My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Alec Baldwin's pending trial
Christopher Wray at WEF
Steven Crowder vs. Daily Wire
Corruption explains fentanyl deaths
Supreme Court leaker can't be found?
57% say investigate CDC over vaccine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization, Coffee with Scott Adams, there's never been a finer thing.
And if you'd like to take this up to levels that nobody's ever experienced before, unless they've climbed a mountain while doing acid and having sex at the same time, or something like that.
But all we have today is a substitute for all that good stuff, and it's called a cupper mugger, a glass of tankard chalice stein, a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's happening now.
Go.
Yeah, that was a good one.
Looks like everything's operating just the way it should today.
I'm feeling like you're all going to have a good day today.
Is anybody ready for a good day?
Yeah.
Don M. asked me, what about smoking weed with Scott Adams?
Well, sounds like somebody needs to join the Locals community.
Where we do visit the Man Cave in the evenings.
And the Man Cave is a very different, very different situation.
But we're going to go private over here on Locals.
There are subscription sites, they get the good stuff.
There you go.
You're private now.
All right.
What's going on?
Question number one.
I saw a user on Twitter, Terry Schilling, asked this question to his users.
Should men still open doors for women?
Interesting question.
Should men still open doors?
Now, let me make a distinction.
The distinction is, I'm only private on the Locals platform.
So I do some extra content there.
On YouTube it's public.
This is all public on YouTube.
So I make a distinction between opening a door, where a woman walks up to a door and stands there and waits for you to open the door for her, versus you've walked through a door and then you're holding it open for somebody.
Or, you just get there first, Because you're walking first, and then you hold it open for, could be a woman, but it could be anybody.
Now, my take on this is, if I don't know their pronouns, I don't want to take a chance.
And if you can't identify a woman by looking at them, and I believe that is the standard.
The standard now is that you can't identify a woman just by looking.
That would be kind of an assumption.
And what if you saw somebody coming, And you said to yourself, oh, a woman, I think I'll be polite.
And then what if you're wrong?
What if it's somebody who identifies as a man, but you've misidentified?
Well, what a problem.
Social problem for you.
Probably get canceled on social media as well.
So don't take the chance.
If you see a woman coming or somebody you identify as a woman, but you don't know, Hold that door closed and don't let that person even get through.
That's the only way to play it.
You gotta let them fight with it a little bit, and then you'll all be, like, equal.
No, not even equal.
Equitable.
That would be equitable.
Well, that's just a big cluster F, so we'll see how that works out.
Here's a growing positive trend that you wouldn't notice unless you're following certain Twitter accounts.
But Cory DeAngelis continues to report that various state legislatures are improving funding that follows the kid instead of the school.
So that parents could say, let's take our kid to another school and then some money would go with them to help pay for that alternate school.
So free market.
It's apparently Florida Florida legislature has just introduced a bill to fund students instead of systems.
So a number of states are doing it, and the conservative states seem to be passing them.
It's a big thing.
It's a big deal.
And I love the fact That when we talk about the states being the laboratory for the country, this is exactly what we're talking about, right?
Let a few smart states try something.
They probably won't execute the same way.
See if anybody can nail it.
If anybody nails it, maybe we know in, you know, five to seven years and then we can start copying it.
That's a pretty good sign.
Actor Alec Baldwin is going to be prosecuted for two counts.
We've talked about this way too much, but here's the first thing.
I'll bet we're going to find out a whole bunch of surprises.
I think the trial will kick up some things that just seem like surprises.
And apparently at one point early in the process, Baldwin had said in an interview that he did not pull the The trigger.
But the forensic people said, yes, the trigger was pulled.
Now, is that going to be a problem?
Because he said, I would never point a gun at a person and pull the trigger.
Even if it was a movie gun.
He said he would never do that.
Which suggests, unfortunately for him, it suggests that he was fully aware, fully aware of the danger of pointing a gun at somebody.
And he did pull the trigger.
According to the forensics people, we don't know.
Yeah, I suppose it could be like a weird defective gun that pulls its own trigger or something.
Yeah, the trigger pulled itself.
Well, so here's my take on it.
I hate, you know, the legal system has to do what the legal system does, but I hate that it was a genuine accident.
And another life and his family will all be scarred by it forever.
I don't know, it just doesn't feel like justice.
Because you can't bring the person back and it would be hard to punish him more than he's already punished psychologically and financially and reputationally and everything else.
And it's not exactly like there's any message to be sent, is there?
Is there anybody in Hollywood who doesn't already know Maybe double check that gun.
Nobody's going to learn anything if he goes to jail.
There's no learning that will happen.
And it's not like he's going to be reformed.
So if he makes another movie, he won't make that same mistake again.
There's just no benefit.
Now, if you say that the family of the deceased should sue him and get a bunch of money, I think that already happened, didn't it?
And that feels like the right domain.
Maybe there's financial compensation.
But, I don't know, jail doesn't make sense.
Now, let me make a completely different, switch my argument.
You know, your head's going to spin here.
He was also the head of the production.
As the head of the production, it looks like he really effed up.
It looks like he just didn't do, you know, the job of a boss to make sure the right people were in place and the right processes.
That's harder to defend, right?
Asking a non-gun owner actor in the context of a fictional movie to do all the right things, that's a big ask.
But asking a boss to make sure he hired the right people to take care of safety, when there were all kinds of safety complaints, that one's hard to defend.
So, I think he's in trouble, but we're going to have some surprises.
