Episode 1818 Scott Adams: How Democrats Solved All Of Our Problems By Redefining Words
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Saudi 1/2 trillion dollar smart city
Elon Musk's 3D printed city technologies
Democrats redefine words to solve problems
Congress intentionally misnames bills
Defending the lack of National Guard on J6
Defending AOC's no cash bail position
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 amazing episode of Coffee with Scott Evans, the best thing that's ever happened to you in your whole life.
I hate it when my nose is running as soon as I go live.
It's like psychological. Well, but enough about me.
More about you. What could we do to make your day amazing?
Well, I've got an idea, and it begins with a cup or munger, a glass, a tank or chelsea, and 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.
It's called Simultaneous Sip.
Hold on. Hold on.
I'm getting a note from Democrats.
It's no longer called the simultaneous ep.
They're redefining it.
Quick, before they redefine it, do it!
Do it! I think we got in under the wire.
Well, here's some big news.
Joy Behar of The View.
You might know her as no friend of Republicans.
I don't know if you've heard, but she's not a big fan of President Trump.
Have you heard? And even she said of the January 6 hearings that there's no way Trump is going to be prosecuted because they found nothing.
Even Joy Behar said out loud in public that if all they have is the word find, that word means something else.
Joy frickin' Behar just got out of the bubble.
Did you think she was going to escape the bubble first?
I somehow imagined the bubble that the left is in, that she'd be the last one out.
She got out of the bubble.
Now, I don't know if she could stay out, but she literally could see the January 6th thing for what it actually is.
And I can't think of one other prominent Trump supporter who's done that yet.
Is there any other example?
Is there any... You know, well-known pundit who was anti-Trump, who's looked at it and said, yeah, I'm still anti-Trump, but I've got to admit, there's nothing there in that January 6th stuff.
Anyway, to me, that was big news.
Here's some more big news.
I've told you before that the biggest market in the future will be building cities from scratch.
Because we're so much better at knowing what it is that somebody would need in the modern world, trying to retrofit our old buildings for the modern lifestyle doesn't make sense.
We have so much better ways to be, you know, zero energy and everything else.
And so the Saudis, I didn't know about this, they started like a half a trillion dollar smart city And they'll have all these underground layers of services and transportation.
So above those layers would be the homes itself.
And they'd have everything from...
The city would be designed so that everybody can walk to everything they need.
So nothing would be outside walking distance.
So you would never really need a car, you know, except to leave the city, I suppose.
It's supposed to be zero energy, and part of their thing would be a floating city that's just offshore.
So they've figured out how to make a floating city, connected to land still, so it's not floating way out.
But they've apparently designed a floating city.
They think that they can make that work.
Now think about that.
The Saudis are building a zero-energy city.
The Saudis can see the future.
This is what I had hoped America would be first at, but it's hard to accept that America is not sort of the leader in doing cool, futuristic things anymore.
It used to be it was just us.
Don't you remember that? I felt like if there was any kind of futuristic thing being built at all, it was always America.
But now this Audi seems to be way ahead of everybody, building this futuristic city.
But along those lines, I realized yesterday that Elon Musk has sort of slowly assembled a 3D printer to make entire cities.
Do you believe that?
That Elon Musk has assembled the assets to create a 3D printer to just print a city.
Here's what I mean. So here's what he already has.
He's got this boring company, you know, these gigantic devices that bore tunnels.
And so if you wanted to build something like this Saudi futuristic smart city, you'd need a lot of underground facilities.
So he's got that.
So he's got the boring company to build the tunnels.
He had announced some time ago that they figured out how to make a brick maker so that the dirt from the tunnels can be pressed into bricks on site.
So you turn the dirt into bricks.
He has also announced that he's building robots.
So Tesla will have a robot.
And also, he's deeply invested in AI, both through Tesla and other investments.
And then, of course, he's got the solar panel stuff, you know, the solar wall for your home, to have a zero-energy home.
So think about it.
Imagine this boring thing, you know, going through and making underground tunnels.
The bricks, the dirt is being turned into bricks on site.
The robots are taking the bricks and assembling them, according to an AI guidance.
And they're built to the best-designed homes, so you don't have to worry if the home is poorly designed, because it's the best design ever.
The AI just found the best design ever and built a little home.
And then after the little home is built, the robot slaps on some solar panels and makes it zero energy.
And you basically, you could basically just 3D print a town without any humans involved.
You're very close.
You could have the whole city being built by robots without any human being even being on site once you just, you know, release them to do their thing.
Well, what else is new and wonderful?
There's a startup in the East Coast called Wonder.
And they have food delivery trucks, but here's the wrinkle.
They finish cooking the food in the truck at your curb.
So what's the worst thing about pickup food?
It gets, like, a little soggy by the time it gets to you.
There's a lot of food that doesn't travel.
But you don't also want to go there to the restaurant.
It's got its own problems.
So now there's a high-end truck.
It's like a little kitchen in it.
And the food, I think, is prepped so it's almost cooked.
So they just finish it when they get there, which is easier.
So they don't have to be chefs.
They're just finishing. And apparently people like it.
But the green people are complaining because it's a diesel truck.
So apparently a big diesel truck parks in front of your suburban home for two hours or whatever it takes, maybe an hour.
And it's basically a food truck, but it's high-end.
So you're getting high-end steaks and sushi and stuff that you wouldn't normally associate with a food truck.
Apparently, it's got like billions of dollars of funding.
Now, here's my problem with our food delivery.
And I'll give you an anecdote from my local Safeway.
So I happen to live in the town, by coincidence...
That is the headquarters for the Safeway grocery store brand.
So the Safeways in my town tend to be the ones that try things first, because that's where the CEO lives, and basically they can check it out easier, because it's right in town.
So one of the things my town has is these special new-age shopping carts, where you can scan your product as it's going into the cart.
And the car weighs it, and it's got some other technology.
It even has a camera, so it can tell if you put something in the car and it didn't scan properly.
It'll call somebody, whatever.
So isn't this great?
Now, when you hear that you can have all of your stuff paid for without standing in line, aren't you happy about that?
