Episode 1925 Scott Adams: How Much Should You Trust The Arizona Election? Can Trump Get Elected Now?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Arizona voting system
President Trump, Ivanka & Jared
GOP getting a beating over midterm results
Did Trump's influence help or hurt midterms?
What group is most hurt by democrat policies?
Safer alternatives for drug users?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
If you'd like to take this experience up to, really, levels we've never seen before.
I'm talking quantum tunneling, the secret, everything.
It's all in here. It's science.
It's everything. All you need is a cupper mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Oh, that was good simultaneity.
Very good simultaneity.
I think your timing is excellent today.
Very good. Real good.
Alright, I was just showing my locals.
Oops. I was just showing my local subscribers before you got on.
There's an app I was just playing with called PixelCut.
It's one word, PixelCut.
And it produces AI art based on your description.
Now, you've seen the ones that are browser-based, but it's now just on an app.
And so I was trying to design a book cover for my upcoming...
I wrote a book called Reframe Your Brain.
So I wanted a brain that was sort of floating in space with maybe some kind of a frame.
So I wrote brain in a frame.
Here's the first one, but I'm going to hit regenerate and show you another take.
Now it gives you different styles.
So you could do a modern one or a Picasso-looking one.
It's operating a little slowly, but it'll pop up in a second.
No, I swear it works.
Okay, really, is this not going to work because I'm doing a public demonstration?
Did the law of public demonstrations just kick in?
It did, didn't it?
Do you know how many times I've tried this thing?
I used it 100 times yesterday.
And I used it 15 times right before I came live.
It worked every time.
All right, well, PixelCon, I tried to do a commercial for you, but your stupid app crashed, so fuck it.
All right. Have you noticed that, by the way, the point of this, if you're wondering which professions are being replaced by automation and AI, I can't see a reason that I would hire a human designer to do my book cover.
I don't see the reason.
Because I can just look at a thousand different takes and they're all going to be cool looking brains floating in different kind of space with frames.
One of them is going to be awesome.
I'll just use it.
Anyway, have you seen the news about the various prom queens and homecoming queens and beauty contests in which trans competitors are winning?
There was another one recently, I forget where it was, where the trans, was it a homecoming queen or prom queen?
Because some of the stories are being mixed up in my mind.
But here's my take on it.
I think the way Tucker Carlson reported it was that people are so woke That a hugely overweight trans person won a beauty queen contest in high school.
And I don't think that's what's happening.
Do you think it's the wokeness that got that trans person elected?
I don't think so.
Now, I think it was that the students think it's funny.
Some of them think it's funny, and some of them are genuinely on the side of the trans person.
They probably also think it's funny because it messes with the adults.
If you were in high school, are you telling me you wouldn't vote for the trans candidate?
I would. Let me see you to vote here.
Imagine your high school self, not your adult self, put yourself back in your high school mind.
You're telling me you wouldn't have voted for the trans?
Yeah, it's a thing. And there's also a history of gay and lesbian people winning for the same reason.
Some people think it's funny, just to mess with the adults and what they expect.
And some people are actually just in favor of the trans people, in favor of the LGBTQ, and they'd like to see them win.
So I'm not sure anything is happening here of any importance whatsoever.
If you're looking at high school and you're saying, oh, there's that trend, we better watch those hypnotized students, nothing like that's happening.
Those are students who, some of them genuinely like the person, and they're boosting them because it's fun, and some just think the whole thing is funny, and they're just having fun with it.
That's all it is. Anyway, I think it's also, could be, at least for some of them, an example of what I call malicious compliance.
So you tell a bunch of students, hey, you must all be woke.
Everybody must be treated the same.
And now I'd like you to vote for the prom queen.
Well, what would you do if you wanted to give the teachers exactly what they wanted?
You would vote for the trans candidate, because that's what they're asking for.
Treat everybody the same.
All right. All right.
I'll give you exactly what you're wanting.
So some of it's malicious compliance, too.
That's what makes it funny. Anyway, there's no real story there.
I think that's just... Anyway, I think that's all positive, honestly.
I think everything about those stories is positive.
Do you? Because voting for somebody in high school because they're attractive is the most fucked up thing in high school, period.
Let me say it again. Voting for the attractive people to be your king and queen is the most fucked up thing in high school, period.
If the students have decided to fuck with the most fucked up thing, good job.
This is applause for the students who decided to break the most fucked up thing, voting for somebody based on their appearance.
Good for them. Good for them.
That's what I want to see for my country.
Well, speaking of our country, Biden's overseas, calling the Cambodians Colombians.
Twice. Now, to be fair, Cambodia and Colombia are words that a normal person could confuse.
Like, it would be easy for me to imagine doing it myself.
Even maybe twice.
There are definitely things where I do the wrong name consistently.
It has nothing to do with age.
It's just there's some things that get in your head.
So, you know, I would say the number of these things that's been happening has to concern you.
If you were looking at it, you know, as a single case, you'd say, that doesn't really mean much.
But as a pattern, as a pattern, it's starting to look like it means something.
But we've lowered our expectation of Biden so low, they can actually go to an international conference to represent us and call the host country by the wrong country name, and everybody's like...
Well, good enough.
That was close.
It started with a C. That's the best we can do right now, so it's fine.
It's fine. All right, here's one of the funniest stories.
Bill Maher I would say he's one of the more principled pundits, which is different from saying I agree with him.
I like the fact that he's taken a financial and other hit to say exactly what he believes.
And so he's a principled player, and I appreciate that about him.
But he's in a little bit of a pickle here, because he was talking about it on Friday on his show, that the Democrats basically are a box-checking group, and if you're going to run for office as a Democrat, you'd better check a box.
