Episode 1866 Scott Adams: Election Gullibles vs Election Deniers, Everyone is Acting A Fool Lately
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Dilbert continues mocking ESG
Mike Lindell's phone seized by FBI
Election Deniers, Election Skeptics, Election Gullibles
Lindsey Graham's timing for abortion bill
Erin Burnett riles CNN viewers
Young bristle at certain job posting phrases
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah. You made it to the best thing that's ever going to happen to you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And every day is better than the one before, but not as good as tomorrow.
Tomorrow's looking really good.
How would you like to take it up to levels that humans have never experienced before?
You would. And all you need to do that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
You can feel it starting already, can't you?
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's happening now.
Go. Savor it.
Savor it.
Okay.
Well, so Dilbert is still going after ESG.
We've got another comic today.
So here, Dogbert is talking to just some character who's head of some business.
And the title of the comic is Dogbert's ESG Rating Service.
So Dogbert has become an independent rating service for ESG. Those exist, by the way.
So if you're a big company, You can pay somebody to go look at how much you're polluting and discriminating, and they'll give you a score.
And I thought, what could be a better job for Dogbert than something that's totally subjective?
So Dogbert is talking to some CEO who is unnamed, and Dogbert says, your core business involves giving digital lobotomies to other people's children.
What business is it?
So Dogbird is talking to his CEO, you assume.
Your core business involves giving digital lobotomies to other people's children.
Yeah, right. TikTok.
Yeah, but it's not just TikTok, right?
It's social media.
But then Dogbird says, but you don't pollute as much as you could, and you did ask for my pronoun, so I'm giving you the top ESG rating.
And the CEO is looking at him and he goes, this feels right.
And Dogbert's wagging and he says, I think we're making a difference.
Now, this would be the third day of a week of ESG mocking.
And I've noticed that the ESG people, the people who care about it, are starting to pick it up and tweet it.
Once I get a full week, I'm going to put them all together and publish it as, you know, larger content.
And then it's going to be hard to avoid seeing it if you're in the ESG business.
So I'm doing that for you because you asked me to kill ESG. And I said I'd get it done by the end of the year.
So we're going to mock it out of existence by the end of the year.
We'll see. I don't think it'll be out of existence.
I don't mean that.
I just mean that its reputation will go from growing and good to, uh-oh, that's really, that's what you can accomplish.
Uh-oh, maybe we shouldn't do this.
So look for the negative articles on ESG to start popping up.
Sometimes you have to go first.
So one of the things that Dilbert does as a comic is it goes first.
So I can kind of soften up the room.
And then the regular journalists can say, okay, other people are mocking this.
I can mock it too. You have to sort of wait for somebody to mock it first before the timid people come in.
Actually, Wall Street Journal today has a piece saying ESG is useless and costly.
But you would expect that in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
All right, I complained online today because there's an app called YouTube TV, which is different from regular YouTube.
So YouTube TV is an app made by YouTube where it's like a cable TV thing except you just use your internet.
And so you can see all the regular channels and all the cable channels, and the interface is spectacular, by the way.
If you're going to watch television, the YouTube TV has the best interface you've ever seen.
It's just great. But there's one little oddity I discovered, that of all the channels that you could watch, there's one that consistently doesn't work.
It glitches, or the sound doesn't match the thing, or you can't fast-forward it, or it defaults back to the beginning.
A whole bunch of different errors.
But there's only one channel.
What do you think is the one network or channel on all of the channels?
What do you think is the one that doesn't work?
No, not mine. No, because I'm not on that app.
I'm on YouTube.
But I'm not on YouTube TV. YouTube TV is just TV. Right?
That's just TV. Fox News.
Fox News. So I asked other people if they have the same problem.
And then somebody said, you should do a poll on this.
And I said, you're right.
I really should do a poll on this.
Because YouTube TV did respond to me right away, because I said something on Twitter.
And they noticed right away, and they did a real good job of responding.
So A plus 4 responding quickly.
And A plus 4 interface.
It's really a well-made product.
It really is. So whatever's happening with the Fox News channel...
We don't know. So that's the open question.
But I asked people if they're having a problem or is it just me?
Because YouTube TV reached out and said, maybe you should reload the app.
Reload the app. But it's the same on my Apple TV and my iPad and my old iPhone and my new iPhone that I got this week.
Do you think the problem is that reloading the app is going to help that one shell?
It's an app that has just one channel with a problem.
Just one! And rebooting the app is going to fix just the one channel.
Do you think there's any chance that that's going to work?
No. So instead, I did a poll.
And I said, if you use a TV app, not regular YouTube, make sure you're clear on that.
There are different apps. Does the Fox News channel work for you without glitching?