I know we'll have some surprises.
Apparently there were more live bullets in his gun belt.
I saw that in a Tim Cast tweet.
Apparently we know why the airline failure happened.
The FAA said some contractor unintentionally deleted some files that some antiquated system needed to operate and it was hard to recover the files.
Now, the obvious is, why do we have a system that's that weak?
That's like the weakest system I've ever seen.
Apparently it's really old.
It's like from the generation of the Walkman, I saw somebody in the Wall Street Journal say.
So, boy, somebody was not doing their job there, but there's not much to say about that.
I saw a video at the World Economic Forum.
In which FBI Director Christopher Wray was talking and user ALX on Twitter tweeted this.
This is what Wray actually said.
Now it's a little out of context, but my point will be that he shouldn't be there In any capacity.
So even in context, it's all wrong.
But this is probably a little bit out of context, but here's what he said.
Yes, it has.
Yes.
As a matter of fact, it has.
between the private sector and the government, especially the FBI, has made significant strides.
Yes, it has.
Yes, as a matter of fact, it has.
Isn't that the scariest thing you've ever heard?
Why are we sending a representative of the United States to embarrass us in front of the world?
What?
Like, why is that okay?
Like, why does he still have a job?
Like, everything about that is just creepy and wrong.
But it was probably out of context, and, you know, I'm sure the context would have, you know, not sounded as scary.
So this is something the WEF does, is they do things which certainly sound scary.
And who knows what they actually intend to do.
So here's what I'm trying to understand about the World Economic Forum.
Is it a useless, dilber entity where a bunch of people get together and say a bunch of jargon and have a nice holiday and go home?
How many people think that's what's happening?
And that they don't really have any impact on anything?
Like everything would have happened on its own.
They just talk about it and take credit and pat each other on the back.
I'm saying yeses and nos, but I think it's at least partly that, wouldn't you agree?
No matter what else it is, it's partly just a bunch of jargon spewing, you know, woke signaling people having a nice vacation.
It would be easy to overestimate how much power they have.
But it would be easy to underestimate it too.
Because there might be some circles, you know, some areas where they do influence.
Now I saw on Dr. Carlson's show the claim that the WEF was behind Sri Lanka's destroyed economy because Sri Lanka didn't use proper fertilizer Because it was sort of, you know, poo-pooed by the WEF in some way.
Is that true?
Let me say that without even looking into it, it doesn't sound true.
Doesn't sound true.
Yeah.
So, let me say that I'll go look, let me do a little research.
I was going to do that before I go on.
But I want to comment it before I research.
Before researching it, it doesn't sound true.
It sounds like it's true-ish.
It has the ring to it of something that sounds true, but if you looked into it, there'd be a little something there.
Well, let me understand this.
The WF cannot require anybody to do anything, am I right?
So they didn't require anybody to do anything.
And so Sri Lanka was under no more or less requirement than every other country.
Is that true or false?
Every country had the same set of standards that were being pushed on them, but one of them made a horrible, catastrophic decision to, I don't know, follow some specific part of it too far?
Why did nobody else do it?
Incentives?
Did the WF offer them incentives?
All right.
Heavily encouraged?
Did they heavily encourage them to look for substitutes, or did they heavily encourage them to farm in a way that would not possibly work?
Because I have trouble believing that the WF said, get rid of your fertilizer and don't replace it with anything.
I don't believe that happened.
Do you believe that happened?
I don't believe that happened.
In only one country, in all the countries, only Little Sri Lanka actually took that advice.
They're the only ones?
All right.
Now, am I acting too confident for someone who has no information on the topic whatsoever?
Probably.
Probably.
But I want you to see, so this is like a little test.
Here's a little test.
I believe that you can usually, let's say 80% of the time, identify bullshit without doing any research.
80% of the time.
Now the 20% that you're wrong could be a real problem, right?
So I'm not saying 80% is good, but I think about 80% of the time you can tell it's bullshit just from the story itself.
So I'm gonna call bullshit on the story with A complete lack of knowledge about the context.
Because I think I have an 80% chance of being right, and then a 20% chance of embarrassing myself, but I never care about that.
So it's just an experiment.
I don't know what's true.
I'll just make an 80% bet.
Then tomorrow, if I remember, we'll check, and I'll tell you if there's any context that changes the situation.
But I don't believe it's true.
But I could be wrong.
Let's talk about Stephen Crowder versus The Daily Wire.
I knew this story was going to get more interesting.
Didn't you?
Couldn't you kind of smell it?
Like there was a little start, I'll give you the starting point, but just from the very beginning I thought, this is going to go deeper.
And then it did.
Alright, so the story is, internet It's a conservative superstar, Steven Crowder, who has millions of followers on YouTube and other places.
And he was offered a very lucrative contract to work with Daily Wire.
And what went wrong was the Daily Wire made a large offer of $50 million over four years with the option to extend.
Now that $50 million would include his production costs, but maybe that's 10% or 20% of it.
So it was a big deal.
Got a connection problem there.
And Stephen Crowder went public, but he didn't name the entity.
He didn't name Daily Wire initially.
Daily Wire outed themselves because I think they assumed people would figure out who they were.
There are not many entities on the right who could offer a big contract, right?
And he was leaving Blaze, the Blaze.
So they basically were like, Two entities that could offer him a lot of money, and the Daily Wire was one.
So people would have figured it out.
I think that trying to imagine that nobody would figure it out was unrealistic, in my opinion.
