I think this proves that she hired at least one, because there was somebody who knew not to be in this picture.
And as soon as the camera came out, you could see this aide saying, ah, scurry, scurry.
So the aide is like, don't get me in this picture.
No, no, no.
But nobody stopped to tell Kamala that, first of all, she looked like...
Who is the...
Nobody told her that the Henny Youngman pose is not your best look.
Is anybody old enough to remember Henny Youngman?
Sure. Or is there Ed Sullivan?
Don't do the Ed Sullivan.
Sure. Sure.
We've got a very big act there.
They're coming in and out of England.
They're called The Beatles.
Don't do the Ed Sullivan.
Somebody should remind her.
Second thing...
And it's possible...
I'm going to do a close-up on the assistant running out of the room.
So it's a female assistant.
That's all we know. We don't know who it is.
But it's possible that the assistant is a terrorist.
And the reason I say that is that there's somebody who does Kamala's hair, and as she's running out of the room, look at Kamala's hair.
So is it possible that this was her hairdresser who had committed this, obviously, domestic terrorist act on her hair?
Was she running away so that she didn't get caught on camera?
And so that's what I see.
I mean, I see Ed Sullivan, the victim of a terrible domestic hairstyle attack, possibly.
All right. So the news is that Ghislaine Maxwell has been placed on suicide watch just days before her sentencing hearing.
But her attorney says that she's not actually suicidal, which sounds a lot like a Monty Python skit.
Am I wrong? Does that...
Does it sound like a Monty Python skit?
Let me do this in Monty Python talk.
This would be the warden talking to Ghislaine.
So the warden's outside the cell and he says, Ms.
Maxwell, we've decided to place you on a suicide watch.
And Ghislaine says, suicide watch?
I'm not suicidal.
Yes, you are.
Yeah, you're looking a little down lately.
No, I'm not. I'm feeling perfectly fine.
I don't think so.
We've noticed you a little restless.
Pretty sure you're desperately sad and suicidal.
I'm really not. In fact, I've been digging a tunnel.
Look under the bed. I'm halfway done.
I've got two, three days left.
I'll be out of here. I'm feeling great.
I've never felt better.
No, I think you're just on the edge of hanging yourself or possibly beating yourself to death with a heavy object.
I actually feel fine and I'm going to escape.
Why would I beat myself to death with a heavy object?
That's the kind of bad thinking that makes us think you're suicidal.
Or something. But I'd call that foreshadowing.
Foreshadowing. Do you believe in the slippery slope?
Yes or no. Is the slippery slope real?
Or, as I've been telling you forever, it's the worst way to think about things.
Now, in my opinion...
It's that the slippery slope is subjective and therefore useless for decision-making.
Because if there's something you don't want to happen, you say it's a slippery slope.
But if it's something you do want to happen, what do you call it?
Progress. Progress.
So your slippery slope might be my progress, and vice versa.
So it's such a subjective standard that I say, don't use the slippery slope.
But if you do use it, I wonder if you're using it in this example.
So their protesters are saying this Supreme Court ruling on Roe v.
Wade is a slippery slope, and the next thing you know, you'll see bans on same-sex marriages, You'd see contraceptive bans, and you'd see criminalized homosexuality.
Now, if you believe in the slippery slope, do you believe these are next?
Most of you are slippery slopers.
What do the slopers say?
Is that a word?
What do you think? Is this decision the first step in what will surely be the criminalization of same-sex marriages and maybe homosexuality itself?
Well, let me tell you something that the left doesn't understand about the right.
Here's something the left doesn't understand about the right.
I don't know the last time, if ever...
I've talked to a Republican who was very concerned about what you put in your various holes.
You know, who put what in whose body hole?
As long as you don't do it on their lawn, they really, really don't care.
And I would say even gay marriage, which at one point was, you know, a sensitive thing.
Is there any Republican now who's saying, oh...
That gay marriage ruined everything.
Are they? I don't know.
I've never met one. I've never even heard a Republican even talk about it.
It's not even a topic. When was the last time you heard a Republican complaining about or even caring in any way about somebody's sexual preference?
It's just not even a thing.