You've got to be gay or brown or a woman or LGBTQ of some kind.
And so this is Bill Maher saying that a straight white man is going to have a hard time getting elected as a Democrat.
Now what's interesting about that is that Bill Maher is a straight white man.
Who supports a party that wouldn't let you run for the leadership of the party because of your gender and your color?
Who supports that?
Now, I get that he has to compare it to the alternative.
Like, I don't want to be a Democrat and pretend that the alternative isn't also influencing what you do.
Of course. So I guess he's looked at all the ins and outs and decided that the only team that specifically discriminates people like him is his choice to support.
Can you imagine doing that?
Can you wrap your head around supporting the team that says, very specifically, people with your color and sexual preference and gender?
Nope. You have very little chance of being in a leadership position going forward.
How do you support that?
I would think that the more principled stand would be to support neither of them.
So he has reasons he doesn't elect the Republican Party.
I get that. People have reasons.
And he has a really good reason for not supporting Democrats, because they don't support him.
That's the best reason of all, right?
In a Democratic system, the fact that they're targeting him for discrimination, people like him, that's a perfectly good reason not to vote for them.
But he's got to pick one, so I guess he's picked the one that discriminates against him directly.
Doesn't that just blow your mind?
And I guess we all end up where we are by, you know, nobody picks where they want to go.
You just sort of end up there.
And I think he just sort of ended up here.
It wasn't a choice he maybe would have made, you know, 20 years ago.
But I feel like he, you know, he might be pretty close to saying, okay, that's my limit.
I don't know. We don't know what his limit is.
Maybe we'll find out.
Jen Psaki tweeted this.
She said that what Trump is doing on Truth Social and what Carrie Lake is doing in person at nearly every stop is sowing doubt in the system and the process to confuse and alarm people.
It's false. We need to continue calling it out.
To which I say, is it really Trump and Carrie Lake who are sowing doubt about the Arizona process?
Because it's mostly Arizona they're talking about.
Really? If you took Trump and Carrie Lake out of the process entirely, would the Republicans not notice that the state doesn't have a result?
We wouldn't be talking about it, except for those two people.
I feel like the better take is that the thing that's destroying the credibility of the election is that it's designed to do that.
So let me describe design.
The Arizonans, as I understand it, designed a system which favored not standing in line on election day that was a designed choice.
What they gave up is a quick outcome.
So that was a choice, not a mistake.
So everybody who says that Arizona's, like, functioning wrong, well, that's true maybe in terms of the machines had some trouble and some votes got mixed up and stuff, but that's not mostly what we're talking about.
Mostly we're talking about the delay, right?
It's the delay that seems to be the big thing.
Well, they built a system where the delay is not just maybe going to happen, it's guaranteed.
They built a system where counting the votes well after the deadline is part of the system.
That's intentional. And what they got for that, that trade-off, is they got maybe better participation and maybe shorter lines.
If you design a system where you make an intentional trade-off between the credibility of the system and, let's say, the convenience of the citizens and maybe participation as well, that's a design choice.
That's not a mistake.
So if somebody designs a system where their top priority was not credibility, But rather, convenience, is the public, are we a bunch of assholes for looking at their design and saying, well, they designed it that way.
I didn't do that.
Is that your fault?
How many of you are taking the blame for Arizona's design?
The design is not a mistake.
The design gave them what they wanted, and they traded off exactly what they knew they would trade.
It is designed for lower credibility by higher convenience.
Am I wrong?
If I say my iPhone is a technological marvel, but it sure is expensive, is that not fair?
The Arizona design is perfectly designed for Arizona.
That's what they wanted. They wanted a design that gave them exactly what it gave them.
There were no surprises.
No surprises.
Now, if we respond to their design choice exactly the way they knew we would, because there are no surprises, we're a little bit skeptical because of the delay, and that's built into the system.
So, don't tell me I can't evaluate a design that That was designed for this outcome.
Now, of course, if you ask the Arizonans, they would say, well, we want convenience plus a totally credible election.
But they didn't have that option.
Nobody knows how to make that.
All right. I said on Twitter the other day about Trump that I'm out, and a number of people, including Sam Harris, said, that was your final straw.
Which is actually a pretty good question.
Why would that one comment that Trump made about DeSantis or Youngkin or whatever, why would that be my final straw?
Are any of you wondering the same thing?
Of all the things Trump has done or is alleged to do, why would that be my final straw?
Well, may I clarify?
I don't know if I'm in the 48-hour window of clarification.
I might be outside the window. But allow me to clarify.
Because I do think I'm guilty of being unclear.
So the clarification is this.
I was already not supporting Trump.
So that's not a change.
I was already not supporting him.
Two reasons. Nobody that age should be running for president.
I've been saying that for five years.
Completely consistently.
Number two, I've said publicly a number of times, I'm not going to support anybody going forward who doesn't have a practical fentanyl plan.
And I'm not aware that Trump has anyone, like, an actual plan.
He might end up being the best one, but at the moment he doesn't have a specific plan that I'm aware of.
So, no, I did not use that as the last straw for my support of Trump.
I was already gone, right?
And I'm not coming back unless he comes up with a fentanyl plan.
If he does, I would consider coming back because I'm a single issue voter.
Now, I'm being a single-issue voter because it gives me more leverage.
So I'm doing it for persuasion reasons, right?
I get that voters in general have to make these trade-offs and nothing single-issue.
I get that. Just allow me to do it.
I'm a public figure. So as a public figure, it's a little different equation than the rest of you, okay?
So it makes my...
Persuasion, a little bit more focused.
If I just say, I just got one issue, it's the most important issue, and if you're ignoring it, I'm going to ignore you.