It's great, isn't it?
Well, there was one little wrinkle with the process.
They don't let you take these fancy carts into the parking lot.
What? That's right.
Once you've done your shopping, you have to unload your cart into a standard shopping cart, every item.
Now keep in mind that the items in your first shopping cart are not in bags.
It's the stuff you took right off the shelf.
So one item at a time, you reach into this fucking high-tech cart and put it into the low-tech cart while you're swearing.
What fucking piece of technology is making me...
This piece of shit, why did I waste my goddamn fucking time doing this?
If you're going to make me just move every little fucking piece of tic-tac and eyedrop and fucking vegetable one at a fucking time from this one to this one, by the time you're done, You want to rip the store apart for putting you through it.
It's like, the whole point of this thing was to save me time, and I can't even believe how hard it is.
Now, you might even say to yourself, well, it'll still save time, you know, because it's not that hard to move it in.
No, because the technology almost never works.
Almost every time you've got to call an assistant and wait for them and they'll pour through things and work it out.
So the technology is completely broken.
Here's what's wrong with food.
There are a hundred fucking people who have to touch it, including you, 15 times just to get it in your mouth.
You drive to the store.
You put it in your cart.
You take it out of the cart. You put it on the checker thing.
Checker puts it in the cart.
Cart into the fucking car.
Car into the fucking counter on the kitchen.
Counter into the fucking refrigerator.
Refrigerator. And that's like halfway through the process.
That's like halfway.
You've still got to cook the shit.
And throw it away and everything.
So... One of the things that I think the pandemic did for us is it sort of made us all deal with how bad our food delivery system is.
It's very inefficient.
We've got to get the production of the food right down close to your table and prepare it more easily.
Let the robots prepare it, grow the gardens locally.
There's probably some way to solve this, but the whole food delivery thing is just completely inefficient.
But maybe this wonder truck will be part of a solution.
In my perfect world, there would be trucks hovering nearby, and I would open my app, and I would see where the trucks are.
And I would see, oh, there's a truck that has good steaks over here, and this truck has some sushi.
And I'd say, oh, well, I'm not that hungry, so my favorite truck is pretty far away, but I don't mind because, you know, I'm not that hungry.
So it feels like my perfect world is to have the food ready to go on a truck, but never too far from my neighborhood, you know, within 20 minutes, that sort of thing.
Maybe that's where it's going.
So, well, let's put this all in context, could we?
All right? Let me summarize.
So we've got the Saudis building half-trillion-dollar smart cities.
Pretty impressive. Pretty impressive.
You've got Elon Musk, who's assembled so many assets doing other things that if he wanted, he could put them together and 3D print a city, which is kind of cool.
And then this wonder startup might be redefining food.
Those are big, big things, really changing the nature of civilization.
Let's see what the Democrats are doing.
So the Saudis and Musk and these startups are changing civilization itself in the most basic and important ways.
I'll check in with the Democrats.
Let's see the headlines, see what they've done for us today.
Well, they've re-engineered some common words.
They've also solved big problems.
Let me tell you about all the problems they've solved.
For example, I used to be worried about a recession, but they tell us that the definition of a recession has now miraculously changed from what they specifically told us in 2008.
Same people, actually. This guy named Brian Deese.
In 2008, he told us, economists have a technical definition of recession, which is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which we've had, And then yesterday, he's updated his definition of recession to two negative quarters of GDP growth is not the technical definition of recession.
What kind of an idiot thinks that?
Come on. So they saved us from recession by redefining the word.
But I'm still worried about inflation.
Aren't you? At least we dodged the recession by redefining the word.
But what about inflation?
Well, don't worry.
Don't worry. Democrats have you covered.
Yeah. They have decided to change the definition of inflation.
So that one's going away.
Now, these are not the only victories they've had.
They redefined a vaccination from something that protects you to something that maybe makes you not so sick.
They redefined the word find to be stealing and lying.
Recession, of course, has a new definition.
Insurrection. Insurrection used to mean trying to take over the government, usually an armed situation.
And now it's just complaining.
It's just complaining. They've redefined...
I just found this one out today.
That was at Planned Parenthood who redefined pregnancy.
You wouldn't think that could get redefined.
But they've made a distinction between ectopic pregnancy and those things which are real pregnancies, I guess by their definition, so that they could still have what you might call an abortion, but they wouldn't call it that because that's not really a pregnancy.
It's just some kind of an ectopic thing.
So they've redefined that away.
Fascism used to mean one thing, but now it means it a whole different thing.
Did you used to know what a woman was?
You used to know what a woman was.
Now, not so sure.
Not so sure. White supremacy means obviously anything you want it to mean.
Green, it used to mean no nuclear, which didn't make sense, but now it does include nuclear.
So they've redefined what green means.
Because they needed it to solve a problem.
As soon as they needed green to solve a problem, they changed the definition of it.
Do you notice any theme or pattern here?
The entrepreneurs and indeed other countries are doing gigantic things to re-engineer civilization and all of its systems.
The Democrats are telling us that we're using words wrong, but they're fixing it by changing the definitions and making all of our big problems go away.
So good for them.
And so now that they've made all of these terms mean something different than what you thought, I just published a Robots Read News comment.
You'll see that today.
And I just have one warning.
Now that we know all of these words that you used to know what they mean, mean something else.
The word I'm most worried about now is sustainable.
Because it seems like all the words started meaning the opposite of what they meant.
So they're working really hard to make the world sustainable.
And there was a time when I thought that meant, you know, you'd all get to stay alive and things would be fairly good.
But if they redefine that, it might mean to murder us all.
It could be coming. Well, this will surprise you quite a bit.
But trust in media has gone to an all-time low.
I wonder what happened.
Was there something that happened to the media that caused their credibility to start to...
You know, it's all Trump.
Trump actually destroyed the media because the media went after Trump.
And I think what he said is, well, you might take me down, but you're going with me.
What's Trump's popularity now?
High 30s, low 40s?
Well, the media's popularity is...
Public trust is down to 7%.
No, 7% is for Congress.