Somebody would have figured it out from the hints.
But Crowder said that the real issue was that the Daily Wire's offer was Let's see if I can... I'll try to do my most honest attempt to accurately characterize his opinion.
Which is always sketchy.
Whenever you're trying to summarize someone else's opinion, you almost never get it right.
Because I watch people do it with me, and they never get it right.
So I'm wary that I might be misrepresenting his opinion.
But you all, many of you have seen it.
So keep me honest, okay?
So call me out if I'm not representing your side as accurately as possible.
Part of the deal said that if Crowder got demonetized by YouTube, for example, or some other platforms, that would obviously have a big impact on their shared revenue.
So the idea was Crowder would make content Daily Wire would promote it and put it on their platforms, etc.
And then the two of them would share the combined money.
But if Crowder did something that would get them demonetized or banned on platforms, the amount of money the two of them could make could be substantially decreased.
So the Daily Wire's first offer, and first offer is important, first offer is not a final offer, his first offer was that there would be financial offsets for that, or penalties, you might call it, so that they wouldn't have to pay Crowder millions of dollars if he was making no money for them.
Crowder interpreted this as effectively a form of censorship because he would be penalized if some other platform that he can't control decided he said something they didn't like.
So in effect, his point, which is accurate, this is an accurate point, is that the Daily Wire's offer would make him still subsidiary to the social media censors.
In other words, now the Daily Wire would be an extra force on the side of the censors.
Does that capture it?
That the Daily Wire's offer, because it included a penalty for bad behavior, you know, bad behavior, in quotes, that that was the same as being on the side of the censors.
How many would take that view?
Oh, and furthermore, furthermore, he said very clearly, it is not about the money.
It is not about the money.
Does that capture it?
And then he backed up his not about the money by saying, I never said the 50 million wasn't enough.
I never even discussed the dollar amount, which apparently is true.
So does that back his view that it's not about the money, because he never discussed the $50 million, it's only about them being on the side of the censors, and that he was also concerned, not so much for himself, but he said directly on an audio we heard, he said, but what about the smaller person who comes up and can't negotiate with you?
What about them?
Are they going to get this deal too?
Where basically everybody's just going to be under the heel of the censors, which is exactly what we don't want.
And then he suggested that they move away from being dependent on advertising.
Now, so would you characterize that as, number one, not about the money?
How many would you agree that Crowder's complaint was not about the money?
You're not quite sure, are you?
Well, I'm going to clear it up for you in a minute.
All right.
So let me give you three different takes on this.
The first take will be people who don't have experience in business.
Second take will be from a lawyer.
The third take will be from somebody who is very experienced at negotiating contracts, very much of this type.
All right.
Do you think those three views are going to be the same?
Not even close.
Not even close.
All right.
So for our first stand in for the opinion of someone who I believe, and if, by the way, if I'm mischaracterizing this individual, please correct me.
But, um, Do you know Carolyn Borisenko on Twitter?
Dr. Carolyn Borisenko.
Now, she's a popular tweeter.
You've seen a lot of her tweets, probably.
And her take was, oh, first of all, you need to know that Steven Crowder recorded his phone call with The Daily Wire, and then he played it on the air.
OK, we'll talk about that.
But Dr. Borisenko says, Stephen Crowder recorded a phone call with the Daily Wire CEO that absolutely destroys the narrative that they, meaning the Daily Wire, have been trying to sell you.
And so I listened to the audio and I didn't hear that.
I didn't hear anything like that.
I didn't hear any narrative get destroyed.
Do you know what I heard?
I'll tell you in a minute.
So somebody who, and again, if I'm mischaracterizing this, somebody should correct me because I'll apologize.
But I don't think that Dr. Borisenko would characterize herself as an expert in business or negotiating.
I don't think so.
Now if you're not really experienced in negotiating, would it be reasonable that your take on this is incomplete?
That there's maybe some blind spots.
It's just a lack of experience in this.
It's a very unique domain, right?
It's a domain that if you're not quite experienced with, there'd be huge things that are not obvious to you.
It would just be obvious to somebody who does it for a living.
So that's one take.
So I'll say more about that.
But initially I would say, it looks like she's agreeing that it wasn't about the money.
And it looks like she's agreeing that it was about the censorship.
Is that a reasonable take for somebody who's not an expert at negotiating contracts?
Is that reasonable from that perspective, let's say?
I think so.
It sounds like a smart person, because she is smart.
She's above average, way above average, I think.
Way above average in IQ.
and accomplishment, and it's reasonable, if that was your frame of reference.
Now let's take another frame of reference.
There's an attorney, maybe you've heard of him, Robert Barnes.
Has anybody ever heard of Attorney Robert Barnes?
Well, he's got a take.
In which he said on Twitter, Crowder called the gilded cage of censored speech slavery to big tech, not the dollar offer.
And he says Crowder was right.
So from a lawyer's take, He's sort of more of like a technical take on what he said.
And his technical take is that it was about censored speech.
You know, slavery, the big tech.
It was not about the dollar amount of the offer.
So that's the lawyer's take.
By context, Robert Barnes is who I call the dumbest attorney in the world.
But that doesn't mean he's wrong on this.
He's wrong about me, but I just have a problem with him personally.
But yeah, is that a reasonable opinion?
Do you think that the attorney view, because it very much agrees with Carolyn Dr. Bicinco, Pretty reasonable.
Yeah, I'm going to say that's reasonable, based on what he heard.