Now, if you subtract out the people who just wanted to see the result, which is most of them, because most people don't have this app, it was 16% said, yes, it works, fine.
And 12% says it glitches often and always.
But remember... Those percentages are after you take out the people who just wanted to see the answer.
So the 12 and the 16, if you were to treat them as the only ones that mattered, because they're the ones who have the app.
Everybody else doesn't even have the app.
So if you just look at them, about 12 out of 16 would be three quarters.
There are three quarters as many people who can't watch that channel.
I mean, that suggests that there is, in fact...
Yeah, I'm doing the math wrong, but don't worry about it.
The point is... Don't worry about the math.
The point is that 12 and 16 aren't that far apart, meaning that there are a whole bunch of people watching that channel who can't get that one channel to work.
Is that a coincidence?
Now, I saw a comment from somebody, apparently on Reddit, people had been talking about this as well.
And I read it and somebody said that somebody at YouTube TV... Now, this is all low credibility.
I don't know if this is true.
Somebody at YouTube TV suggested it might be the feed coming from Fox News, meaning that they treat everything the same, but if they get a bad feed, what are you going to do?
Do you believe that? Do you believe that Fox TV or Fox News, who appear to be among the most technically capable...
People around. And yet, they're the only channel.
All the other channels can send a clean signal, but it's just the only one that can't.
You believe that?
Now, other people said that there are other apps, like the Roku app, where they have the same problem.
Where it seems that Fox News is a problem.
Now, if that's true...
That would actually at least be suggestive that the feed has a problem.
But I don't think you're seeing the same problems in each app.
I'll bet you if you looked at the Roku app and the YouTube TV app at the same time, even if they both glitch, bet it's not at the same time.
I'll bet it's not.
I'd put a big bet on that.
Because if they glitch at the same time, then it's the feed.
You've eliminated the other options.
I don't think so.
I think it's going to be different mistakes that are unique to Fox News.
That's what I think. Now, when do we use the assumption of innocence versus the assumption of guilt?
In the legal system, because it's humans and we want to do the best we can for them, assumption of innocence is the standard, and we all agree with that.
But in this specific case, so this is not really about any individual, it's about whether a system is working the way it should in this American experience.
Should you assume that if you see something like I'm seeing, is my assumption, should my starting assumption be innocence?
That it's just a bug?
What do you think? Is it reasonable to assume that this is just a coincidence?
Is it reasonable? I don't think it's reasonable to assume that anymore.
It's entirely possible.
It's a coincidence. Let me be as clear as I can.
If I had to put a bet down, I don't even know which way I'd bet.
I mean, it looks like a coin flip to me.
It's definitely possible that it's just a bug.
It's definitely possible.
I just don't think that should be your starting assumption.
Now, I was going to not talk about it in public because I thought, you know, the odds are so big that this is just a bug that it would be embarrassing if they say, yeah, the feed was bad, and then they prove it.
And I'm like, oh, okay, I made a big deal about this, and it was just a bug.
But I think we're at a point in history where the institution has to be assumed guilty until they can demonstrate they're not.
What do you think? Is it inappropriate to say that the institution, whether it's Google or YouTube or the FBI or the government or Congress, it doesn't matter who it is, the media, Fox News, any entity, just any public-facing entity, I don't think you can assume that they're innocent.
I think you have to assume they're guilty, if you see anecdotal evidence suggesting it.
That's what I think. Plug my prints.
Okay, I will. Did you know you could go to Dilbert.com and get a legal, authorized copy of any of my strips if you want to use it in business or something else?
If you want to write an article about it.
So the ESG strips are perfect for that.
A lot of people are probably writing about that topic.
So whether you're writing pro or negative on that topic, you might want to license those strips.
Tip for an ESG-free state.
You mean, what should we do to get rid of ESG? Well, what we should do is what we're doing.
We need to mock it out of existence.
There's no other way, really.
It has to be mocked.
All right. So, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, Who's now more of a My Slippers guy, it seems like.
But he was going through a drive-through and the FBI surrounded him.
They pulled their cars up and blocked his car.
Imagine this happening to you.
This happened in America.
That they wanted to serve him with a subpoena, I guess, or a warrant and get his phone.
And they waited until he was in his car?
And they somehow followed him to a fast food place, and while he's in line, they surround him with their FBI cars.
Now, he did say that they were just polite and professional, and they didn't have any kind of attitude or anything.
So I'm going to give a compliment to the FBI agents, because Mike Lindell did.
So Mike Lindell said, they did a good job, I'm going to pass them along.
So that's for the agents themselves.
But was it ever okay for them to even do that in the first place?
I mean, I'm sure they did it on orders or something, but that feels like a public humiliation with no purpose.