It's trusted less than TV news.
Only the Democratic-controlled Congress is less trusted than the news business, which is down to 11% trust the news.
And newspapers, 16%, also near the bottom.
So TV news and newspapers are basically completely mistrusted at this point in time.
I wonder what caused that.
And maybe I would suggest that we need a truth in naming law for legislation.
Because if you can create legislation that increases inflation, and you can name it the Inflation and Reduction Act, so that morons think they're voting for the wrong thing, I feel like you need some kind of law that says that the bill should say something about what is in there.
Or it should have a generic name.
Could you imagine forcing Congress to properly name their own bills?
They would never approve that, would they?
Because they know that the only way that they can make stuff work is to fool you into thinking of something else.
You don't believe that? You don't think that the government is intentionally fooling you so that they can get stuff approved?
Well, now there's this big spending bill, which isn't fully approved.
The Senate still has to approve it.
But if it gets approved, it's called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
And would you like to know what's in it?
Because it's like a really big spending bill.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to tell you what's in it.
Now, bear with me.
It's like a really big spending bill.
Tons of complexity.
But I feel like I can do this and keep your interest.
All right? You ready? So I went to CNN to find out what are the details of this giant bill because it's the number one headline.
So if the biggest headline in the country is this bill, there's going to be a lot of reporting on what's in it.
So I went to look for what's in it.
And apparently the Congress has released a one-page description.
What? What?
I thought I read that wrong.
No, I'm sorry, it's not a one-page description.
A one-page description would be like crazy for like a gigantic, you know, trillion-dollar bill.
It's actually a one-page fact sheet.
It's a one-page fact sheet.
I'm not making this up.
I'm not making this up.
Congress hasn't told us what's in the bill, or anybody else.
CNN doesn't know what's in the bill.
I'm not making that up.
Did you know that? It's the headline.
There is no document that tells us what's in the bill except a one-page fact sheet.
But I guess Medicare would be allowed to negotiate prices.
I like that part. That's good.
And let's see, what else?
A ton of money, $369 billion into energy and climate change programs, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 40% by 2030.
Okay. But...
I feel like that fact sheet...
Let me just mention this and see what you think.
So CNN reports there's a one-page fact sheet.
Just one page.
Wouldn't you think...
I don't know, this is just me.
But if Congress produced a one-page fact sheet...
First of all, there's no copyright problem on that, right?
If the government publishes something, we all own it.
So there's no copyright.
What would be the reason for CNN not to publish the one-page fact sheet?
Can you think of one? Why would the news not publish one page of a fact sheet?
Have you seen it? It exists.
They told us it exists.
You're telling me that a one-page fact sheet, just an image so that we can see what they saw, instead of relying on them to interpret the one page?
Really? Really?
You can't show me one page? Somebody says they don't have it.
Even worse. You don't think CNN can get a one-page fact sheet from somebody in Congress?
There's nobody in Congress that will give CNN the one-page fact sheet.
Really? Really?
Really? How can you conclude anything except your government and the news business, and the news business, don't want you to know what's in it?
How can you conclude anything else?
Because the bar of difficulty for showing you what's in it, at least the fact sheet, is zero.
Zero. There's no friction at all.
How hard is it for a news business to include an image on their webpage?
Zero. It's just what they do every day.
There's no extra. This is the news.
Here's the picture. Here it is.
Paste. How in the world can you explain that any other way than both the government and the news business, this is important, are colluding to not tell you what the government is doing?
And they're doing it right in front of you.
Right in front of you. There's no ambiguity about this whatsoever.
We're not telling you what's in the spending bill.
Every one of these motherfuckers should be fired.
All of them. Everybody in the news business who didn't report this the way I just did should be fired.
If you're in the news business and you say, well, Congress won't tell us the details, so we're not even going to report this motherfucker.
I'd say, okay, that's okay.
But if the news business colludes with the government to not tell you what's in a bill, they all need to be fired.
You know, the media, the government...
And that is a low behavior that's so far beyond.
And you know what most people think?
How many of you thought somebody must have seen the bill?
I bet you thought that, right?
Until I told you that nobody's seen it, didn't you think, well, somebody's seen it?
They voted on it.
Somebody's seen it. No.
I don't think the people who voted on it saw it.
Do you? Do you?
I assume the bill is some ginormous thing with many pages.
It's really boring. And if you looked at it, you might not even know what you were looking at.
If you were flipping through it and you saw some expenses, would you know this expense for this line item is too much or too little?
Not really. So I think that even the news says that if we looked at it, we wouldn't know what we were seeing.
So it's probably a document that by its design is made for you not to be able to penetrate it.
That's a real thing. I used to be my job to present information to management.
Do you think I ever presented it in a way that was designed to hide the truth?
Well, when I was asked to.
Yup. Sometimes you hid the truth.
It would be some truth you didn't think was useful, but that was your opinion.
So you'd basically be managing your superiors by hiding from them any truth that might be a problem to you.
So managers don't really manage.
I don't know if I'm the first one to tell you this.
Managers don't manage because they have to rely on their underlings to tell them what's true.
So the underlings decide what's true, and that defines what a leader could even make a decision on.
So, really? Yeah, really, the whole system is broken.
Remember I told you, was it a week or two ago, that I thought inflation had peaked?
And maybe you didn't believe me.
Wall Street Journal is reporting, at least in an opinion piece with lots of data to back it up, that inflation has probably peaked.
So, do I get an attaboy for that?
We don't know if it's true yet, just the Wall Street Journal.
But I did say it before the Wall Street Journal, and the Wall Street Journal gave us some backup.
Thank you. Thank you.
I got an attaboy there.
That's all I wanted. So I do think inflation peaked.
I think we're going to be okay.
I think the recession...
And by the way, let me say this publicly.
If Trump had told you...
That suddenly two periods of negative GDP growth no longer meant recession, because this is a special case, I actually would have supported that.
Because the economy is a psychology machine, and I've often said that the role of a leader is to be more optimistic than the facts allow.
To be more optimistic about the economy than the facts actually suggest.