All right, now I'm going to give you the third view, which is someone with extensive business experience in this exact domain.
And that would be me.
Because not only am I a content provider, who has done lots of content providing contracts of all kinds, but I also used to be a contract negotiator for a living.
And, you know, I've got a degree in economics and an MBA, so I have exactly the qualifications for exactly this topic.
All right?
So, would somebody who has lots of experience in it have the same view as the attorney and as Dr. Bissenko?
Well, here's my take.
It's always about the money.
It's always about the money.
Here's why.
Now, in order to understand that, you would have to have some experience.
So, the idea was that Crowder would lose money if he got demonetized on a platform, but the Daily Wire, quite reasonably, quite reasonably, the Daily Wire said, well, if you make less money, shouldn't we pay you less money?
Is that unreasonable?
He says that if you pay me less money, it's censorship.
No, it isn't.
It's less money.
If he didn't care about the money, he wouldn't be complaining about the contract.
Because the contract allows him to say anything he wants, wherever he wants.
What would be the penalty?
Just money.
The reason he feels he's trapped in the gilded cage is that he'll lose money.
If he says what he wants to say and it's judged unfit for the platforms.
So he doesn't want to be under the yoke of advertisers.
We agree with that.
He should not be under the yoke of advertisers.
But what should he have done?
How should he have handled it if he were an experienced business person operating with full ethics?
Number one, You never record somebody's phone call in a negotiation and play it in public.
If you do, no one should ever work with you again.
No, there's no forgiveness.
There's no second strike.
There's no second chance for that one.
Right?
That, that is game.
It's so hard not to swear.
That is game over from an ethics perspective.
Unless, you know, if we find out later, let me let me soften this a little because there might be something I don't know.
So, you know, if in 48 hours we find out that the Daily Wire knew they were recorded and agreed to it and agreed to have it public.
That'd be fine.
But that's not in evidence.
At the moment, it looks like he recorded them without their knowledge and played it without their knowledge.
If that's true, The Daily Wire should not be working with him.
That would be evidence that he's not a person you could trust.
That would be one of the worst things I've ever seen in a business context.
Now, he didn't steal any money.
But it's as bad as a, you know, Gary, as a made-off FTX Sam Bankman free.
I mean, except for the money amount, because it wasn't, no money was lost.
But in terms of Ethical breaches, it's as big as it gets.
I mean, it's literally illegal, depending where you are, right?
I think it depends on the state or something, but it's literally illegal to record somebody with audio without their permission.
In my state it is.
It's different, I think, in different places.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
So the Daily Wire has played this so far Professionally.
And I gotta give him credit for that.
Now here's what Crowder should have done or could have done if he had more experience and wanted to solve this.
He could have said to them, look, I totally understand that if we have a deal where we're both doing something to make money, and if I do something that makes you not have money, That that needs to be dealt with somehow.
Because otherwise, why would the Daily Wire make a deal without protecting the thing that's their biggest risk?
Here's how they do it.
It's a very typical contract problem.
Stephen Crowder could counter with this.
How about we share the subscription revenue.
And I just keep all of the YouTube revenue, and then it's my problem if they, you know, I'll say whatever I want, and it's just my problem if they demonetize me.
But we'll have a much smaller dollar amount, and we'll just share the subscription money, so that the Daily Wire will never ever be in a position where, even accidentally, they're on the side of the censors.
Because that's where the subscription gets you.
People just pay it no matter what.
That would be the counteroffer.
I've made those counter-offers before.
It's very standard business.
Now, you might say, but why didn't the Daily Wire offer that in the first place?
To which I say, that's not the way it works.
No, they make the offer that's good for them, the Daily Wire, and they make it close enough to something that's good for the other person, that when they negotiate, you know, they're not too far off, you could go back and forth.
So Crowder could have easily said, how about way less money, But I'll have full control to say what I want, and if I get demonetized, it only affects me.
Now, they might not have gone for that offer, but that's the offer.
But in every case, it's only about the money.
It's only about the money.
Because the money is what causes the censorship.
So, to say it's about the censorship is... Honestly, that seems disingenuous.
Like, I don't even know what to think about that.
Jared says, wow, Scott, you completely missed Stefan's point.
I'll bet I don't.
His point is that the Daily Wire would be colluding in a sentence, accidentally, but colluding with the big tech companies to censor him.
Isn't that the point?
I'm just saying, did I really miss the point?
I don't think I did.
I think you missed the first part where I described his point in detail.
So, how do I do a deal like this?
Same way.
Same way.
So, when I do a deal with a publisher, Do you think the publisher says, I'll give you millions of dollars no matter what you do?
Of course not.
Do they say, we will give you a contract if you give us a book we can't publish because it's so terrible?
No.
In every case people have to perform.
Performing to a contract is the most basic thing any contract does.
So they just said, this is what we expect of you.
If this thing happens to you, it's going to happen to us at the same time.
We're both not going to get that YouTube money.
So let's share the risk.
If he wanted them to take more of the risk, he could have done it.
He could have just offered something else.
So it's always about the money.
Because the thing he's talking about can be transferred into money.
Anytime anybody says it's not about the money, stop listening to them.
Everything they say after it's not about the money, when there's $50 million there, it's always about the money.
Always.
The fact that he's talking about it in public, what's that about?
It's about the money.
He knows.
So I'm going to be strongly on the side of the Daily Wire on this.
They made a good first offer.
He didn't counter.
He could have.
There are lots of ways to counter.
He didn't.
And he recorded them.