Now, what did it mean when I said I'm out if I was already out?
What I meant by that, which I expressed poorly, is that I'm not going to wipe the shit off of everything that Trump slimes, which I did for about five years.
And usually it was a case of explaining what he really meant or putting it in context.
But when I saw the Youngkin thing, I thought, you know, I'm exhausted.
I'm exhausted.
That China reference was totally innocent.
As we've come to understand it, he was making a point about Youngkin being associated with some Chinese investments or something.
And that's a perfectly good point to make.
But it was the wrong time to do it, and he was attacking his own team.
And I'm not going to defend that.
And I don't feel like defending anything else he does either, because I think he's aged down with the race, and he doesn't have a fentanyl plan.
Now, if I thought that his election was an unambiguous positive, I would keep washing the shit off of stuff that the fake news throws at him.
Because I'm more interested in getting rid of the fake news about them, but now I'm not sure I care.
I'm not sure if I care if the fake news takes them out, because there's nobody I'm backing on other side.
So, let me ask you this.
We're hearing, it's hard to know for sure, that Jared Kushner and Ivanka would not be supportive and would not want to roll in any future Trump administration.
Do you think that's true? That sounds true.
I mean, if I were them, I wouldn't want to do it twice, that's for sure.
Do you think that's true? You don't think that's true?
Interesting. I do.
I think that's true. Just because that's how a normal person would be.
Nobody would want to do that twice.
That'd be crazy. Do you think that Trump could be successful without Ivanka and Jared doing some of the heavy lifting?
You do? I don't know.
I think it's unknowable.
Because what we don't really know is what that dynamic was.
One of the things that some people, and I'm one of them, suspects is that Ivanka was way more positively influential than we'll ever know.
And the reason is that she was on a very short list of people who, if she disagreed with Trump, he would stop and listen.
Like, he would really pay attention.
Now, I think that's a pretty short list.
And she was the closest physically to him and probably had the most time with him and would have the most influence, I would think.
But we don't know, right?
I don't know if any of that mattered, if it was any topics they disagreed on that made a difference.
I don't know. Now, Don Jr.
is the next question. Do you think he would be all in?
I feel like he's signaling that he would be.
I don't know. Do you think Trump could win without my support?
I'll just ask this question.
Most of you say yes.
He could win without my support.
And I agree. I agree he could win without my support.
Yeah. I don't think he could have won the first time without him.
Do you know why? Does everybody, do you understand that?
I don't think he would have won the first time.
Because the first time he needed to be defined differently than he was.
He needed to be defined as somebody who had skills, not a crazy clown running for publicity.
And I think I did that.
I don't think, I know I did that.
I'm the one who defined him as skilled.
Without that he wouldn't have won.
Now, it's not the only thing, right?
Everything had to happen the way it happened to get the result to happen.
It wasn't a one-variable thing.
But I don't think it would have worked without that.
But now that he's served a term, we all know pretty much exactly what we'd get.
And the mainstream, even his enemies, are completely on board with what I taught them in 2015 and 2016, which is, this is actually skill.
And even when I said I'm out, Trump's comment about Youngkin, that was skill.
If I were in the job of explaining it to you, I would say he created a little mystery and intrigue and made everybody look into it, and the looking into it is exactly what he wanted, so he got what he wanted.
And, you know, he probably doesn't care that he's taken out some prominent Republicans to elbow his way into the job.
You know, he can always make nice to them afterwards.
Linda, who is very dumb, says, Scott, you don't vote.
Your message about who you support for president is diminished.
Nope. Nothing works that way.
Nothing works that way.
People will be influenced by anything that's influential.
So, the fact that I don't vote should increase my credibility.
That's why I do it. I don't vote to increase my credibility.
Not to decrease it.
Because the reason here is that if you vote, you've taken a side.
And you can't change it.
And then you have to defend your side.
I don't want to have to defend anybody.
I want to be able to say, well, I thought they had some skills, but it turns out they sucked on this topic.
But as soon as I voted for them, I'm going to be biased toward defending whatever the hell they do, even if it doesn't make sense.
That's how people work.
All right, um... Paul Collider, who's probably watching right now, hi Paul, tweeted this, how can Democrats have such strong unwavering conviction, talking about the election integrity here, how can they have such strong unwavering conviction as something that is executed in an unaudible way,
something two opposing sides spend billions to win control of, trillions probably, Or, they spend billions to control trillions, that's his point.
It is also the lone paradigm of man, there's absolute massive flood.
Okay. The point is, how could you look at this situation and have unwavering conviction that it was fair?
I totally understand if you say, there's no evidence of fraud, so let's treat it like it's fair.
That makes sense. I'm totally on board with that.
But how can you just know it's true without the benefit of knowledge?
And are they just pretending?
Do you think Democrats are just pretending?
Well, as other people noted, whoever is winning is the one who's going to accept the election, right?
I'd like to give a little shout-out, a little bit of respect to the GOP. It was taking quite a beating on their election performance.
And every now and then you have to pull back, give yourself a little distance.
If you get too close to the topic, you lose sight of the forest.
But here's the forest.
The GOP knowingly damaged its odds of power by pursuing abortion.
They knowingly Knew it would hurt them, probably, in terms of gaining power.
And they did it anyway.
They did it aggressively.
They did it enthusiastically.
They did it with full transparency, knowing it would hurt them.
There's nothing I respect more than that, honestly.
That is patriotism.
That is American.
That is why I like conservatives.
Conservatives, even when I disagree with them, which I often do, they're really good at this, you know, keeping their morals and what they actually do somewhat consistent, right?