You should be not crazy optimistic, but you should be above the actuality.
Because that's what gets people feeling positive about the economy, and then it's a self-fulfilling thing.
So, in this case, I'm going to agree with the Biden administration.
They're calling this recession...
Now, I do think they have to answer for the fact that they had a different definition than they did in 2008.
Do we all agree with that?
They have to answer to the fact that they changed the definition.
But they have a reason.
They have a reason. And the reason was, here's how I would have done.
So the Biden administration's spokespeople have completely botched...
Let me be the spokesperson for Biden for a minute, and I'll take the hard question that they couldn't answer.
Scott, you work for the Biden administration, hypothetically, and why did you used to say that the definition of recession was two consecutive quarters of GDP? You said that publicly and specifically, but now you say it's more of a holistic situation.
How do you explain that?
Easily, if you're not a fucking idiot.
You could do it too, right?
How hard would it be to explain that away?
You'd have to be an idiot not to be able to handle that easy question.
Let me do it for you. What's the name of the spokesperson?
Something, Gene?
I never remember her name.
It's like a three-word name.
What's the press secretary's name?
Not Fang Fang?
Stop it. All right, Corinne Jean-Pierre.
That's a hard name to remember, isn't it?
Karine Jean. Karine Jean.
If you remember that the first two rhyme, it's easier.
Karine Jean Pierre.
All right. So here is me doing her job.
Why did you change the definition of recession?
I say, well, the...
There's sort of a rule of thumb definition, the two consecutive periods of GDP. And I would say that for probably 98% of every case, that simple rule pretty much is accurate.
But there's a special case where the economists would say, and largely most of them would agree with this, that there is a special case.
And the special case would be when things get temporarily knocked down a whack, but for some reason you know that it's temporary.
That's what the pandemic did.
So the pandemic temporarily whacked us in a way that we know is recoverable, because we know what did it, we know how to get back.
So this isn't like a regular business as usual recession.
If this were business as usual, Then probably the two periods of GDP would capture everything you needed to capture, because there wouldn't be any other variables.
But when you're coming out of the pandemic, everything's upside down.
So for a while, our standard definitions probably won't work.
And that was a good rule of thumb, and we'll probably go back to it.
After we've chewed up the trouble from the pandemic, and we get back to some kind of a baseline, if you ask me again in five years to define a recession, I'd probably go back to the two You know, just say two periods of GDP. Because once the baseline is stable, then you could just say that rule of thumb starts working again.
But at the moment, there's a special case that it doesn't work.
And I think you're all adult enough to understand that even a simple rule of thumb would have exceptions.
We're all adult enough to understand that, aren't we?
There should be exceptions to any rule of thumb.
Tell me in the comments, did I not nail that?
I nailed it.
I absolutely, positively slayed it.
Now let me ask you this.
How fucking hard was that?
Not. It wasn't hard.
When you watch the best that the Biden administration can give you for a spokesperson, the best you can do, For a spokesperson is to act like you don't know how to answer that question?
That's really bad work.
Like, that's really bad work.
I don't think we can overlook that the spokesperson for the president is barely functional, in my opinion.
These are not hard questions to answer.
They're really not. They're really not.
What about when they say, why are you calling this gigantic bill the Inflation Reduction Act when you're spending a bunch of money?
And they'll be like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Here's how I'd answer it.
Well, what matters to people is how much they're spending.
Economists are going to call some of that inflation and some of it's other problems, supply chain, everything else.
But what matters is what you're paying.
So what this bill does is it's going to lower your health care costs, which are a big part of your spending.
Now that's not an answer to inflation in general, but I think you'll feel that in your pockets.
So while we can't solve inflation in general right away, we do have to work through this excess money that's in the system, there are a few things that we can do.
And I'd like you to know that just because we can't do everything, That doesn't mean we're not going to do the things we can do.
So while it's true that our title, the Inflation Reduction Act, you know, that's a little, let's say it's aspirational, the bill does have very specific things that we're sure you would agree will lower your costs in some big areas.
We're going to work on the rest because inflation is not something you solve with one spending bill.
I think you'd all agree with that.
But because it's so important that we get some of your key costs down, You're right.
There's a lot more work to do.
How hard would that be?
How hard would it be to explain?
Yeah, the title is a little aspirational.
You know, this won't solve all of inflation, but we're going to pick some key things, and I think we can take a bite out of a few key things, and that'll help you out.
How hard is that? That's not hard, right?
When you see how bad, or how badly, the representatives are explaining the Democrat stuff, it's just heartbreaking that they can't even explain their own position.
It's incredible. Here's a question that you haven't asked yourself.
I keep seeing a bunch of people complain about That Trump should have done more on January 6th, and specifically one of the things they say he should have done more of is to try to get a bigger military presence in the Capitol.
There's some grey area about whose job it is to do what, and who asked for what ahead of time, and who refused it.
And there's Mayor Bowser, and there's Nancy Pelosi, and they both have something to do with what kind of military presence or how much security there is.
So there's a whole bunch of people involved.
But let me ask you just this one question.
Imagine if you could, imagine if you could, that President Trump thought there might be trouble...
And so being a good president, just the way the Democrats suggest he should have been, he had requested, and let's say he got approval for, because some of you are going to say, he did ask for it, but he didn't get approval, which, by the way, has been debunked.
I don't know which is true, the debunk or the claim, but I saw what I thought was a credible debunk that said he never asked for it, had only talked about it.
So I don't know what's true there, but just be aware that If you think it's a fact that he asked for it and it was denied, that the news is reporting the opposite.
And there's a 16% chance that the news is right.
So, put that in your considerations.
Alright, but here's the only question that I'm going to get to.
Imagine, if you will, that Trump had asked for, let's say, National Guard, and it had been approved.
Play it through in your head. Trump asks for a large military presence, and it gets approved, and they show up.
Play it in your head.
How's that go? Really good?
Because they eliminate the violence, right?
No! That's fascism.
That's fascism.
If you put an actual military force there, the Democrats would say, what would they say?
Go. The Democrats say, Hitler.