It also feels like intimidation.
You don't think they could have called them?
You don't think they could have called them and said, hey, somebody's going to come down at 10 a.m., And we've got a warrant.
We're going to ask for your phone.
Could you answer the door, make sure somebody answers the door, and bring your phone with you?
What was he going to do? Leave the country?
Did they think that Mike Lindell was a flight risk?
What, did they think that he was going to hide his phone?
And let me ask you this.
Why do you need access to the phone?
How much is on the phone that's not on the iCloud?
I'm wondering if you even need phones anymore.
Don't you just need... But wiping it doesn't help anymore, does it?
Does wiping help?
If you wiped your phone clean, it'd still be in the cloud, right?
Or there'd be a backup in the cloud, or...
I mean, I don't think you can wipe a phone anymore, can you?
I don't...
If it's Apple?
Yeah. You can delete it all.
You can delete the phone, but I don't believe you can delete your iCloud records, because there would always be a backup.
Wouldn't there? You're telling me there's no backup of your iCloud after you think you've deleted it?
I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all.
Anyway, there's some technical questions I wonder about.
Might not be important. But doesn't it look like this is political?
Does this look legal to you or political?
Again, do we give the FBI the benefit of a doubt, the assumption of innocence?
Has the FBI earned the assumption of innocence?
Nope. They have earned, this is an important question, they've earned a presumption of guilt.
They've earned it. I didn't do it.
If you're looking at me, don't blame me.
Look at the comments. Everybody's on the same page.
I didn't do it. It wasn't my fault.
The FBI got that themselves.
They went out and got themselves an assumption of guilt.
So, I'll apply that.
And it does look like my...
When was the last time somebody mocked me for suggesting that Republicans would be hunted?
Do you remember how much mocking I got the first several months of the Biden administration when they couldn't find all the haunting I had predicted?
Nobody's mocking me now, are they?
Have you seen even that one troll come after me and say lately, lately, last two weeks, hey, where's all that haunting you predicted, Scott?
Where are all these Republicans being haunted?
I don't see any of that.
They all shut the fuck up, didn't they?
Yeah, I guess I served them a nice dose of shut the fuck up, didn't I? I mean, I didn't do it intentionally.
I was just sitting here. But the news delivered them a nice, heaping, steaming pile of shut the fuck up, because the hunting is happening.
Now, I've made some pretty unusual predictions that have come true.
This one might be more unusual than even some of the other ones.
I mean, who has ever made that kind of prediction?
Right? Has anybody ever made a prediction that the other team would be hunted after an election in the history of the United States?
Probably never. And yet I made that prediction and people laughed.
Mocked me mercilessly.
And then they got a big old dose of shut the fuck up.
Reality is awesome sometimes.
I saw a, I think it was on Instagram, a little reel, a little bit by Joe Rogan.
And he was saying that success is meaningless if no one loves you.
There's no point to it.
You know, you could go out and succeed and really make something of yourself, but if nobody cares, and I'm not talking about strangers, but I'm talking about like in your actual personal situation, if nobody loves you, like for who you are and really cares about what you did, none of it matters.
I mean, it matters to the world.
And I have to say this hit me a little bit hard, because while I do feel lots of love from the audience, lots of love from just people who are Dilbert fans and stuff, and I do feel lots of love from community and friends and stuff, but I'm not in a relationship right now.
And I have to tell you, this hit me.
Because there are parts of your life which you experience alone, and then they disappear.
It's weird to not be able to experience life as a shared experience.
That's sort of the weird situation I'm having.
Now, I do share it with you, but I think you would acknowledge it's different from being in some kind of relationship.
So it's a very...
Weird and unsettling experience I'm having, which is 100% of my efforts are to benefit you.
They don't really benefit me.
And, well, except, you know, whatever reflected, you know, credit, I guess.
But I have to say that I don't feel it.
Like... I don't feel it like you would if you were sharing it with somebody specific.
You know what I mean? And I'm going to give you a little micro lesson here.
I wasn't planning on it, but...
I'll never get another beauty like Christina.
Somebody says it was a big blunder to let her go.
Well, you know, beauty isn't the only criteria.
It is but one.
Anyway... The micro lesson was on treating life like a video game and gamifying your actual life.
And I've been doing more of that lately.
For example, if I am folding my laundry, I could frame it in my head as, oh, God, folding laundry, oh, boring, I want to do something interesting.
But instead, I treat it like a game.
So I try to do it in the most efficient way.
And I say, okay, the game is to see how quickly and efficiently I can do this.
And then I sort of enjoy it.
Because, you know, I've got a towel-folding technique that just feels fun to do.
And then it becomes like a skill game.
And then I get through it, and I like it.