So to imagine that the slippery slope would go to there would be...
I don't know. You have to have a good imagination to get to that point.
Same with contraceptive bans.
I just can't see any of that happening.
Can you? I mean, legitimately, can you see any of that happening?
No. Well, believe it or not, Max Boot had a fascinating tweet thread with some context.
But I'm going to put some context on his context.
I'm going to high ground his contacts like hell.
So we're going to start out showing that Max Boot is making a good analysis.
It actually is pretty good.
And it goes like this.
Max Boot tweet thread.
And the point of it is he's saying that the Supreme Court is illegitimate.
As it's formed. And here's his argument.
He says, Bush versus Gore elevated George W. Bush to the presidency after he lost the popular vote.
And that, in turn, led to the appointments of Roberts and Alito.
So the first thing is that a person who was not elected by the majority of voters put two conservatives on the court.
Next, when Scalia died, Republicans in the Senate denied even hearing for the Obama nominee in a historic break from norms, and that allowed a president, Trump, who lost the popular vote, see here's the theme, to make three appointments.
So in both cases, now we've got five appointments by presidents who were not elected by the popular vote.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know.
That's not how our system works.
We'll get to that. And then Max Boot says, it cannot be repeated enough.
This extremist SCOTUS majority was created by presidents who lost the popular mandate, one of whom won the presidency in part through the activism of the Supreme Court right wing in Bush first corps, another who got to a point in Obama vacancy.
And then Mack says, this is an extreme version of the minority governing the majority.
There has been the GOP playbook for some time now, and these unelected right-wing judges could be on the court in, like, 2060, thanks to lifetime appointments.
He says this is totally unsustainable.
It's not just an election cycle issue.
It's a functioning democracy issue.
And then he says that the court has to be reformed, but he's not specific about how to do that.
Now, that's kind of an interesting context, isn't it?
Because, really, a lot of things had to happen coincidentally to be where we are.
Am I right? I mean, these were really close elections.
You had to have a system that would allow a person who lost the popular vote to win anyway.
We had that.
But didn't we reduce our government to chance?
Is that what we did?
Because I feel like that's what we did.
We took this really good idea, you know, the Constitution, and it had a lot of merit.
But somewhere along the line, and it probably had to do with the news dividing us, somewhere along the line, everything went to hell.
And now we're actually at a point where when we observe why Roe v.
Wade was overturned, The only reason that makes sense to me is it was just chance.
It was just chance.
Because it was chance that got us Trump at the exact year that there were justices up for nomination.
It was kind of chance I mean, who saw it coming that Mitch McConnell could hold open, you know, could break precedent and get away with it?
It was kind of a chance.
And even as Max Boo correctly says, if it was because the court was already had some right-leaning people on it, that's the only reason things went the way they went from now, I feel like we took this great system and because we're just all shit,
As humans, we divide it into two teams, and then we ruin the whole point of the Supreme Court by nominating people whose votes we already knew in advance.
We're just assholes, basically.
We took this great system, and we broke it in the only way you could possibly break it by knowing in advance how everybody's going to vote before you put them on the Supreme Court, which defeats the whole purpose.
You could actually just get rid of the Supreme Court.
Because they've made themselves obsolete by always voting the way you think they're going to vote.
I mean, not every time, I'll give you that.
But it feels like it on the big stuff.
I mean, you know, big surprise.
Roe versus Wade went this way because the judges went that way.
So we should not be proud of the fact that we figured out how to take the greatest system ever devised, and because we're basically all assholes, we found the only way to break it.
By guaranteeing that we never put together a credible Supreme Court and that they would always just vote with their political bias and then they would paper it over with some rationale after the fact.
Because that's what you got. That's what you got!
Now, I blame the news business mostly for dividing us, but we let it happen.
We watch it right in front of us and we still let it happen.
We could agree with each other.
It's an option. Like, we could work things out.
It's happened before. We were more reasonable before.
But for some reason, we all took the lead from the news and decided that being completely unreasonable is the only way to go.
Because that's how you win. But maybe it is.
Maybe that's why the right won.
Because they fought it like it was a genuine war.