Hitler! It's Hitler.
It's a coup. It's a military coup.
And then all of the reporting would be about how the head of that particular unit was pro-Trump.
I don't know if that would be the case, but imagine if that were the case.
You'd say, wait a minute.
Trump called a military unit with the head of the military voted for Trump?
Well, that's a coup.
If I ever saw an insurrection, that's an insurrection.
Do you understand there was nothing he could do?
And am I the first person to tell you that?
There was nothing he could do.
If he had actually gotten a bigger military force, that totally would have worked against him.
If you say to me, but Scott, you would have stopped the violence.
I wouldn't do it.
If you said, Scott, you would have prevented the deaths of, let's say, Ashley Babbitt, and maybe people who committed suicide because they had been accused.
I don't know. So you could attribute injuries and death to the event.
But suppose you said to me, I can make all of that go away.
All you have to do is have the military show up.
Nope. Nope.
I will not take that deal.
I will not take that deal.
I will not let the military, if I have a choice, I don't want the military in my capital.
I'd rather the citizens fight it out, and if some of them go to jail, they go to jail.
This was people to people.
As soon as you get the military in there, it's all wrong.
Yeah, it's Kent State. It's everything.
As soon as the military's there, it's a different situation, and it never changes.
So it would have forever been painted as Republicans are clearly the fascists we believe they are.
Clearly they had planned a military takeover.
Well, it didn't work.
That's what they would report.
Trump had tried a military takeover, but luckily Luckily for us, the military was loyal and they didn't follow his orders.
What orders? And then you'd find out there were never any orders to conquer the capital, but it would be reported that there were.
Everything would have been way worse if the military had been there.
And the military being the National Guard.
Have I made my case?
And by the way, has anybody asked that question?
If Trump had done what people said they wanted him to do, would they be happy with that?
No. Not even a chance.
All right. Well, people are saying again on Twitter that people are dying, they think, from the vaccination complications.
And so, often they are...
There's a whole... Once again, it's trending, and people are showing anecdotes of individual people who seem to have died relatively soon after a vaccination shot.
Let's call them shots, so you don't bug me for calling them vaccinations.
So... I don't know if anecdotal reports are telling us anything or not.
The way they should be used is as flags, not as proof.
Would you agree? That the anecdotal reports should only go as far as making us say, oh, maybe we should look at the data more carefully or something.
But they shouldn't be proof, no matter how many you see.
Because you could easily be fooled by anecdotes.
That is why.
What did we invent so that you wouldn't be fooled by anecdotes?
What does civilization create to prevent us to be fooled by our own eyes so easily?
Science! Science, right?
So unless science is, and again, science could be wrong too, but unless science has done a little work on this, your anecdotes are not worth anything.
But would I ever be able to convince you of that?
No, no. Because the reason you need science is that our brains are not capable of dismissing anecdotes.
We can't do it. As much as you want to be smart and say, all right, I'm going to think scientifically.
I know that this one anecdote of my neighbor dropping dead 10 minutes after getting a vaccination doesn't really mean anything, but it really seems like it means something.
You can't really get past it.
Anecdotes are absolutely convincing.
So, what do you do?
Well, I've suggested a solution.
You could call it a vaccination to your anecdote.
It's more of a therapeutic, because you're already infected.
So let's call it a therapeutic to your anecdotes, and it goes like this.
I'm going to meet your anecdote with a better anecdote.
You didn't see that coming.
I'm going to see your anecdote and up at one anecdote.
It goes like this.
How many famous people are there in the world?
Let's just say the United States.
How many famous people would you recognize their names?
If I made a list of all the famous people, it'd be pretty long, right?
Probably a thousand. Probably a thousand.
Names you would actually recognize.
Oh, yeah. Justin Bieber.
You'd probably get... 300 musical artists, right?
There's probably at least 300 musicians and bands and stuff that you could recognize by name.
Then you throw in the politicians, the celebrities, blah, blah, blah.
So maybe 1,000. So of the 1,000 celebrities, how many of them died from COVID? And how many of them died from the vaccination complications?
Because 1,000 is quite a bit.
It's like an anecdote that's better than your anecdote about your neighbor.
Your neighbor is just one person.
Maybe you know about four.
There's an anecdote today about four doctors who died in some hospital, allegedly.
I don't believe it, but that's the story.
Basically, I don't believe that the story is true, that four doctors died unexpectedly.
And if they did, it was probably something else.
But, you know, like fentanyl.
I'm not accusing, but I'm just saying doctors have access to the good stuff.
All it would take is one bad batch of fentanyl.
But I'm just saying, there could be other reasons that doctors die suddenly.
But there's my question.
How many celebrities, like an actual famous person, died during the pandemic?
I believe the answer is zero.
Am I wrong? They died because of COVID. Now, Hank Aaron.
Hank Aaron died?
Hank Aaron was how old?
Let's say you take people under 75.
How many famous people under 75 died of COVID? How old was Milo?
He was probably close to 75, wasn't he?
All right, so that's how many people died of COVID who were famous.
And I'm seeing a lot, actually, more suggestions over on the locals.
So they're saying Herman Cain, Hank Aaron...
Joe Diffie, I guess people have heard of him.
So Meat Loaf, he already said.
John Prine, he sounds relatively famous.
All right, Marvin Hagler?
Marvin Hagler?
All right, so that's several people who died of COVID, allegedly.
Right? Allegedly. How many people are confirmed to have died from the vaccination?
It's zero, right?
Now you might say to yourself, but Scott, that's because they hide that information.
Do they really? Do they?
They all have different doctors.
You know, every celebrity has a different doctor.
You think all of the doctors are hiding that information?
Maybe. I mean, that would be a lot of individual choices that are suspicious.
Because it seems to me that a Hollywood doctor would be the first one to want to get some attention.
And say, people, nobody's listening to me, but I've spotted this danger in my practice.
I don't know. Seems to me that Hollywood and famous people doctors would be exactly the people who would tell you if they had any story that they thought was worth listening to.
So, while I do not claim that my vaccine...