And I manage to do that with a whole bunch of other things.
You know, little boring things, etc.
Or even getting in trouble, or even business things.
To me, I treat them more like there's a game with rules, and here's my little challenge, and I've got to get past that challenge.
I'm writing this in my upcoming book, so you might see this again.
But one of the things that video games do is they don't give you, typically, they don't give you all the resources you need to win the game at the start of the game.
You have to go get them. So you don't have all the energy you need or life or weapons.
You have to find them along the way.
But you don't know where they will be.
You just have to trust that if you play well, you're going to find stuff.
And the longer you play, the better you'll be at finding stuff, I guess.
And I treat the actual world like that.
And it works really well.
Because the actual world does serve up resources in surprising ways, just like video games.
So if I say to myself, I want to accomplish X, but I don't know how to get there, and I don't have the resources to do it, I never say don't start.
Because if you did that with a video game, you wouldn't play.
So instead I say, what's the only thing I can do?
Now maybe the only thing I can do is do a Google search.
Or ask somebody a question.
It's all I can do. I don't have any resources or even know what to do next.
But I do that first step and then I see if I get a resource.
For example, the process of writing the book I'm writing.
Here was the process. I didn't have the energy and I didn't have the resources to do it.
And I didn't even have a great idea for a book.
Now one day I got this idea of doing something about reframing and I just wrote it on my whiteboard, you know, reframing book.
No title for the book or anything, just sort of an idea.
Once I wrote it down and looked at it every time I saw it, I started thinking, you know, I should at least, at the very least, I should see if there would be, you know, some chapter titles that would fit into that.
And then I just start...
I open up a document.
And I put reframing book, you know, working title.
And then I just say, what would be in that?
And then I think of some examples.
And they're just bullet points.
And they're just bullet points that would become maybe chapter headings at some point.
And then I look at it and say, huh, this looks like it could be a book.
And then I get a resource.
I get energy from having done something that looks like, oh, this could be something.
Then I imagine it. Then I shared it with you.
I shared it on livestream that I was thinking about it.
Then people said, yes, yes, write that book.
We'd love to have that book.
And then I got a resource.
I got energy. So I didn't have the energy to do it.
I simply trusted, like a video game, that if I started walking forward, I could figure it out.
And I figured out I needed energy.
And so I went to you, and I said, hey, I got this idea, and then you gave me energy.
And I thought, oh shit, people really want to see this book.
Now that's different.
Because if it's the publisher who wants to see it, that's interesting.
But that's different than if the public wants to see it, right?
And it's different than if I just want to make a book.
So now I've got energy.
Then I go to my agent, book agent.
I say, I got this idea.
And he looks at the idea and he says, I love this idea.
We definitely sell this idea.
Let's talk to your favorite publisher.
And I talk to my favorite publisher and I say, we love this idea.
Now I've got all the energy I need.
I've got audience, I've got a publisher, I've got my agent, and they're the ones that know the most, right?
It'd be one thing if a stranger said, oh, do that.
But when the experts, the people who know what needs to be in a book to sell, when they tell you that's something, well, that's energizing.
So then I start writing.
And of course it's hard and it's boring.
And I fall asleep and stuff.
So you know my story of trying to work through how I can stay awake and have time to do it and stuff.
It was a separate process.
But now I've gotten to the point where I've got 36,000 words.
And all the chapters are stubbed down.
So every chapter has at least a paragraph...
That I'll maybe plump out a little bit.
But once you see a book with probably 90 reframes in it and 35,000 words, you know you have to finish it.
You have to finish it, right?
Because you're not going to leave half a book.
If you have my personality.
Some people could, but I don't have the personality where I can leave something that pregnant and then walk away from it.
Don't make any jokes.
I know you're going to. So that's the process.
The process is you don't understand that there's energy.
You understand that you're in a game in which the energy will be there if you look for it.
But you've got to go get it.
Now you will be amazed how many times gamifying a real-world thing makes sense.
Somebody just mentioned starting, let's say, looking for a job.
How awful is the process of looking for a job and going on the interviews?
Really awful, right?
You don't like it. But what if you gamify it?
I have a friend who used to do that.
He'd go on interviews not because he wanted the job.
Sometimes they were worse jobs than the one he had.
But he gamified it.
He said, I'm going to enjoy going on this interview and going through the process.
And in the process, I'm going to get good at interviewing.
So one day he went for yet another interview that was below the job he already had.
So he does the interview, because that was his process.
He had a system. His system was he'd always do the interview, no matter what the job was.
So he does the system, finishes the interview, and the hiring person says, you know, you're way overqualified for this job.
This isn't really the fit for you.
However, the boss of the person in the job we were trying to fill is also going to be leaving.