And I would never even take his phone call.
Would you?
If Steven Crowder called you, would you even take his call?
If you know he recorded somebody and then played it, I wouldn't even answer the phone.
I don't know how he could ever go forward and do business with anybody at this point.
I mean, seriously.
That is an ethical lapse of just monumental size, in my opinion.
Maybe it's just a pet peeve.
All right, here's something interesting.
On Fox Business, on Charlie Payne's show, Making Money, this big master of finance, Jeffrey Gundlach, he's the Double Line CEO, so he's one of the masters of the universe in finance, and he's talked about fentanyl, and he says that the lack of action to shut down fentanyl Has to be intentional.
He said that right on TV.
He goes, there's no explanation for the lack of action.
It has to be intentional.
I don't know if he's a billionaire.
He's probably a billionaire.
This is somebody who's high credibility in the business world who's looked at this and says, there's no explanation.
It has to be intentional that we're letting 100,000 people die.
For what reason, we don't know.
But since you know what the problem is, and you know what you would do if you were trying to solve it, and we're not doing the things that you would do if you were even trying.
Like, it would be one thing to try and fail, but we're not trying.
See, that part is unexplained.
Failing, everybody gets.
Failing, that's just, you know, business as usual.
But not trying.
On one of the biggest problems in the country that everyone realizes is the biggest, that has to be corruption.
It has to be.
It's a process of elimination.
If you could give me one other explanation, I would take it.
But it's got to be corruption.
Now, it might not be all money corruption.
It might be somebody doesn't want to, you know, raise their head and say something that will get them, you know, fewer voters or something.
But it's still corrupt because they're not doing the people's work.
It's just a different kind of corruption.
All right, well, it was good to know that somebody smart and prominent has exactly the same opinion.
The first thing I did was go to his Twitter account and find out if he was following me.
Because I haven't heard anybody else say it, have you?
Have you?
Have you heard anybody else say that the lack of action process of elimination has got to be intentional?
Has anybody else said that?
No, he doesn't follow me on Twitter.
So that's even more impressive?
Because it means I'm not the only one noticing.
It means that just smart observers are seeing the same thing.
That there's no action and there's no explanation for the action.
Do you know what was the other The time I saw this, when Obama reversed his position when he said he wouldn't touch the dispensaries and the weed business in states, and then he did exactly the opposite, and he said he would go after the dispensaries, and he never said why he changed his view.
Never said.
To which I said, if you don't explain why you changed your opinion, it's corruption is the assumption.
It has to be corruption.
So I assume that Obama's a criminal.
Based on that.
Just on that alone, I assume he's a criminal.
There's a funny story about the Supreme Court leaker.
Remember with that Roe vs. Wade thing that got overturned?
And Jonathan Trolley says on Twitter, the Supreme Court's report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects.
So that's people who had access to the document.
And it is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself.
80 people.
And then Joel Pollack, writing in Breitbart, notes that it appears that the Supreme Court did not investigate the Supreme Court justices themselves.
Now, I don't know this for sure, unless it was done in secret, but there's no mention, no mention, that the Supreme Justices themselves are obvious suspects. . that the Supreme Justices themselves are obvious suspects. .
Now, here's the funny part.
Well, it's funny or tragic, you decide.
So the Supreme Court should be, in our system, the most credible entity we have.
Because it's sort of our final defense against other entities being corrupt, right?
So if your Supreme Court isn't your best people, in terms of credibility and honesty, you've got a real problem.
Because that's like, you know, the cap of the whole business, right?
Here's what's hilarious.
Oh, and also some of the people they talked to admitted they talked to their spouses.
So some of the 80 said, no, I didn't leak it to the media, but I did tell my spouse.
So we now have a situation where we can't trust the justices, we can't trust at least 80 of their staff, and I'm not sure we can trust their spouses.
So it turns out that the entity that we should trust the most has more suspects to this crime than any group you can imagine.
If this happened in any retail store that had lots of employees, I don't think they would have hundreds of suspects.
Do you?
Have you ever seen any crime in which there were hundreds of suspects in the same entity?
When a bank gets robbed, and it's an insider job, are there hundreds of suspects?
The fact that everybody is a suspect is, to me, is hilarious.
Like, just everybody.
They're all untrustworthy.
See, that's why transparency is the only solution.
You really can't trust anybody in government.
You just have to have transparency.
It's the only way.
Speaking of transparency, Rasmussen's reporting did a very provocative poll and reported that 57% of likely U.S.
voters believe Congress should investigate the CDC over their vaccine handling.
But it gets even more interesting.
don't think it's likely the CDC has provided complete information.
22% say it's not likely that they got complete information.
So unfortunately, I fall into the 22%.
Because I famously always say 25% or so get every poll wrong.
In other words, they have the dumb answer for every poll.
But here I am in the 22%.
I'm in the group that says it's not likely at all that the CDC provided complete information about vaccine risks.
Do you know why it's not likely they provided complete information?
Because they're not psychic.
How could they possibly have complete information?
Did the CDC know what was going to happen in five years?
You know, when any potential problems might arise?
No.
No.
All they knew is what the The manufacturers told them, basically.
So how in the world could they have that information?
They can't tell you it's safe.
They could just tell you what somebody told them.
That's all they could do.
So anybody who thought that they should know it's safe, how would they possibly know that?
That was unknowable.
All right.
But then it gets more interesting.
Rasmussen asked people how many of them know somebody they think died from vaccines or had vaccine injury.