Somebody said Justin Bieber is having a reaction from the vaccination...
I don't think there's any allegation of that.
Well, there's an allegation, but I don't think there's any evidence of that.
Now, Dawn Wells.
Alright, so I'm just going to offer my anecdote to match your other anecdotes.
What we know, anecdotally, is lots of people died from COVID, but people dying have actually been shot.
It's weirdly undocumented.
Weirdly undocumented.
And you have to ask yourself why.
Now, let me be clear.
Is it impossible that there's a global, uncoordinated, this is a key part, a global, uncoordinated conspiracy to keep you from knowing that there are vaccination complications more than you imagined?
A lot of people say yes.
What do you think? So on locals, people are saying yes.
Uli says, wow, you're really behind on this one.
Do you think that I haven't seen the same stuff you've seen?
I've seen it. I've seen all the zillions of claims of vaccination injury.
I'm swimming in it.
I'm totally up to date.
It's just that all of it gets debunked eventually.
So far. So far it's already been...
You're not on Gab.
Well, there's a reason sometimes that things don't make it across.
Did they die from COVID or with COVID? Yeah, I guess that's still a question.
Well, so let me be clear.
I do not rule out that the people who say it is a giant conspiracy, maybe.
Yeah, I would say that's a solid possibility.
Will you accept that as my opinion?
Solid possibility that the vaccinations are more dangerous than we think.
But I haven't seen anything that tells me it's true.
Yet. I could be convinced.
I could be convinced.
But so far, nothing.
Now let me ask you this.
Do you think anybody is paying me to gaslight you on vaccinations?
Or that I have something to gain from it?
Do you know that I only lose when I talk about this topic?
You all know that, right? You all know that I know that I personally lose really a lot whenever I talk about the topic.
So why do I do it?
Why do I do it? It's for you.
It's not for me. Like, I don't get a fucking thing out of this.
It's all bad for me.
This is pure expense.
I'm basically reaching in my pocket and hoping it does something good for you.
Like, it's all bad for me.
But just appreciate that.
Will you? I'm gonna ask you directly to appreciate that I take that risk on your behalf.
Now, you might not want me to do it.
But my intention has nothing to do with my self-interest.
I just don't think there is any here.
I don't see anything in it for me.
I see pure cost.
But I do it for you. That's part of our deal, right?
Like, I'm trying to do stuff for you.
Often you do things for me.
Quite a lot of things. The things that you do for me are amazing.
And I always appreciate them.
So I'll try to pay you back when I can.
All right. Do you believe the January 6th hearings have moved the needle in public opinion?
Well, I'll tell you what Rasmussen says.
Rasmussen talked to likely U.S. voters about the House U.S. select stuff, and it turns out that 34% of likely U.S. voters say the J6 committee hearings have made them more likely to vote Democrat.
34%. But 30% say they made them more likely to vote Republican.
Is that roughly the same as the percentage of Republicans and Democrats as there are?
Can you give me a fact check on that?
Because I believe there are more Democrats than Republicans, and it's roughly that, right?
30, 34, something like that.
So basically, it's just people lined up with their own party, right?
If the only thing that happened is people sort of aligned with their own party...
And I didn't see the crosstabs.
I'm sure it's not 100% by party, of course.
But to a large extent, party affiliation seems to be driving this.
Wouldn't you say? If it's party affiliation, does that mean that anybody's opinion got changed by it?
It feels like no, right?
It feels like nobody's opinion got changed.
But is your opinion the only thing that makes a difference?
Well, there's this other variable called enthusiasm.
Do you think that the enthusiasm of the Democrats went up because they watched the hearings produce nothing like what they thought?
Did their enthusiasm go up because they drilled a dry hole?
Probably not. Now, let me ask you.
Some of you lean right.
Probably a lot of Republicans watching this.
Let me ask you about your enthusiasm to vote now that you know that people who look and talk like you are being jailed for nothing.
Through the fucking roof.
My enthusiasm to vote?
I don't even vote. Well, I've never wanted to more than I do now.
I mean, it's going to be a struggle not to vote.
I think I'll do it.
I mean, I think I'll succeed in not voting, because that's my personal preference, because I think it biases everything I do in public.
But, oh my God, do I want to vote.
I want to vote so fucking hard right now, because I feel that I'm under attack.
This feels personal. The January 6th thing to me is purely personal.
It doesn't feel like politics ever felt.
This feels like I'm being hunted.
Because I'm watching the people who look like me, they've been hunted.
And I don't think that they're, if you can call it a mistake, I don't think the mistake they made is that much different than anything I've ever done in my life.
Right? Or we're all big angels, right?
We've never done anything dumb.
We've never done anything that was risky.
We've never made a bad decision.
I'm watching people who are pretty much just normal people trying to live a normal life, got a little excited one weekend, and now they're in fucking jail.
I could not want to vote more than that.
It's hard to imagine anything that would make me more animated voting.
Because the deeply personal nature of this is so different.
Like, if you say, vote for this candidate because he'll handle inflation better...
I'll go, yeah, you know, intellectually, I think that's true.
I think I'll do something else instead of vote.
Yeah, other people take care of it.
Like, I'm not activated by inflation, even though I should be, right?
I'll do a better job negotiating with China.
No, you won't. You're just lying.
Everybody's weak on China.
I don't know. I don't think that would get me to the vote.
I probably would vote for somebody who said something about fentanyl that wasn't bullshit, as in, I will attack Mexico.
That would get me to the polls.
But that's personal, right?
The reason I would be personally activated to go to the polls over fentanyl is that I personally had a tragedy in my family that involved fentanyl.
So that's why I'm motivated.
It's personal, right?
And abortion is the same thing.
Anybody who's had some abortion situation and they think that the change in the Supreme Court ruling affects them, that's personal.
I do think people are going to vote because of abortion.
That's really personal.
But this January 6th shit is really personal to me.
How many of you feel it personally?
Is that just me? Like in the comments, let me see.
Other people are saying yes.
Yeah, mostly.
And it's because they keep showing pictures of people who look like me and talk like me.
And then they talk about them in jail.