You might be perfect for that job, So he got a job and a promotion at the same time, accidentally.
And he took it. Because his system was, they would just put him in situations where good things could happen.
No specific good thing.
I mean, specifically it's a job, but he just put himself in a situation where over and over again, luck could find him.
If he stayed home thinking about a job or just did some Google searches, how's luck going to find him?
It's not going to find him.
He's hiding. But he didn't hide from luck.
He gamified his experience, said, yeah, go on another interview.
This will be fun. I'll just enjoy the process, like a game.
He's doing great. Just ran into it the other day.
Career is just killing it.
All right. Does it bother you when you hear people called election deniers?
Does that phrase just get to you a little bit like...
You know, what about election skeptic?
Would that bother you?
Election skeptic.
Because I have to admit that some of the skeptics bring it upon themselves by making it an absolute.
It would be one thing to say we need a system where we can have more confidence.
Perfectly reasonable request.
It is not reasonable to say that you know with 100% certainty that that, let's say, 2020 election was stolen in an important way.
It is not reasonable to say you know it for sure.
Does anybody disagree with that?
I get how big the signals are.
The signals are, like, just flashing.
But how many of those flashing signals has been debunked so far?
Like, all of them?
Or almost all of them?
And somebody says, none.
Well, there wasn't any kraken, was there?
There wasn't any Venezuelan general involved with anything.
So here's what I suggest.
I think we should have a name for the other side.
The people who believe elections are definitely, totally, no doubt about it, absolutely good.
Don't we need a name for them?
I'm going to call them the election gullibles.
Because you'd be gullible as hell if the reason that you think the election was valid was...
Because the least credible institutions that we've ever seen in our human existence told you they were fine.
Because you didn't do an audit, did you?
Did any of you audit the entire election in 2020?
I didn't. I was busy.
Maybe other people did.
So if other people audit something and tell you about it, you don't know what happened.
You only know what they told you.
Am I right? If somebody else does an audit and then they tell you what happened, you don't know what happened, you only know what they told you.
So, the people who are just absolutely, positively convinced this election or any other election had no problems at all.
They're gullible. Now, they might be right.
Can you handle that nuance?
They could be gullible for believing somebody who shouldn't be believed.
But sometimes it might be true.
It might be true that the election was fine.
I'm completely open to that, by the way.
I'm completely open to it.
It might have been fine. Maybe.
Maybe just there were more mail-in votes and maybe people just wanted to go to sleep at night and recount in the morning when they had more votes coming in by mail.
Maybe. Who knows?
You know, the...
I just want to toss this out here as a possibility, but...
The people who wondered why the elections were stopped overnight, wasn't it because there were still votes coming in and there was no point in working overnight if he knew he had to come back in the morning anyway?
Because there would still be votes coming in?
Because it seems like they kept finding them, right?
I don't know. If somebody says no, I'm just floating that possibility.
All right, well, there's some things that we don't understand, but I'm going to start using this, the election gullibles, because if the least credible institutions in the world told you something was good, you don't have any evidence.
You're gullible if you believe it to be absolutely true.
You're not gullible if you simply act as though it's true.
That would be actually just a reasonable thing to do.
We can act as though it's true.
I think we do.
Lindsey Graham...
Yesterday was such a weird day because both the Republicans and the Democrats just completely failed in their political messaging...
So Lindsey Graham, dumbass, decides that this would be a good time to introduce a bill to ban abortion nationwide after 15 weeks.
Now, I'm not going to give you any opinions on abortion because I have a cock.
Everybody okay with that?
You don't want to hear my opinion on abortion because I have a cock.
So if you want an opinion on abortion, ask a woman and then tell me what she said.
That's my view on opinion.
I'm going to take the cock exception option out, because I don't want you to be thinking about my opinion on abortion when I tell you this story.
This is just a political story.
The political story is, why the hell would you bring up the one thing that can destroy your election possibilities when everything is going well for the Republicans, or largely, and then you bring up the one topic that could derail everything?
Now, if somebody said he does this every year, he floats the idea every year, is that true?
But that wouldn't be an explanation for why he did it this year.
Yeah, it doesn't matter that he does this every year.
Maybe that's his explanation.
But it's still insanely dumb if you want your team to win.
Now, since that's just an internal political thing, that's more his problem than the Republicans' problem.
But it's fun to watch. I love watching a politician make a mistake that not one of us would have made.
Would you have made that mistake?
Seriously, would you? You would have known not to do that, right?
I feel like everybody would have.
So, I don't know, maybe he has some four-dimensional game that we're not seeing.
And it could be that he's just being consistent.
It could be. But it's a weird time to be consistent.
A weird time to do it.