It's like 28%.
What?
28%.
How about this?
28%.
What?
28%.
How about this?
68% of the -- this is from Rassipus and also -- 68% of the 260 million adults, that would be 177 million adults in the United States, So 177 million indicate they received the COVID vaccination and 7% of those reported major side effects.
Now that would translate to 12 million people with major side effects.
I guess that would include... I don't know.
I guess that doesn't include death because they couldn't have answered the poll.
But that got picked up in the other question.
So how do you interpret this?
Let's say, and by the way, hold your analysis for a moment, right?
Because I've got some, I'll go deeper.
So suppose, I think the polling is probably accurate in the sense that 7% really did answer that they had, in their opinion, major side effects.
Let's say you knew that was true.
We don't know that's true.
But let's say you knew it was a fact.
The 7% reported major side effects that they associate with the vaccination.
Would you say that is strong evidence there's a problem, evidence of nothing, or strong evidence that the vaccinations work?
Go.
Is strong evidence the vaccinations are killing people?
Doesn't tell us anything.
Or it's strong evidence that the vaccinations were a good idea on a risk-reward basis.
What's your interpretation?
A lot of people say nothing.
Interesting.
Well, remember, you know, it's a poll of people's opinions.
So, you know, by definition, that's not science.
But wouldn't you be worried if the VAERS report had this?
How is it different than the VAERS report?
Is it less reliable than the VAERS report?
Which is where the doctors input who they think got injury from the vaccinations.
All right, let me give you some context.
So 7% report that they believe the vaccination injured them.
Doesn't mean they're right.
That's just their best view of what it was.
But in context, 80% of the United States believes angels are real.
80%.
60% believe in ghosts, that ghosts are real.
60%.
6% of Americans don't believe it, but they are sensitive to gluten.
6% are sensitive to gluten.
But 25% self-diagnose as sensitive to gluten.
So only 6% are scientifically sensitive to it, but 25% believe they are.
The placebo effect.
How big is the placebo effect?
If you compare the non-active pill to the real pill in a study, the placebo effect is 30 to 60%.
So 30-60% of people will report that the pill helped them.
30-60% when it did nothing.
Or maybe it did, because their body just reacted to their belief.
How about, how many people believe Elvis is alive?
4%.
4% of the country thinks Elvis is alive.
What percent of the country think Bigfoot is real?
14%.
According to an NBC poll, this was taken some time ago, how many believe Hillary Clinton is honest?
What percentage of the country believes Hillary Clinton is honest?
11%.
11%.
Alright.
So, 11% of the country thinks Hillary is honest, but only 7% think they were injured by vaccinations.
I don't know.
Does that context do anything for you?
So the context should be, how accurate are people self-reporting anything?
Yeah, 7% actually sounds low to me.
Sounds low.
I would have expected more like 20%.
But 7% is probably exactly the number of people who had a major health problem at around the same time as the vaccination.
I don't know about you, but at my age, I tend to have some major health issue every year.
Do you?
Now, when I say major, I mean like I had problems with my blood pressure meds.
At one point, my sinuses were bad.
At one point, I had some reaction from some other meds.
I thought my fitness declined quite a bit for a while during the pandemic.
So I had all these things that I could have said, I might have said, we're due to the shot.
But what if it's something like this?
It caught my eye that 6% of the public is sensitive to gluten and almost the same number believe they had vaccine side effects.
Do you think it could be as simple as there's some people who have a specific allergy and they did have bad outcomes with the vaccine?
I don't know.
I don't know if the vaccine is something you can have an allergy to, because it has to be alive.
It doesn't have to be alive to give you an allergic reaction, technically.
Oh, I think it does.
It doesn't have to be alive to give you... I think there's like a technical definition that requires something to be alive.
But you could have a bad reaction to something that's not alive.
So it looks the same.
All right.
So here's what I'd say.
I would say this is super alarming in the same way that the various reports are.
But if you take it too much beyond that, then you'd be into pretty speculative range.
All right.
So, I'd be worried about it.
Apparently there's another report on one of the vaccinations giving strokes to even older people, because we know there's some extra risk with the younger people.
So one of them might actually have some older people risk, but they're looking into that.
Drip, drip, drip.
So I was listening to a Spaces, that audio program on Twitter, and there was a conversation about the vaccine injury and stuff, and Alex Berenson was there.
They were talking about the fact that there are more vaccinated people being hospitalized and having bad outcomes than unvaccinated.
And it was an extended conversation, and while I was listening to it, I didn't hear the whole thing, I didn't hear anybody bring up the obvious point that whether the vaccines work or don't work, at least the way we currently You know, the way the doctors currently say they work, which is not stopping the spread, but rather helping you survive.
So here's what they were not saying.
How would you interpret the fact that it's mostly the heavily boosted, the more boosters you have, the more likely you have a bad outcome?
What's your interpretation of that?
Your interpretation is that the vaccine not only doesn't work, it gives you a negative impact, right?
Because that's not my interpretation.
But that seems to be the way everybody else is interpreting it.
And I'm trying to figure out, is it me?
All right, here's my interpretation.
What group of people are most likely to get boosted?
The people who spend the most time around people in crowds, because they would have the most chance of getting infected, and the people who are weak and old and have comorbidities.
If you took just the group of people who have comorbidities and around lots of people and compared them, you know, forget about vaccinations.
Just compare the people who are weak and around a lot of people to the people who are healthy and not around a lot of people.