Well, watching Bill Maher turn into a Republican is my favorite hobby now.
And this most recent, his Friday show...
I didn't see it all, but I saw the relevant clips.
And it's just a classic.
And I'm going to try to summarize his argument.
He's saying that basically what's wrong with the Democrats as a party that can get enough people to vote for them, what they're doing wrong is that they're not supporting their own base.
They're not acting like lawyers for their base.
So this is how Bill Maher said it.
What you want is a lawyer like Johnny Depp had.
If you have a good lawyer, you get good results.
And he said, the Democrats are not acting like good lawyers for their clients, which are the Democrats.
Now, what does that sound like?
He's not treating...
So they're not acting like a lawyer who would treat their own client as their number one priority.
What's that sound like?
Sounds like America first.
Literally. It's like somehow he got all the way back to America first but had to go through like a lawyer thing to get there.
And I'm just amazed.
And Bill Maher also said this.
Here's some quotes. He said, Trump could win 2024 so easy if he just let go of 2020.
Now, Probably every Republican agrees with that, right?
If you just don't make it easy for the other side to call you an insurrectionist, just don't make it easy.
It's like the only thing that can go wrong.
Just don't make it easy.
And Maher says that Trump is the only guy who can lose to Biden, which I think is true, and points to DeSantis as a strong candidate.
Right. Bill Maher is saying DeSantis is a strong candidate.
He doesn't agree with him. He says he's way too conservative.
But he says, not nuts.
So this is Bill Maher saying that DeSantis is way too conservative, but not nuts.
Right. He is this close to voting for him.
And the way too conservative part is probably stuff that the Supreme Court handles anyway.
But, you know, I guess you'd get more judges like that if you have more Republican presidents.
So, it's just fascinating to watch that happen.
The National Review is writing that just because Trump got lucky, basically, and it was in the right time, doesn't mean he gets credit.
So they're trying to remove credit from Trump for essentially being the main reason that the court is conservative and therefore Roe v.
Wade got overturned. Can we say at this point that he is the most consequential president?
I mean, he's right up there.
Now, that was always my prediction, is he would be one of the most consequential presidents.
And then the jokesters say, oh, he was consequential in a bad way.
But I feel like at this point, whether you like it or not, He said, I will deliver a set of things to Republicans.
He came pretty close.
I mean, you know, everybody complains about the border, but, you know, in my opinion, he tried pretty hard.
It was just hard.
And, you know, the things I wish he had done more about, like health care, but he didn't promise much on that, so...
Maybe he did.
Maybe he did overpromise on that, actually.
So CNN found a way.
Well, let's just tell the story and you'll see.
So if you saw Anna Navarro, she was passionately arguing in favor of abortion rights.
Part of her explanation about the importance of them is that not every family has the mental health and the resources to handle a special needs child.
Now, what do you hear when you hear that?
Do you hear that the way I hear it?
And the way other people heard it?
I'm going to try to be consistent and say, hey, 48 hours to clarify.
But I feel like she said directly exactly what she was thinking.
That if you knew somehow early on that your potential child was going to have some special needs, that some people in some situations would be better off having the option of terminating.
Now, There are plenty of people who have that opinion, but I'm wondering if she actually meant to say it.
What do you think? Do you think she meant to say that out loud on TV? I feel like we need to give her a day, because she might want to modify that.
I've been a big critic of her in the past, but I can't release on my standard just yet.
I feel like, give her two days.
See what happens.
Maybe... Yeah, then somebody...
I saw...
Was it Brendan Strzok or somebody?
Said that she was saying the quiet part out loud.
You know, that's an overused saying.
But I felt like it fit this time.
It's... It was kind of shocking.
And even Essie Kopp, who works also for CNN, who apparently has an autistic kid, she says, and disagrees with Anna Navarro's characterization.
So Essie Kopp took it the same way I took it, and she works on the same network.
But still, give her a day.
She might want to modify that.
You never know. But maybe she doesn't.
You know, I would respect her.
I would respect her if she said, yes, that's exactly what I meant.
You know, you could agree or disagree with it, but then you could at least respect that she said what she meant.
And directly. But I think she did.