At the same time, Joe Biden was giving his...
Celebrating the end of inflation, while even CNN was showing at the same time the stock market plunging 1,200 points because nobody believed that inflation is done because the new numbers were so bad.
They were so bad, but they were not good.
Watching the images of all those happy Democrats celebrating when the world was burning was just the worst.
Just the worst. And Dana Perino did the best job of eviscerating the Democrats on this.
As she noted, before you put on an event, check the calendar.
Basic stuff.
Check the calendar.
You don't want to put on this event the same day the numbers are coming out.
If you'd even waited one day, or done it one day before, then it's not so much a story.
But having the same day as the numbers?
That was a risky play.
Well, another thing that I learned in the news today is, did you know it's illegal to kill people in their sleep?
Even if they have it coming?
That just feels like it shouldn't be a law.
So the specific here is there was a 15-year-old girl who was repeatedly raped by a man in his 30s and at one point at knife point.
So there was violence involved.
We're not talking about statutory rape.
So it's not just that she was underage.
She was actually raped by force.
At one point, the guy fell asleep, and she got access to the knife that was on the bed stand or something, and she stabbed him to death as he presumably woke up while he was being stabbed to death.
And she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and willful injury.
She won't necessarily serve time in jail, So she looks like she's going to get a deferred prison sentence.
But she could serve 10 years if she violates probation, up to 20, I think.
But here's the weird part.
Iowa has this mandatory rule that if you're found guilty of this crime and this kind of situation, as she was, that she has to pay the family of the deceased $150,000 in restitution.
I'm not sure how they calculate it.
So she has to pay her rapist $150,000.
They rape his family because he's dead.
Now, let me ask you this.
What is the definition of self-defense?
Now, here clearly it's being defined as not immediate danger.
But if you've been repeatedly raped by a guy with a knife...
And he falls asleep for a minute and you knife him to death?
Are you telling me that's not self-defense?
Because I get the whole it's not a media thing.
But it's guaranteed.
If it's guaranteed but not immediate, you can't kill somebody?
It's guaranteed that when he wakes up he's still going to be a rapist.
Right? If you put me on that jury, I would have hung that jury so hard.
There would be no way in the world they'd ever get me to vote guilty on anything.
Now, I get, I've been on juries, so I know the judge would make sure that you knew it's not your duty to find justice.
That's not the job of the juries.
The juries are not there to find justice.
That is not their job.
They are there to determine if the evidence demonstrated that the crime had been committed.
That's it. And it looks like that's what they did.
And I've often said that serving jury duty should be just something you should all do.
Just to feel how serious the people on the jury take this stuff.
Like, until you feel how serious your fellow citizens are about getting it right on a jury, you don't feel the country's cohesiveness.
It's easy to feel like we're not together.
But boy, you take 12 strangers from any demographic group You put them together and you say, you're in charge of this guy going to jail or not.
They take that job really seriously.
And when you see that, that gives you faith in the whole thing, right?
So it's a very important process.
If you want to be a good patriot, good citizen, do jury duty at least once.
You've got to experience it.
But anyway, you put me on that jury and I wouldn't give a fuck what the Constitution said.
I wouldn't care what the law said.
I wouldn't care how many angry jurors there were who waited too long.
There is no way, no way, I would have allowed this 15-year-old girl who ended her own horror by stabbing to death the fucker who had raped her.
I would give her an award.
There's no way. You could not torture me enough to vote guilty on this case.
Am I wrong? How many of you would allow her to be convicted?
Yeah. I mean, how did they find 12 people who were willing to do this?
And I think the answer is...
So here's the answer.
Once you get in that situation, you take it so seriously that you do end up respecting the system over the person.
And I think that's what happened.
I think the people who were there respected the system.
And I don't hate that.
I don't hate that, because I like them respecting that system.
But it cost her some justice.
This was not justice.
It was not justice.
All right. CNN's reporting that more than half of the GOP Senate candidates doubted the 2020 election.
That sounds about right.
Half of them doubted it.
But again, They didn't use the word denier.
I think doubt is fair.
Don't you think?
I think people can have doubt about institutions which are part of a system which is entirely non-credible.
I don't know.
I'm not worried about that.
Thank you.
I'm not worried about half of them doubting an election.
Are you? Does that bother anybody, that half of those candidates doubted the 2020 election?
That doesn't bother me at all.
Yeah, not at all.
There was a hilarious trending thing.
Erin Burnett from CNN, her name was trending on Twitter.
So I thought, oh, let's see what this is.
And I go there, and it was...
She was trending because she was talking about the Hunter Biden laptop and how it wasn't Russian disinformation.
And basically she told the story the way you know the story.
What do you think CNN viewers did when Erin Burnett accurately told a story of great importance to the country?