Would they have the same amount of It should be hugely different, right?
The old people are dying like crazy.
The young people, it's just a sniffle.
Now, which group is more likely to get the most shots and the most boosters?
The ones who know they have no real risk to begin with, and they're not around people all the time?
Or the people who are around people and also have the highest risk?
The ones who are around people should be the most vaccinated, the ones who are also Have comorbidities or they're old.
So if you took that group and you decrease the risk by half, I'm just making up a number, if you decrease the vulnerable group by half, it should still be way higher than the people who never got vaccinated at all.
Even if the vaccination worked great.
So these numbers tell me the vaccination could be working great.
If it reduced the risk by half, but it's still like, you know, two or three times more than the healthy people, that's exactly what I'd expect.
So the numbers are exactly what I'd expect if the vaccine did protect people.
I'm not saying it did.
That's not my claim, because we don't know, right?
We could be surprised tomorrow.
You know, tomorrow we learn all kinds of new stuff.
Who knows?
And it hasn't been tested for long enough that you can be sure about anything.
Here's my problem.
I don't know if that's a good point.
And here's what I would need to know.
When they do these studies of who's hospitalized, are they looking at people with the same comorbidities, vaccinated versus unvaccinated?
Or are they looking at healthy people who didn't get vaccinated much, compared to unhealthy people who are around a lot of people all the time, who did get vaccinated?
Because that's probably what it is.
If all they did is look at the outcomes, then they didn't do the study right.
It's just a dumb study.
Now, I always mention Andres Backhaus, you know, because he's better than I am by a lot in looking at data and figuring out if at least the analysis is correct or they've, you know, confused correlation and causation.
And I believe his exact comment on this stuff was LOL.
I don't know exactly what he's thinking, but I don't think it was worth more than an LOL.
Because there's no way that they've sorted out causation from correlation.
I don't think so.
And there was nobody on that SPACES call who would even bring up the question.
Now again, I'm not sure it's the right question.
Because if they really controlled the study somehow, And then maybe they controlled for it, but I doubt it.
I don't think they could.
It's proven, Scott.
No, the data might be proven.
The data might be proven.
But the interpretation is sketchy.
Now, is it cognitive dissonance if I allow that both possibilities are entirely possible?
Cognitive dissonance is almost always when you've made up your mind.
I'm telling you explicitly, both possibilities are alive.
Can you hear that or not, Edith?
Edith is yelling, cognitive dissonance.
Edith, you're in cognitive dissonance.
You're experiencing it.
You're totally having a hallucination.
Because I'm the one saying either one is possible, and the data allows both interpretations.
You're saying I'm having cognitive dissonance.
That's cognitive dissonance.
You are experiencing it.
Because you have some certainty about something that couldn't be certain.
No, you are.
No, you are.
you projecting person.
People think they can read my body language and determine that I'm being disingenuous.
Okay.
All right.
Here's the problem I keep having when I bring up this same point.
Everybody goes quiet.
What's wrong with you today?
Why does everybody go quiet when I bring up that point?
Every time.
Some people are just triggered into cognitive dissonance, but the rest of you are just sort of commenting, you know, indirectly, in general.
I don't see people saying, Scott, I agree with your interpretation.
Do you agree with my interpretation?
Or no?
That my interpretation is, well, my interpretation is that there are two interpretations, and they're both alive at the moment.
Okay.
So I think that needs to be at least part of every conversation on this, or it doesn't feel real.
All right.
That's about all I had on this.
I'd like to say again, even though I think, I believe Alex Berenson is misinterpreting this data, but I'd like to say that I think he's a valuable asset to the country.
Because I do like the fact that people were pushing really hard against the safety claims of the vaccines.
They might, you know, they may be overzealous, but you need that.
Like, society really needed, you know, these people pushing hard who are incredible people.
So I appreciate Alex Berenson's service to the country.
I don't know if he's, you know, got every question right, but that's not how I would judge him.
I wouldn't judge him by Whether he got everything right during a pandemic.
Because nobody did.
So I'm not going to judge anybody for being wrong during a pandemic.
I told you in the beginning of the pandemic I wasn't going to do it and I'm trying to be consistent.
All right.
Did I miss anything?
Any stories happening that I missed?
Are you going to talk about the Democrats being hunted in New Mexico?
Now is that the story about the serial killer who, there was a serial killer who hunted down some Democrats?
I did see something like that.
I typically don't talk about crime stories.
But that's worth mentioning.
So the Republicans are always talking about, and I'm always talking about, Republicans being hunted.
But there was a case of somebody who looks like they went out and just tried to kill some Democrats.
And we, of course, condemn that at the highest possible level.
But yeah, that's a fair comment.
And see, now that's the kind of criticism that I appreciate.
Because that was, first of all, totally fair.
That there was something that was counter to my narrative that I didn't mention.
Again, the reason is because I don't talk about specific crimes too much.
That's sort of my thing.
I don't talk about them.
But in that case, I should have.
You're right.
That absolutely should have been mentioned as the counterbalance.
So, good for you.
I like it when you call me on stuff that's as clearly wrong as that was.
All right.
What did Crenshaw say?
you Crenshaw is supporting military against the cartels.
Well, there we go.
Is there anybody who doesn't?
Now, I'm going to ask you a question that I know I'm going to get mocked for.
I sometimes think that one of my special, let's say, services that I can do for the Republic are to take something that you can't talk about and normalize it, so that it becomes part of the option set.
Because there's some things that people just won't say first, because whoever goes first will just get shot down.