I mean, a conservative, if they got pregnant, you know, an unwanted pregnancy, probably is going to have the baby.
More likely than not, right?
So there is a consistency there that just has to be respected, I think.
You don't have to do anything that I do, of course.
So I won't try to persuade you.
But in my own mind, the Republicans said, in effect, we're willing to die on this hill.
And then the Democrats killed them on that hill.
So the Democrats got what they wanted, probably.
A little better election results than they expected.
And the Republicans, in a weird way, got...
Exactly what they were shooting for.
Which is, they got the moral win, and they were willing to give up a political win.
So, you know.
This is as close to the ideal outcome as you could get, given that nobody can be completely happy on both sides.
You can't make everybody happy all the time.
But this is just about the closest you could get done for a perfect outcome.
One that you could respect, even if you don't like it.
So that's your positive note for today.
I'm seeing some complaints about DeSantis and maybe Youngkin, too.
But DeSantis, people are telling me, is backed by billionaire Ken Griffin, who's, I guess, the founder of Citadel, a big financial institution.
And I guess he gives immense amounts of money politically, so he's very powerful.
But I don't know if...
Why does that matter exactly?
Can somebody connect some dots for me?
Does it matter because that makes them a rhino or something?
Is that what's happening?
I see the accusation, but I can't quite understand what the point of it is.
Because you know that all the candidates have a billionaire behind them, right?
Right. Well, let me ask you.
Did you know that? Did you know that all of the candidates, all of them, Trump, etc., they all had at least one billionaire, or they really couldn't win?
You can't win without at least one billionaire, it turns out.
You've got to have one billionaire at least on your team.
Does it matter that Ken Griffin, very publicly, is backing Republicans?
I think it's transparent.
Our system allows that.
And all the others have a billionaire behind them.
The best description I ever heard of our political reality is that it's not like the elites are some group of Illuminati where at the very top the Democrats and the Republicans are basically all the same people and they're a little secret society and they're running everything from the top.
That definitely is not happening.
I can assure you that doesn't exist.
I've spent enough time behind the curtain to say that doesn't exist.
What does exist is more like a Game of Thrones, where there's a billionaire, let's call them the kings in the Game of Thrones, and they're all jockeying to see who's the head billionaire, or the most important one.
But it really is a competitive fight, it's just not a voter fight.
The election is sort of the fake competition.
The real competition is billionaire on billionaire.
And they're moving assets and they're gaming the system and they're funding election changes and stuff like that.
But the election is decided by the billionaires.
So whichever billionaires played a better game, that gets expressed in the election result and then we all think we decided.
But our opinions were assigned to us.
By billionaires. Billionaires assigned their opinions.
You can see it in real time right now as Murdoch.
Murdoch just switched away from Trump.
Could not be more obvious.
Do you think Murdoch switching away from Trump makes it impossible for Trump to win?
What do you think? If Murdoch, which means Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and Fox News, all go anti-Trump, can Trump win?
No. No, he can't.
No. Trump cannot win if Murdoch turns on him.
He can't. So it's not really about Trump, and it's not about the voters.
It's just Murdoch.
He's the only one.
It's his decision if Trump runs.
Now, Could he change his mind?
Absolutely, yeah.
I mean, if it gets down to, you know, somehow Trump wins the primary anyway, then Murdoch might have to choose between Trump and the Democrat, and maybe he'll choose Trump.
So Trump could still change his mind.
I don't know. It is a billionaire competition.
It's not a voter competition.
As soon as you see it as a voter competition, you don't understand the whole system.
The system is billionaires control the press.
The press assigns you your opinion.
You go and vote as if you had made up your own mind.
And then we see which billionaire won.
That's where we are. So somebody made a fake Twitter blue verified account on Twitter, pretended to be Eli Lilly's corporate account, and tweeted, we're excited to announce insulin is free now.
Insulin is not free, but apparently it took several billion dollars off of Eli Lilly's stock value.
Somebody almost crashed the entire stock market just with a Twitter prank.
Now, I don't think that's the end of the world.
It's more funny than it is, you know, tragic.
But we'd better watch out.
More of this coming.
War coming.
So the guy who I guess is mostly in charge of the border has been asked to resign, and he declined.
The guy who's in charge of the border, his own boss can't get him to leave the building.
He's so bad at borders that even when his boss says, all right, I'm trying to explain this to you.
This building where we work, you're not allowed inside here anymore.
You need to, like, not be working.
So this building, this little piece of real, don't be in here anymore.
You're not allowed within this border.
And the guy who's in charge of borders, oh yeah, I am.
I'm just going inside your border anyway.
It was a perfect analogy.
Anyway, so you see, the fact that he's resisting being fired is just hilarious.
Like the level of incompetence.
All right, I'd like to do a call back to my impression of Bill Maher deciding he wants to run for president.
And he's talking to the other Democrats, the leadership...
And he's trying to negotiate how he could run for president.
And they say, you know, Bill, you don't check any of the boxes.
We need you to be a woman or gay or brown or something.
And then Bill Maher says, all right, I need a little more guidance.
Can you tell me the number of dicks I have to suck before I can run for president as a Democrat?
Would one be enough?
Could I suck one dick?
And then they say, that would be a little bit gay.
But I feel like one would feel like a fluke.
That would just feel like you're experimenting.
I don't think one's enough.
One just feels like you're having fun.
I need three.
I feel like Bill Maher would have to suck three dicks.
Because by the second one, you would know if you liked it.
Right? So if you suck three dicks, you've sort of committed yourself.
Like, I think I like this.
This is working out for me.
So I feel like Bill Maher is complaining a little too much because he's saying, oh, straight white man can't get elected as a Democrat.
That's not entirely true.