How did the CNN viewers handle...
An objective reporting of true news that is important to the country.
I'm never watching this channel again.
And you have to read the comments to even know that these people exist.
And when I say these people, I mean, apparently, this is just my interpretation from the comments, there were quite a number of people who watched CNN... Who were not aware that it was trying to be news.
I don't think they understood that.
I think they understood it as a team member.
And as soon as the team member started giving news, they're like, whoa, that's not what we signed up for.
We signed up for you to be on our team.
Why are you on the other team?
And if you look at the comments, it's entirely clear that the reason they're angry is that their team isn't being supported.
They're not angry about the accuracy of the news.
They're not complaining that it's not true.
And they're not complaining that it's not important.
They're only complaining that they didn't back their side.
And they're acting like that's the job of a news entity.
But, you know, that's CNN's own fault, right?
CNN created a product that even the people who watched it knew was not news.
Think about that. Their own viewers knew it wasn't news.
I wasn't sure that was true.
But now we have something like confirmation.
Didn't you always wonder? Didn't you always wonder if CNN viewers, let's say all of them, believed they were watching actual news?
But it turns out that they knew they weren't watching actual news.
They knew it was just team play.
Now you see the same thing with Fox News.
So I'm going to burn all of my bridges here.
When Fox News reports a story down the middle, you see all the screaming.
People go nuts.
Oh no, that was an objective statement there.
I can't handle that. I will never watch your network again.
So just like the Fox News viewers, there's no difference.
The CNN viewers are watching what should be news.
They're just watching it as a team member.
All right. This is a funny story.
I forget where I saw this.
I wish I remembered. But apparently there are phrases that are turning off younger job seekers.
I don't know if this is true at all.
Everybody always complains about the next generation, right?
So take it with a grain of salt how much of this is true.
But anecdotally, it's just funny, so I'm going to report it like it's true.
But apparently the young people who are not so big on working too hard, you know, they're looking for more of a work-life balance.
Nothing wrong with that. There's some phrases they see in job postings that scare them away.
So here's some of the things you shouldn't put in your job posting if you want anybody under 30 to apply.
You don't want to say, must handle stress well.
You don't want to say, willing to wear many hats.
You don't want to say, responsibilities may include those outside the job description.
And here's one that's funny.
We're one big happy family.
And the reason given for why young people don't want to see we're one big happy family because it suggests they're going to abuse you.
One big happy family makes young people think that's a signal for abuse.
Maybe it is. That's even funnier.
Another one is applicants should be humble.
Have you ever heard that before?
Whoever says applicants should be humble, I've never heard that one.
But I wouldn't work at a job that required it.
Yeah, because I don't think I could pull it off.
All right.
Also, bad ones are looking for self-starters.
All right.
Nobody wants to be a self-starter.
Okay, this was a survey by payroll processor Paychex.
Oh, God, that's funny.
So, do you remember when Hillary Clinton's lawyer, Sussman, he was accused of lying to the he was accused of lying to the FBI in saying that...
No, I'm not high, in case you're wondering.
He was accused of lying to the FBI and saying that he was not working for Clinton when he brought them information that was maybe bad about Trump.
Yeah.
And do you remember he was taken to trial?
Do you know what happened in the trial?
How many of you know what happened with Sussman?
Don't look it up. And don't say the answer.
Just say if you know. Do you know what the end of the result was?
Yeah, D.C. jury is part of it.
It's a hint. I just wondered how most of you knew.
Yeah. Okay.
Most of the people and locals know.
On YouTube, you see yes and no.
The answer is that he was acquitted.
That's it. He didn't...
According to the legal system, he is a person who did not commit a crime.
It wasn't a hung jury.
It wasn't a hung jury.
Twelve jurors said, no, he did not commit a crime.
Did you see that coming?
And I think it had to do with the fact that he was in the room with only one person...
When the alleged claim was made.
So I believe his defense was, I say it didn't happen, the one person in the room says it did, that's your whole case?
And if I were on the jury and that was the evidence, the one person in the room said it happened, the other person in the room said it didn't happen, I would have acquitted.
Wouldn't you? Now, this isn't like the woman who stabbed her rapist to death, because that was justice.
Killing that guy was justice.
But, you know, if it's a little paperworky, lie kind of a thing, I think I would favor the system over punishing an individual.
And the system is pretty clear.
You need evidence for crimes.
They didn't have it. They had one witness, but it wasn't enough, so he walked.
But now Durham is winding down, it looks like, and it looks like there won't be any attempted prosecutions.
So did you think that Durham was going to uncover the deep state and find all the bad things they did?