Now, can we take a moment to stop wallowing in self-pity here for a moment and imagine what it's like to be black?
Just take a moment.
Because you just got a little taste of it, didn't you?
You know, small, small taste.
This must be what it's like to be black.
You see people who look like you being rounded up and beaten, like on the news every day.
What the hell are you going to think about law enforcement if you turn on the news and see people like you getting rounded up and sent to jail?
Not good. It's going to be pretty personal.
So, even though this January 6th thing might feel terrible to you, take advantage of the new perspective it gave you.
And just put a little thought of it.
Now I'm going to take you someplace you didn't expect.
You ready? Here's where I'm going to really fuck up your minds.
You're on a journey today.
So come with me on this journey.
AOC and the crazy progressives have wanted to defund the police and release all the criminals on no-cash bail.
What do you think of that idea?
Terrible, right? Worst thing ever.
Even Democrats don't like it.
Now I'm going to support it.
I'm going to make an argument for AOC destroying the system.
Do you think I can do it? I'm going to make an argument I think you can agree with.
Alright. I'm going to talk about just the no-cash bail part, alright?
So we'll just limit it to no-cash bail.
How many of you think no-cash bail is a good idea?
In the comments. How many of you agree with letting people out without bail?
Bad, right? Pretty much...
All bad? I thought I saw one yes go by.
All right, now I'm going to say what is right about this.
Do you remember how many times I've told you that what I liked about Trump is not what he was going to build, but what he was going to destroy?
And if you don't destroy something first, you're never going to rebuild it.
You can't tweak things into perfection.
AOC and her crowd have said the justice system is broken.
And the only way to fix it is to break it more.
And letting the criminals out of jail breaks it.
It breaks it. Because it takes the prisoner's problem and it transfers it to the people out of prison.
Right? That's the thing you're complaining about.
Wait, why is it my problem?
I didn't break the law.
No, it's your fucking problem too.
Here's why. You, you, non-lawbreaker, You are part of a system that largely is designed to guarantee, and I'll just pick the black population as my proxy for this, it pretty much guarantees that a huge percentage of the black population will be born and is pretty much guaranteed to go into the justice system and have a bad life.
Now you say to yourself, but it's also not my problem to fix that.
That's not my problem, is it?
Well, yeah, that's your problem. Because you're paying for jails, and it's not fixing it, and it's getting worse.
So here's what I think AOC and her people did, and maybe George Soros.
You know, I can't read his mind, can't read his mind, but they needed to break this more to get it fixed.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, there's no way to fucking fix that.
We had a fix. It was called bail.
Why not just go back to what you had?
Well, what we had guaranteed that a huge percentage of our population would become criminals.
Are you happy with that?
Let me suggest a way to fix bail reform.
I'll just put it out there.
Imagine you gave people who had been accused of a crime but not convicted, the people who would go out on bail typically, you gave them two options.
One is the old option to get bail.
The other option is not to be free on the street, unless it's a really minor crime.
That's different. But if you did something violent, let's say, your choice is to put an ankle monitor on and to go live on a farm with the other people who are also waiting for trial.
But at any time, you could also post bail.
So you could leave there.
Now, if you put prisoners on a big old farm with lots of space...
And maybe they'd have some work to do, some trade that they could learn, you know, if they wanted to, maybe optional.
They could work to learn to garden or landscape, and they could be...
It might even be a working farm.
And there'd be so much space that nobody had to stand next to anybody if they didn't want to.
So you wouldn't have that many fights, because you could just say, hey, just stay away from each other.
You've got this whole farm.
Just go outdoors, you know.
And you could easily imagine...
That no matter how dangerous that farm was, it would be better for you if these people were on the farm and they could be accounted for.
Now, of course, you'd have security.
Yeah, I'm not saying you don't have security, but it wouldn't have to be a solid wall because everybody would have an ankle bracelet.
And you'd have drones, and you'd just round them up if they leave.
Here's another thing. You could just change the law to say if they escaped from the farm, that that would be entered as evidence into the trial, That they're probably guilty.
Now, here's the thing.
If you lock somebody up and say, I'll give you bail, what happens when they get out?
Where do they go? They go back to their crappy life, right?
But if you say, you're going to go stay in this farm, it's 20 miles away, but so is the jail.
It's 20 miles away, and it'll be actually pretty good.
It'll be better than where you live.
And it's temporary. It's just better than where you live.
It's just until you go to trial.
And again, you can leave any time you want.
You just have to post bail.
So, imagine if living on the farm was actually better than going home.
Now do you have a problem?
Do the Democrats complain if while you're waiting for trial, you didn't have a job, but you're getting fed, you got health care, and you got kind of a good place to live?
Kind of clears your mind a little bit.
You still get trial. You're still going to pay for your crimes.
But let me ask you this.
Americans. So this one's just for Americans.
This is to define who you want to be.
And this is an important reframe.
I've got to write that one down.
I want to put that one in my book. Sometimes you're making a decision about how to do things.
And that's what it feels like most of the time.
Other times you're making a decision about who you are, and that implies what you're going to do, like they're related.
Who do you want to be?
Do you want to be someone who lets an accused but not convicted person, accused but not convicted, should their life be unpleasant?
Should it? You're accused, but you've not been convicted.
Should the system make their life unpleasant?
No, it should not.
We're Americans, right?
Basic, basic, basic.
Innocent until proven guilty.
You're not innocent until accused.
You're innocent until proven guilty.
And I would put as many murderers as it takes in this beautiful farm having an awesome time while they're in trial, I'll take that every day.
But the minute they're convicted, well, you know, jail.
But until they're convicted, we could give them a low-cost solution that's less cost than jail.
Because I would think that putting somebody on a farm and feeding them would probably be less expensive than jail.
Right? So, let me just summarize, and then I'm going to ask you for your opinion.
Since we do not want to torture the accused who have not been convicted, there is no reason that we cannot make their situation better as opposed to worse, right?
There's nothing in our philosophy as Americans that prevent us from making the accused have a pretty good few weeks.
It's just not against the law.
It's not against our principles.