He does have a path.
It's sort of a three-dick situation, maximum.
I think the fourth one would be unnecessary.
Five and six would just be for his own benefit, not really anything political at all.
Anyway, that's my advice.
Bill Maher is just three cocks away from the presidency.
Okay. So Mexico is running a don't-do-drugs campaign.
And they've decided to use as a cautionary tale Philadelphia...
So Mexico is trying to convince young people to not do drugs by showing video of what it looks like on the streets of Philadelphia.
So Mexico is like, don't be like Philadelphia.
Yes, we are a murder hellhole, cartel-driven murder hellhole, but at least we're not Philadelphia.
Am I right? Am I right?
Yes, we have decapitated heads on the sidewalk.
Yes, we do. But not much feces.
The level of feces on our streets is very low.
Decapitated head now and then.
Hardly ever. Hardly ever.
A couple times a year. You probably won't even see it.
So that's amazing.
Nate Silver, who would be more associated, we imagine, with the left...
Although I don't think he's ever mentioned his political affiliations, but we imagine because of where he works and stuff, he's left-leaning.
But he does a lot of independent stuff.
So I'm not sure I know what he is.
But he's saying that the news should look into it, that it appears that liberal elites delayed the vaccination rollout until after the election.
Now, you all think that, right?
It does look like some elites, Democrats.
It does look like Democrats did put their finger on the scales there and delayed that so that Trump wouldn't look as good.
Just the fact that Nate Silver says it looks like that obviously happened, but it requires more research to be sure what really did happen.
I think that's pretty open-minded of it.
Appreciate that. Ann Coulter still hates Trump.
Somehow that trended today.
Did anybody think she was going to change her mind and suddenly become pro-Trump?
Trump?
I don't think so.
All right.
So the GOP has a retiring senator, Senator Toomey, and he said that there's a very high correlation between the MAGA candidates and big losses, or at least dramatically and he said that there's a very high correlation between the So he thinks that President Trump was the problem in the election.
Would you agree?
Do you think that Trump's involvement caused a bad midterm?
I don't know. It kind of depends, you know, if Carrie Lake gets elected and if Walker gets elected, things will look different, right?
But at this point, it looks like the MAGA thing turned out to be a good attack vector for the Democrats more than it was a clever way to get more Republicans.
Yeah, you'd think it was mostly abortion and it wasn't as much Trump.
I don't know. But don't you think Trump was the reason that weak candidates were running?
Wasn't that Trump? Yes or no?
No? You don't think Trump was a cause of weak candidates?
No? I don't know.
I mean, he's not the only cause.
All right. Yeah, it's interesting just that a Republican was saying that.
Can somebody tell me, of all of the late election results that we've had, let's say in the last 10 years, wherever there was a late result, and I don't mean a planned late result that just happens to be after the election day, I mean where it was unexpectedly late.
How often does the Democrat end up winning?
Do we have that?
Is it every time?
Or does the candidate whose party runs the election in that state win every time?
Is there actually a statistic on that?
Thank you.
Oh, Tucker addressed it, 10 out of 13?
I don't know if that's right. Hmm.
All right. Certainly we have plenty of reason to be skeptical about the Arizona situation.
Wouldn't you agree that skepticism is warranted?
Because they designed the system for extra skepticism.
Remember, they designed the system for convenience, not to decrease skepticism.
They didn't design it to make you less skeptical.
If they did that, it would all be done.
The delay that's built into the system, there's just no way that you can ignore that.
Now, I don't think there's any obvious problem.
And by the way, Arizona's explained away the mixed ballots, some that were counted, some not counted.
Apparently, they have a way to reverse engineer that pretty easily.
Junior Coltrane says in all caps, Scott just can't understand.
Sure, Junior. Scott just came on his hand.
In all caps. I'm glad you got your AOL account and your modem is working.
You might want to look into the whole all caps thing.
Just sort of look into that a little bit.
All right. Question.
Which demographic group was most supportive of Democrats?
You all know the answer, right?
It was young, it was the young, and young women in particular, but basically the young.
So Biden got the youth vote.
And second question, totally unrelated.
What demographic group does Biden's policy kill the most of?
What group is being killed at the highest rate, you know, above their baseline?
Well, who dies the most from fentanyl?
Youth, right? So they're killing the most young people with fentanyl, and that is a direct result of their policies.
What about school closures?
So we're not talking about just death.
We're talking about, you know, damage.
School closures. What group of people does that damage?
Oh, yeah, young people. Young people.
Not just young people, but young parents.
It's young parents as well.
How about inflation?
Well, you could say that it affects old people the most if they're on fixed incomes, but the old people also have fewer years of life left.
Depending on the inflation, it could lock the children out of buying a home and create a ripple effect that lasts basically their whole life.
I feel like the effect is bigger on the young.
Is that supportable?
Inflation hurts the young more because they can't get started.
They can't get a house.
And then that affects you all the rest of your life.
If you already have a house, if you already have a house, the house goes up with inflation.
You already have it.
And probably your property tax, depending on your state, even your property tax doesn't go up.
Now, if they're on a fixed income, that's going to hurt them as well, but not as many years because they don't have many left.
I don't know. How about vaccination damage?
Because no matter what you think of vaccinations, I think everybody agrees, some number of people had myocarditis.
Is that mostly the old people or the young people?
Mostly the young. That's why at least two companies are now doing a study to see how much of the effect.
Yeah, younger men.
So is it my imagination that the Democrats are the worst party for protecting the young, but because they promised them debt relief, which was totally a lie, because they knew they couldn't do it, the young just said, free money.
Free money, yay.
Now you can kind of understand how the young would be like this.