Looks like he may have found out a lot of information, but the early signals could be wrong, could be wrong, but the early indications are nobody's going to get charged with anything additionally.
So... But, in the process, they discovered that Igor Danchenko, who worked with Christopher Steele to develop the Russia collusion stuff.
So, Christopher Steele talked to some Russians.
One of the Russians he talked to, to get information that was fake, but it was put in the Steele dossier to get at Trump.
that one of the Russians they talked to was on the FBI payroll.
We're just finding that out.
Right.
The Christopher Steele source was the FBI itself.
Now, not really, because it was a paid informant, right?
But basically, he got information from the FBI and gave it to the FBI. And we're just finding that out now.
Now, of course, it was fake information that he got from the FBI to give to the FBI. But that started off the whole thing.
Now, again, you know, fog of war.
Who knows? Maybe some of the details here are exculpatory, but that all sounds pretty bad.
Jonathan Turley writes about this, so look for Jonathan Turley's piece if you want to see the smart lawyer take on it.
All right. Now that, ladies and gentlemen...
Brings us to near the conclusion of what was the finest live stream in the history of all things.
Best show ever. How do I feel about Turley?
He's the best. He does great writing and analysis.
Yeah, here's another thing you shouldn't trust.
Podesta in charge of $300 billion in climate stuff.
Let me give you some optimism.
You want some optimism? There's one technology that's probably going to be, well, besides AI, there's one technology that's, you know, there's a lot of action in, and it's going to change everything.
Or not. Or not.
Depending on where the technology ends.
And that's battery technology, especially mass storage.
Not just for your car, but for the network.
Like, you know, giant batteries for storing network power.
And it turns out there's a bunch of companies, and I keep doing little research on each one as they pop up.
And once you start looking into them, and then you also know that part of that infrastructure bill that Biden got through, a big part of that is for battery development.
So a big part of it is to keep these startups who are making new kinds of batteries in business.
Because the current batteries that they use in cars, it looks like the total worldwide supply of materials to make them is about this big.
And the number of electric cars that we think we want is this big, and they're not even close.
So we're like maybe 1%, something like that.
Probably 1% to 3% of the batteries that we'll need to have a world where the power is always on and you're not burning coal, basically.
But the good news is this.
It seems to be well funded.
You know, the government's billions are going in that direction.
But they also have private funding.
And a number of these technologies look pretty good.
Look pretty good. So a number of technologies have already gotten to the point where they've developed a working battery.
And from working battery to, you know, being able to scale up to make lots of them and sell them and stuff is a lot of work.
So the odds of getting from a working prototype to a big industry-important company is small.
Small. Now, everybody who's talking about Solyndra, here's the difference.
If you're going to look at the stock market in general, let's say, as an investor, if you're going to pick one stock...
And put your money in it, what is that called?
Stupid. Stupid.
Because diversification is sort of the only thing that works for investing.
So if you put all your money in, say, a company, like Solyndra, that is dumb by definition.
But if you're the infrastructure bill and you freed up billions of dollars for the industry of batteries, so you're giving it to a bunch of different companies and you don't know which one's going to work, that's good management.
That's exactly what you should do.
That's playing by the numbers, basically.
So, yeah, everything you say about Cylindra, you just forget it.
Forget it. You know, having the government in the...
An industry get too close is a bad idea.
But funding research into new battery types, that's what the government's done well before.
Our government has spurred industries.
industries, we know that works.
Be transformed by the renewing of your mind, huh?
Yeah, it would be good news if we didn't think that money would be wasted by political people trying to steal it.
That's true. What about the WEF? Well, what about it?
Well, Dogbert's going after ESG, so I'm going to go after it on a topic level.
I do think that who gets to make the decisions...
Is what all this WEF stuff's about, right?
And the problem is that the WEF takes your control away from you and gives it to strangers.
How long does it take me to finish my coffee after the show?
I usually throw away whatever's been sitting here for too long.
So I have coffee most of the day until maybe 4 o'clock.
All right. Any other...
Your local paper didn't print your ESG? Well, I've got some more that are not going to get printed, too.
So I did hear that one paper's already cancelled me.
So I want you to know this is expensive for me.
You know, when I said I'd go after ESG... I knew it wouldn't be cheap.
I mean, it could put me out of business easily.
We'll see. Yeah, somebody says, was it the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch canceled me?
Somebody said. But find out if it was just for the week of the ESG. Because if it comes back, they may have just taken it out.
Did they say they canceled it?
Did they announce it was cancelled?
They downsized.
They may have just pulled some comics.
I don't know. But we'll look into that.
Keep at it.
Zero strategies.
Censoring Scott. All right.
I think we're done here.
Are we? I think we are.
All right, everybody. I have heard of Silva Biden control.