It's not against anything. An accused, non-convicted person is just as innocent as you are.
And while it's not technically true, it's a fiction, if you will, that holds us together.
It's a cohesive, necessary fiction.
And I don't want to lose any of that.
So as soon as you allow that, it doesn't matter if they're having a good day, even if they're accused of horrible things, because they will go to jail if they're convicted, right?
So that's my...
Now, this suggestion is first draft.
We can imagine that said farm is run by a private prison company.
So the same company that's losing all its prisoners to bail reform, the same company that says, hey, we're not making as much money because there are fewer prisoners, let them start the farm.
And say, how about if we build this alternative thing?
The farm where you can hang out in fairly good situations until your child.
Because they could make money, because they'd be charging for the farm just like they would be charging for the jail.
Dan's comment, wow, could this guy get any worse?
Dan, you fucking piece of shit.
Let's get rid of your troll-like comments, and you can go live with the people who don't have reasons for their opinions.
So go fuck yourself, stick your head up your ass, and you're gone.
By the way, if you have criticisms, happy to hear them, as always.
All right, so here's the first point.
Number one, my specific idea should not be taken too seriously.
And that was the problem with the guy I just banned.
I think he didn't understand the concept here.
A first draft of an idea is just sort of directional, and its only purpose, its only purpose, was to spur your creativity so you could imagine a system where you get everything you want And so does AOC. That's not impossible.
That's not impossible.
I just gave you an idea that's pretty close.
Like, that might not be the idea.
Maybe somebody has a better idea.
But here's what was useful.
When you see somebody breaking a system that actually needs to be broken, pay attention.
Please. When AOC is trying to break your system, you say, no, don't break my...
My system, because it was working sort of, that's not good enough.
Maybe she wants to break it to make it work better.
So I think you should give a little bit of respect to the demolishers, because they are very productive, or could be.
Trump is a destroyer of bad ideas.
He destroyed the fake news.
The entire news industry was destroyed by Trump, and it's one of the best things that ever happened.
Because we will rebuild something that's better than the traditional news.
We haven't found it yet, but it's coming.
Something's coming. There will be alternate things that emerge because the fake news is now so discredited.
Trump destroyed the news.
I don't think that's going to turn out bad in the long run.
I think we'll rebuild better, to borrow a phrase.
All right. Got a little quiet here.
How many of you would be willing to accept my general proposition without...
Don't accept the specific suggestion of the prisoner farm.
You don't need to rule on that.
I want you to accept my general proposition that AOC might not be wrong, that breaking it is the first step to doing anything useful.
A little mixed, a little mixed.
Interesting. All right.
I got more agreement on that than I expected, actually.
It looked, I don't know, based on the comments, kind of mixed, 50-50.
Well, that's better than I thought.
All right, I think, once again, you would agree with the following proposition.
The way I frame the news is not what you're used to seeing.
True? True. And is it useful that you see a different frame on the news, even if you don't agree with it?
Because I'm not trying to make you agree with me.
I don't do that. I mean, I suppose there are times when I do it.
But in general, I'm trying to make you see it in more than one frame.
Because if you can see it in multiple frames, a different window to look into it, you're more likely to come up with the right answer.
Just statistically, the more windows you look into, The more you know about the interior of the home.
That's all. That's it.
I'm giving you a few extra windows to look into the house.
If that helps you, that's great.
But it's kind of up to you to do something with it.
Yeah, let's talk about the bizarre Joe Biden video.
There's a video, there's side-by-side videos, allegedly of Biden talking the same day.
I think it's a morning and an evening talk.
The morning talk, he looked normal.
And actually completely lucid.
By the second one, and I don't know if they really...
I don't know if there's any chicanery.
I've never said that word.
I've never said that word out loud.
Chicanery? It sounds like shit-cannery.
So there could be something about the side-by-sides that's not real.
It could be a deep fake. It could be CGI. It could be anything.
But the point is...
Chicanery.
Thank you, Duane.
I got my... Yeah.
Chicanery.
All right. Got it.
But here's my question.
If we took, and sort of this is a challenge to anybody who wants to do this, if you do the time stamp of the time of day that Joe Biden was giving any kind of a public presentation, could you do all of the morning ones and compare them to all the evening ones and see if there's a difference?
Because if I taught you nothing, it's that anecdotal evidence means nothing.
So here you have him one speech one way and another speech with another persona.
But also the topic was different.
One topic he was talking about how great he's doing.
He talked like a normal guy.
And one topic he was, you know, insulting Trump again and getting all angry about it because he wanted you to be angry too.
So it's not entirely clear he wasn't intentionally changing his acting, right?
To be more angry about one, but more calm about the other.
That's possible. So I'd want to see if the afternoon and evening presentations are substantially different from the morning.
Because it could be you'd find that pattern in all of it.
It might be a sundowner thing, right?
That's the thing we're worried about.
That it's a dementia thing.
One was a non-blinking robot.
One was definitely before he was sick, and one was after he was sick.
Well, maybe.
It was presented as a same-day thing, but that's the part I doubt.
So I wouldn't believe the side-by-side.
I retweeted it because it's fun, but I wouldn't believe it.
Somebody says it's a fact.
Right Lane Bain that says it's a fact that those videos are real.
Maybe. I'm not ruling it out.
I just think it's slightly unlikely.
Slightly unlikely. I wouldn't rule it out.
All right. One was edited to remove gaps, maybe.
I just saw a funny meme of Biden on the zero-cent stamp looking like this.
That's funny. All right.
On the Locals platform, I've asked my followers who are full of memes to paste all their memes in one of the posts.
I might tweet that to the public if you're nice to me.
But I do think we needed one place where all the good memes are.
Because, I don't know about you, but if I watch a comedy on television, or a funny movie, I might laugh a little bit.
But if I watch, you know, two or three memes, I'm usually laughing out loud.
Do you have that same experience?
That the memes actually make me laugh out loud, whereas a movie, it's like, eh, sometimes.
And I'll say again, if you haven't seen the Bill Burr special from Red Rocks, it's a special special.