And I'm pretty sure I've been the loudest public voice about a military intervention in Mexico.
And I said it loudly and clearly.
I supported it.
And I will argue it in public.
I'll argue it with anybody who wants.
And I'll make my case.
Because it has to be part of the option set.
Now, I believe that I did enough of it that it demonstrated that people were more open to it than maybe you would have assumed.
Wouldn't you agree?
There was plenty of pushback on the practical part of it.
And there should be.
Like, I don't want to I don't want to recommend war and have nobody in the United States disagree.
Do you want to live in that country?
No.
No, I always want a healthy disagreement about war.
Like, yes, no.
That should be the biggest fight we ever have.
But it should be a fair fight, right?
We should be serious about it.
About whether we ever use military force.
But I put that out there, and I think after people asked questions about, you know, how it could work, and are you serious, and what would it look like, largely people, I think, accepted it as an option.
Would you agree?
Now I'm not, you know, I suppose maybe somebody else talked about it and I'm not aware of it, but Lance says you never did that.
Can somebody tell Lance that for a long time I've been saying we should attack the cartels militarily?
A long time.
And I've been saying it publicly on live stream, I've said it on Twitter, and I think that helps normalize it.
Because remember what happened when, who was it who talked about Trump brought it up once privately and one of his staffers basically just shot him down like it's not even something you can talk about?
And that's what I wanted to change.
I wanted to make sure that Trump could say that in public, which he did.
He put out a video saying it directly because I think he saw that the room had been softened enough That you could say it and you could defend it.
So.
Anyway.
I normalized more war.
Well, war is normalized, isn't it?
Do you think I did that?
Pretty sure that was normalized a long time ago.
We haven't been out of a war since I can remember.
Yeah.
I would love whoever said that was crazy to say that to me.
Do you think they would?
I mean, I would just eviscerate anybody who said that.
It would be just destruction on camera.
All right.
Oh, he also implied in many rallies earlier, too.
But I think the direct statement that special forces will go in and obliterate the cartel's operation, that was the part that he says directly, Trump does.
And it's the reason that I'm going to back him, because I'm a single-issue voter.
I'm a single-issue voter on Fentanyl, so whatever Trump does that you don't like, not my problem.
He can defend that himself.
All right.
Would politician families be targeted by the cartels if we bombed them?
Probably.
Probably.
The Virginia Merit Scholar story.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Is the story that in Virginia some students were not informed that they'd won the National Merit Scholarship They were not informed in time to put it on their resume, which would have helped them get into a better college.
They were told after.
But only the white ones.
So somebody held back the white people.
Now, if that's true, that's a horrible crime.
This isn't one that... Oh, was it all Asians?
Yeah, maybe it was just basically anti-Asian and anti-white.
Mostly Asians?
Alright, so whatever group was held back there, that is huge.
When I heard that story, I almost couldn't believe it.
We did get to the point where that would be done intentionally.
Yeah, somebody should go to jail for that, don't you think?
I would think that's, I don't know if it's a crime, but it ought to be.
13 schools.
God.
God.
That's just amazing.
Yes for over a year.
Oh my God.
Yeah.
Life after death.
Life after death would just be the end of the simulation for you.
But it might mean that you're, you know, I also think we might be inhabited by another species.
Who just uses this when we're awake.
So they would just be like a video game where you turn off the video game.
That's all it would be.
Yeah, they should lose something for doing that.
All right, is there any other story I missed?
I think I'm all good.
All right.
It would be only efficient.
On the other hand, when you asked it about marriage, it was clear that you can't do complex math analysis.
How would you be judging when to trust it and when?
Oh, so, chat GPT, this is a good question.
You know, when would you trust it to do searches?
Well, it's not connected to the internet.
So right now, all it is using, basically, everything it knows about language.
To create intelligence.
As soon as it's connected to the internet, then we'll be able to check its answers against a manual search.
And then you'll either be comfortable with it or not.
But I think it'll take a while to evolve to where it's better.
All right.
Just looking at your classified documents.
Oh, what do you think of Trump's claim that he kept hundreds of classified document folders, empty folders, because they were cool souvenirs?
Believe it or not.
Do you think he would keep them as cool souvenirs?
I thought of one situation in which he might.
Right?
My first reaction was, that doesn't sound like a good explanation.
Who would keep empty folders?
And then I thought to myself, imagine if you wanted to create a piece of art in which the wall was just all the empty classified folders.
And I think maybe some of them had different fronts.
So imagine a display of empty folders.
It's just, you know, the flat folders on a wall.
And you would know what was in those folders.
They wouldn't be in there, but you'd know somehow.
Like this one was about North Korea, this one was about nuclear weapons and stuff.
Because it would be like a Like a visual representation of Trump's job in office.
His job in office was, hey, look at this secret file and let's make some decisions.
And then that would be like the tapestry of his term.
And there wouldn't be any details, it would just be a visual representation of how many secrets a president has to do.
If he had said that, I don't think anybody would believe it.
But when I thought about it, I thought, you know, that would actually be a really cool display.
Wouldn't it be?
Like, you know, a wall of just the folders, the empty folders.
It would be kind of cool.
I would stop and look at it.
And I would also think, oh, those folders, every one of those folders was touched by the President of the United States and had a state secret in it, which would be kind of cool.
I have a request for a parting sip for the YouTube people and I think I will comply.
Here's your parting sip for this great live stream I'm going to talk to the locals people after.