I mean, I actually think she said what she meant.
It looks like it. But we'll let her see.
All right. There's a huge spike in Google searches for how to move to Canada.
Have you... Of course, because Canada has very liberal abortion laws, I guess you can get abortion for practically any reason.
That's probably an exaggeration, but they're very, let's say, very flexible in Canada.
And I wonder, how could that ever make sense?
Economically, could it ever make sense to move to Canada versus to fly to California to get an abortion?
I mean, just the economics of it don't make sense.
It's like, ooh. Is that how you're going to make your stand?
By doing the least economical thing you could do?
All right. But I think Canada is always our universal escape hatch, mentally.
Every time something bad happens, it's like the Vietnam draft.
I'm going to Canada.
Trump's elected. I'm going to Canada.
Roe v. Wade gets dropped.
I'm going to Canada. I wonder if Canada has anything to say about this.
I wonder if Canada watches our politics and they say, don't do that.
No. No.
No. No. I can't do a Canadian accent.
They'd be like, no. No.
Don't do that. Don't make that ruling, Supreme Court.
That's a terrible accent, isn't it?
Because they don't want people to storm into Canada.
See, that would be the point of that.
CNN had some fake-ish news.
You know, I'm watching them now to see if they're serious about their turn toward the center.
And maybe they are.
Maybe they are. But...
The way I would have phrased this story was a bunch of protesters surrounded a truck on all sides, and they were beaten on the truck and trying to prevent it from doing something.
And the truck, you know, kept going forward somewhat low speed, you know, just to try to shake them off.
And maybe some of them got hurt attacking the truck.
So to me, this is a story about protesters attack truck and get hurt in the process.
CNN says, truck hits abortion rights protesters.
Which, I guess from a physics standpoint, the truck did hit the protesters.
So from a strictly, you know, physical perspective, yes.
But wouldn't it be more appropriate to talk about the intentions of all people involved?
The intention of the truck driver was to live.
The intention of the protesters was to do something bad to the person or the truck.
I mean, I feel like the story should be more about the intention of the people involved and a little bit less about the vehicle.
I recently had a situation where I had to move a person away from my car.
So I'm a little sensitive to this.
And I just moved them with my car.
So it turns out that if you press a car into a person, they get out of the way.
And I actually had to do this the other day.
Don't ask why. Some people get mad about some things.
It wasn't anybody I knew, by the way.
Here's a probable fake news alert.
Probable fake news alert.
Probable fake news alert.
Meaning, meaning, that here's something that's on the internet, but not on regular news.
When you see something that everybody is passing around on the internet, but not a single regular news big outlet wants to touch it, is it real?
Because at least you could get the people on the left or the people on the right to like it, even if it's not real, usually.
No, it wasn't anybody I know.
It was literally somebody I'd never seen before.
All right. I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That's all you need to know. So...
What do you think about this story?
That there's a massive drop in babies being born in Germany after the pandemic started, which was around the time of vaccinations.
Now, I don't believe that we have scientific evidence that vaccinations changed pregnancies.
In terms of something that you would see in terms of the entire rate of births.
I'm not saying that there are not individual cases, because I'm sure that you always have those, probably with every vaccination.
But in terms of larger statistical, you can really see the top line, a gigantic drop in births.
Now this is going around the internet.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think it's true that there's been a gigantic drop in births in Germany since around the time of the vaccinations?
Which doesn't mean the vaccinations are the cause, by the way.
So even the people who are passing around are not saying, it's definitely the cause.
They're saying, what's going on here?
And shouldn't we be looking at this?
Well, I don't think it's real.
What do you think? I would keep an open mind on that one, but I'm guessing that's not real.
I believe that the country is suffering from what I'll call Ukraine fatigue.
Are we done with Ukraine?
Because the news is treating it like the permanent news now.
It's like, and some missiles landed in Kiev.
So, and let's talk about something else.
Wait, that's the capital.
I thought they were done with the capital.
Well, it looks like Putin is doing exactly what you would do if you were Putin.
He consolidated the important strategic parts of Ukraine, and now he's grinding down the Ukraine military that had to be there.