What does Biden's fentanyl policy, And his abortion policy and preference, what do they have in common?
And don't say that it kills young people.
One thing that the fentanyl policy and the abortion policy have in common is freedom.
Young people really like freedom.
And if you take their drugs away from them, they might live longer, but they'll have less freedom.
Am I right? They might want access.
They might say, yeah, people are dying from overdoses, but it was their choice.
So I'd rather have the freedom.
And I'd rather have the freedom for a divorce.
I'd rather have the freedom to get my drugs.
I'd rather the people south of the border are free to come here.
So they do seem to choose freedom over danger.
Would you say that? Young people will choose freedom over danger fairly reliably, right?
What's the most common thing a teenager says?
Yeah, I know it's dangerous.
I want to do it anyway. Right?
It's the most common thing they say.
I hear you. I hear you.
It's a bad idea. I'm going to do it anyway because it was really fun and I don't care about the risk.
So it's just an oddity, but you can understand it, why Biden is killing the most people in the demographic group that supports him the most.
Interestingly. But at least they get imaginary college relief, college debt relief out of it.
So it's not like they came up empty-handed, huh?
Yeah, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, I suppose.
Let me do a little test of your knowledge.
You are aware, Michael Schellenberger's done a great job about this, that San Francisco's open-air legal drug experiment seems to be a huge failure, right?
Do you all know that? So San Francisco said, well, we'll give all these druggies on the streets some free drugs, and at least they'll be safer, because at least the drug-taking part will be less lethal.
And then it just became a walking dead encampment and ruined the city and everything.
Alright, now that you know that didn't work, when I say the best treatment for fentanyl would be to legalize safer alternatives, does that sound like something that's already tried and failed?
I say legalize safe alternatives.
Does it sound like it's been tried and failed?
Yes, right? And San Francisco seems like the one who tried it and failed, right?
Do you not see the gigantic difference between what I'm saying and what San Francisco did?
See, the trouble is that they feel too much alike, but the difference is gigantic.
Here's the difference. I wouldn't give drugs to street people...
I should have said that, I guess.
San Francisco gave drugs to the people on the streets, which gives you more street people, so it ruins San Francisco.
That couldn't possibly be a good idea.
I wouldn't let street people have free drugs.
I would let somebody who works in a cubicle have free drugs.
If you have a place you live and you have a job, I'll give you safer alternatives and you work it out.
You figure out how to get that monkey off your back.
Or you live mildly addicted and you just are a functional addict and maybe that's your choice.
The people on the streets, I would say you can have free drugs but you have to get off the street.
Minimum requirement. You know, you have to get into some treatment or off the street or something.
But I wouldn't give them free drugs on the street.
You're trying to get them off the street.
So, do you understand my frustration when I say the fentanyl thing has something we could test to see if it makes a difference?
My stepson, of course, this is anecdotal.
You can't make policy based on one person.
I get that. But my stepson wasn't homeless.
He wasn't homeless. He was just somebody who liked drugs too much.
And he knew that fentanyl was the risk that could kill him.
If he knew that he could take a drug that definitely didn't have fentanyl, he would have done it.
He didn't have the option.
But there are more people like my stepson dying from overdose than street people.
Do we have an epidemic of the homeless dying of drug overdoses?
I've never heard anybody even mention it.
Have you? Maybe they don't.
Maybe they don't die.
Maybe it's like COVID. They didn't seem to die of COVID. Nobody really understood why, I don't think.
Maybe they just are better at drugs.
Because one of the things that would keep you alive if you do fentanyl is knowing you're taking it.
So if you're a street person, you might say, give me some fentanyl, and you know what you have, and then you just deal with that risk knowingly, and that's safer than dealing with it unknowingly.
Yeah. Maybe they have superpowers.
But I don't know how to beat this problem.
See, the problem is that the thing that failed miserably, the open-air drug thing in San Francisco, that was unambiguously a failure, but they did everything wrong.
And because they did everything wrong, I'll never be able to persuade anybody to try something that doesn't involve the homeless.
But you see the problem, right?
The problem is those two things are too similar in people's minds, so now you can't do the good thing because the bad thing didn't work.
Now, I don't know, let me be clear, I don't know that giving people safe alternatives would work.
It's just the obvious thing to try.
It's the obvious thing.
If you're not trying the most obvious thing, well, how serious are you, really?
How serious are you?
You sell it to buy one and get the second dose for free?
Maybe. Try something besides prison, yeah.
Are you talking about suboxone, methadone?
No. I'm talking about giving somebody oxycodone instead of fentanyl.
But giving them an amount they know exactly what they're getting.
Because as bad as that is, you know, oxy or heroin or something, as bad as those are, they're really bad, they're not nearly as bad as fentanyl.
So you could first get them off the thing that kills them, and then they're going to live longer and maybe they have a chance of getting off the other drugs.
But first you put the tourniquet on and keep them from dying so they have a chance.
All right. Addiction doctors should chime in on this.
I agree. Why would a parent want their kids to do drugs in the first place?
Who said that?
Who thinks that somebody wants their kids to do drugs?
That's what you heard? You listened to this and you thought, there are some parents who want their kids to do drugs.
No, no, nothing like that.
Darwin Effect is a good thing for the species.
Thank you, Shepard, for mentioning in public that the death of my stepson is good for the public.
You're a fine, fine human being there.
I'll bet your parents are proud of you.
Although, maybe you're not wrong.
Saying it in public to me is sort of a dick move, but I don't actually disagree with your point.
Unfortunately, it does exactly what you said.
And it did it in my case as well.
If I can be blunt, my stepson wasn't going to add to society.
Let me say that as clearly as possible.