So he had concentrated the Ukraine military, he's grinding it into dust, and then he'll take the rest of Ukraine.
Does that look like what's happening?
And it doesn't look like he's going to be crippled by the economic stuff.
But there is a rush against time.
In my opinion, the sanctions on Russia when it starts to affect their spare parts will be crippling.
But... It won't be crippling for a while because they can always move things around and make new and, you know, things.
But in the long run, I think if the sanctions stay on Russia, all of their important industries will fall apart because they just want parts.
Unless China jumps in fast enough.
I guess that's always a possibility.
But... It depends on which parts, yeah.
So I feel as if there's a race against time.
So the Russians need to finish with Ukraine as soon as possible so that they can act like good players and try to get the sanctions dropped eventually, or at least sooner than later.
And we're hoping that the sanctions slow them down, I guess.
Now, here's what it seems to me We could say was the Biden administration's strategy.
Because I think they said it down loud, didn't they?
Do me a fact check on this, because I may be almost right but not right on this.
It seems to me that at this point it looks like the Biden administration sacrificed Ukraine to damage Russia.
And to degrade them militarily and economically.
And if we could degrade them militarily and economically, then as long as there wasn't a nuclear war, we would come out way ahead, because we'll be basically competing with them all over the world, and so we want them to be as suppressed as possible.
And that we never meant to help Ukraine, although if Ukraine had just won the war outright, we would have been happy.
But I think from the United States perspective, we had two ways to win.
And this is not my definition of winning, because I don't think there's any winning going on here.
But one way to win is Ukraine just pushes Russia back and just wins flat out.
Now, I don't think there was much a chance that they would win, like, all of it flat out.
But that would be one way.
The other way is to lose.
But lose slowly. And lose in a way that there's like a permanent resistance.
Because I think Russia's military will just be bogged down for a long time with this permanent resistance.
Every time they send some heavy equipment in, some American-built equipment will be fired by a Ukrainian and destroy the Russian heavy equipment.
So I think we found...
We basically created a sinkhole...
That Putin will be just driving his military into it for years.
So are we trying to take down the Soviet Union by bleeding them to death in Afghanistan?
Is it basically the same strategy?
Is to get them involved in a war they can't win but don't put our own soldiers in there?
That's what it is, right?
Did... Somebody says you were wrong again.
Wrong now or wrong before?
I'm pretty willing to say that I'm wrong on Ukraine stuff.
I don't have any special skill with military predictions.
Russia is slowly using artillery to destroy said sinkhole.
Yeah, it's a race against time.
But the thing is that no matter how much Russia destroys Ukraine, it's a big enough place that there will always be resistance, right?
So as long as there's an active, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained resistance, it's just going to be really expensive for Russia in a long time.
So it looks like we're trying to outspend Russia and not go bankrupt before they do.
But I don't think that part worked.
All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the worst livestream in the history of livestreams.
Or possibly the best, I don't know.
Could be the best.
You be the judge.
One of the best.
Okay.
All right. Scott looks like he's about to cry over Roe vs.
Wade. Do you think you know my opinion?
The thing I say the most is that as long as I'm not a chest-feeding, birthing person, I'm not going to give you my opinion.
If I were a woman, you'd hear my opinion about abortion.
I wouldn't shut up about it.
But I'm not.
So I'd rather take myself out of that fight and talk about it.
All right.
Please discuss COVID survival strategies.
is-- Old topic. Comments about where Elon is.
Oh, there's an interesting question.
Did Elon Musk sort of stop tweeting for a little while?
Maybe they're just trying to complete the Twitter deal or something.
I don't know. Or he's on summer vacation.
Oh, a heart.
He hasn't tweeted in four days.
Somebody said, interesting. Have you ever been involved in an abortion?
That's a personal question.
Let's say, involved, the only way I know I've been involved is I once accompanied somebody.
Like, if ever something of mine was imported, I'm not aware of it.
But I once accompanied somebody.
You were not notified.
God.
You know, Elon Musk was working on escaping Earth in his rocket.
Alright, I think we've done everything we need to do today.
And so, this concludes the YouTube portion of Coffee with Scott Adams.