He wasn't going to add.
He probably would have killed somebody, accidentally, like he wasn't violent.
But he usually could have been the guy who gave somebody the fentanyl that killed him.
I once saw him drive when he didn't know that I was on the street.
He should never have been able to use a motor vehicle.
But nobody was going to stop him once he was an adult.
So he was an adult who should never have been in a motor vehicle.
But nobody could stop him once he's an adult.
So is the world better off that he's gone?
Yes. Yes.
It's a hard thing to say.
I mean, I loved him deeply.
And I still see him everywhere.
And it hurt me like nothing probably will ever hurt me again.
But, is the world better off?
Yes. Yes.
He was damaging to the world in many ways.
And he had no interest in ever working.
He had no interest in adding anything to the world.
And he would tell you directly.
He didn't want to practice anything because he didn't want to get good at anything.
That was an actual philosophy of an adult.
An adult. I mean, a young adult.
But as an adult, he said he would not agree to practice anything and get good at it because he doesn't like practicing anything.
And so he wanted to go through life without ever trying to be good at anything, including working, anything.
That was his actual preference.
He also said many times that he knew he was in a risky lifestyle and he preferred to die over being limited and having his freedom taken away.
He got what he wanted.
He literally chose death over a lack of freedom.
He chose it often and clearly.
Like he said it as clearly as you could say as many times as you want to hear it.
He chose a high risk of death over having his freedom impinged in any way.
It's not a choice you and I would have made, but he made a choice that got him exactly what you would expect him to get, and he knew that was the risk, and there it was.
Now, here's the other factor.
I also don't think he had a chance of being happy.
Again, that's a hard truth.
I don't believe he had a chance of being happy in life, because he had Beliefs and philosophies that guaranteed he would be miserable.
And so, he did have a death wish.
I won't give you the details, but let's just say I know for sure he had a death wish.
So he wasn't afraid of the risk, and he didn't mind dying.
And he would rather have a short, fun life than a long one with people telling him what to do where he couldn't do drugs, and he got his choice.
So, it's funny, as much as it hurt me, and I wouldn't have chosen that outcome, you did get what he asked for.
So it's not a tragedy like other tragedies.
It's different, because it's such a special case.
But that's the real world.
The real world is complicated.
The real world is not, you know, so simple that this was bad and this was good.
This was a complicated situation.
Now, part of the reason that I fight fentanyl is because I would like his life to have meaning.
You all get that, right?
You all get that, you know, that it gives meaning to his life.
And it gives meaning to mine as well, if I have any success at all.
But also...
China did this, and the cartels did this.
And all other considerations aside, if you kill my kid, it's to the death.
You all understand that too, right?
My fight with China and the cartels is to the death.
You should obviously see that I'm risking my life to go after the cartels in China.
You know that, right? I'm literally risking my life.
Fuck every one of them.
If you kill my kid, it's to the death.
You're all with me, right?
You're all on the same page, right?
If it were your kid, it's to the death.
There's no nuance anymore.
I'm going to destroy China or the cartels, or they'll kill me first.
But I'm not going to quit.
I'm going to take their fucking heads.
If I can. Now, the odds of the cartel killing me are pretty good, unfortunately.
I mean, they just have to want to.
But if they do, then I'm going to get what I want as well.
Because if they kill me, they're all dead.
Because you don't kill a prominent American and just walk away from it.
I have enough, let's say prominence is the wrong word, that sounds like a compliment to myself.
I have enough visibility.
I have enough visibility that if the cartel took me out, the odds of them getting flattened would be really higher.
Would you let that happen?
Forget about me. If they took out some prominent political voice in America, on either side, doesn't matter who it is, do you think we'd let that go?
I don't think so. I think that would be war.
Not me specifically, but just anybody.
Protect the Tesla factory.
I don't care about the Tesla factory in China.
If Tesla loses their factory in China, that would be very expensive for me.
Because I own some Tesla stock.
But I would still...
I'd be okay with that.
Whatever it takes. Do not underestimate the ability of Americans to not care.
Yeah, well, that's the fight, isn't it?
The not caring part. China is unsafe for business.
Eric says, you slept with Carrie Lake.
I'll bet you didn't. Junior says, I'll bet if Scott stopped smoking weed, he would think of the world differently.
Probably. Yeah.
Yeah, if I stopped smoking weed, I would lose all of my positivity.
And I would hate the world and probably wouldn't bother trying to help.
So I think you're true.
I believe.
All right.
Why would China help the U.S.?
They wouldn't.
Thank you.
What? How do I know what?
Oh, in 2002?
Well, Eric is making his claim that he had an affair with Carrie Lake.
Should we care about that?
Does anybody care about Carrie Lake's sex life?
I don't. I don't.
Does it seem weird to you when we're still calling out gay politicians for being elected?
We're still like, first lesbian governor.
Wouldn't you be insulted if you were the first lesbian governor in 2022?
There was a time when calling it out made sense.
But in 2022, here's what it sounds like.
Congratulations. Your life is very successful.
You're now the governor of a major state, and you like to munch on rugs.
And then you'd be the governor, and you're like, wait a minute, those two things, how does that fit together?
Well, you're the governor of an important state, and you like to put your tongue on vaginas.
Hold on, hold on.
That's a true statement, but can we separate these things?
Can we separate these?
Like, maybe we could talk about my job today?
How about my job?
Oh yeah, your job is good too, but we would like to equally note your enthusiasm for tonguing vaginas.
No! No!
No, that is a different topic.
Can we not talk about that?
Let's get over it.
Kansas has a lesbian kickbox or Native American?
I'd vote for that.
You had me at lesbian kickbox or Native American.
I'd vote for her just automatically.
I like all of that.
I like all of that. Oh, by the way, Jake Paul and Andrew Taint are going to have a fight.
Is that real? Has that been scheduled?
There's no fight I've ever wanted to see more than that.
Now, I don't know who's going to win.
I think I would typically go for the younger person with higher weight, which would be Jake Paul.
I don't know anything about fighting, so maybe Andrew Tate is just a better fighter, so maybe he'll win.
But wouldn't you favor the heavier, younger person?
About a 10-year difference, I think.
You think Tate will beat him?
Maybe. Maybe.
Yeah, because one's a boxer and one's a cage fighter, and maybe it's different skills.
All right, well, I'll watch it.
I don't know.
The thing about Andrew Taint that is vexing but interesting is his entertainment factor is very high.
I just don't like him personally, because we have some personal interactions that were negative.
But it's hard to look away.
I mean, he puts on a show.
Tonight? It's not tonight, is it?
Wait, is it tonight?
Is it? No, it's not tonight.
Because we would have got much more warning, I think.
Yeah, not tonight. Okay.
All right, I think I got everything...
I think I covered everything.
Is there any topic I missed?
Anything I missed? I think it's probably the best show ever.
Remember, when you're standing in line and you're bored, what do you do?
What do you do when you're standing in line and you're bored?
That's when you breathe. Take your two inhales, the Andrew Huberman method, And the long exhale.
By the way, the two sniff inhales through your nose, followed by the exhale, I feel immediately different.
Do you have the same thing?
Because when I do the exhale, I just let everything out.
I feel immediately different.
I checked my blood pressure yesterday without meds.
It was 118 over 78.
That's with just lifestyle.
And it was like, a few weeks ago, it was like, with meds, when I was on meds, it was like, you know, 140 plus.
And just stopped everything, just take a walk, cut down on my caffeine.
That's about it. And 118 over 78.
Like, perfect. Alright.
I didn't talk about the FTX crash.
Yeah, the cryptocurrency exchange.
The owner was worth billions and he was a major Democrat donor.
And it turns out the whole thing was apparently not stable.
The whole thing just disappeared.
Now, Bitcoin took a shit too, right?
All the cryptos were in the toilet.
But the stock market's looking good.
Yeah. Who could have ever imagined there would be a major cryptocurrency scandal of that type?
Who could have ever seen that coming?
Besides everyone.
Everyone. All right.
Is crypto done? I don't think crypto can be done.
And I had been advising.
I heard somebody saying this was bad advice.
But before this happened, I had been saying, You know, you might want a little bit of Bitcoin just as a hedge in case the rest of the money becomes worthless.
I wouldn't be buying the weird cryptos.
I'm not sure, is Ethereum still good?
Is that still as safe?
None of them are safe, but is it still in the Bitcoin realm or is Ethereum As Ethereum lost its luster.
That's where most of my money is, but I don't look at it.
So my investment approach with crypto is that I accidentally ended up with some.
I had some small amount that turned into a large amount while I wasn't watching.
And I'm just never going to look at it.
It's just going to do whatever it does.
So I do have a little bit of Bitcoin, a little bit of Ethereum.
I don't know if it's a good idea.
I'm not sure if it still makes sense to assume that some small amount of your portfolio should have that as a hedge.
Maybe it was bad advice.
I don't know. Generally speaking, diversification is always good.
But crypto is a weird thing to diversify into because it's a risk like nothing else.
You can move ETH with zero fees now?
Really? Why did I not talk about Elon Musk?
There's nothing new today, right?
Did anything happen with Twitter today?
I mean, I talked about the fake Twitter account.
But I don't think there's any new Elon Musk, anything, is there?
The Doge of Venice, all right.
Ukraine, I think, is going to settle into a winter siege.
Not a siege, but I think it's just going to be a winter stalemate.
All right. Blake Masters lost.
Now, is that official? Is it official that Blake Masters lost?
I know somebody called the election.
But it's not official, is it?
It's still statistically possible?
Even Fox called it?
Yeah. Well, they do have that issue of some of the ballots being mixed up, but it looks like they can solve that.
It's been called by a few different outlets.
And then is Carrie Lake going to lose as the extra votes come in?
Did we go from Carrie Lake is definitely going to win because the extra votes will favor Republicans?
Did we go all the way from that to she's going to lose?
Did the pot coin thing ever take off?
I doubt it. So Kelly is officially the winner.
Yeah.
Well, they're bringing in new boxes, yeah.
Has Russia had most of its victories in the winter throughout history?
I think Russia's winter victories is when Russia was being attacked in the winter.
So that's not the case.
And Boebert is looking like she might win now?
Like, everything we thought is sort of turned around backwards from what we thought was, oh, definitely going to happen.
All right. She'll leak it out?
Maybe. All right.
That's all I got for today. More people yelling at me in all caps.
Now, is criticizing somebody in all caps, is that the ultimate cell phone?
No, here's the ultimate.
The ultimate cell phone is when people say, Scott, you're no genius.
And they spell genius, G-E-N-U-S, or J. Genius with a J. That's the ultimate cell phone.
You're no genus.
But I think yelling at somebody in all caps...
Might be the ultimate cell phone.
Because you're shouting, I'm a fucking idiot, but also listen to what I have to say.
So as soon as I see the caps, I discount everything.
Don't you? When you see caps, don't you discount all of it?
I do. What if it's post-irony?
All right. Now everybody's writing in caps at me.
Your sister lives in Livermore and says hi?
Well, tell her I said hi to.
Hi to your sis. All right.
All right.
Love the show. It's the best show on politics.
So I'm pretty sure this is the best show on politics, period.
