Scott Adams and his hosts dissect judging others by their responses to mistakes, linking it to simulation theory. They analyze political division as a dopamine addiction fueled by social media versus cortisol-triggered in-person conflict involving Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy. The group debates a study claiming CO2 has negligible climate power since 2000 due to solar activity and discusses Trump's deployment of 100 ICE agents to airports. They argue for birth certificates or passports over driver's licenses for voting under the Save America Act to prevent non-citizen fraud, criticizing current ID systems and Real ID fees while hoping elections remain secure. [Automatically generated summary]
There will be a quick reframe today and another special treat today that we're going to do in the kickoff of the show after we do our sip.
And I hope you enjoy it.
All right.
I feel like we're all in here.
And just so we know, it's Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 in the year of our Lord, as some people say.
All right.
You guys ready?
Let's do this.
Well, it looks like we got a little company up here.
Better navigate through.
Okay.
Looks like the simulation is back on track.
Hi, good morning.
This is Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm coming to you today from the simulation control room.
This is where the simulation that you believe is your reality is formed.
And I'll be tweaking it a little bit this morning.
You can see that there's a lot going on up here.
It's a pretty busy space.
A lot of people trying to tweak your reality, but I'm the ultimate author.
And so you're in good hands today.
And we're going to be tweaking the simulation for your benefit today.
It's going to be really good.
Watch this.
But first, what do you need?
You know what you need.
Come on.
You know what you need.
Yeah.
You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
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, yeah.
All right.
Very good.
Nice sip.
I can feel reality being tweaked for my benefit already.
Like you could hear those things flying by him.
That must have been scary.
Amazing.
Sound effects.
Good sound effects.
Welcome, everybody.
When we're off camera, the three of us are doing our sip.
We can see each other off screen.
We're doing our sips together.
So we're all sipping together.
So listen, I had to move our guest for today, Bobby Sauce, till next week.
He was so kind to oblige.
So he'll be coming on next week.
I'm excited for you to meet him.
So that's why it's just three of us today because we have something else planned.
Okay.
So let's do, my name is Erica.
Welcome to the Scott Adams School, by the way.
You guys, reframe your brain, page 160.
Okay.
I was at work last night thinking, what do we want to do today?
And I think this will be fun.
Judge People by Their Mistakes00:08:46
So I'm going to read from Scott the reframe called Judging Others by Their Mistakes.
Okay.
Let's do it together.
I already showed you how to make yourself immune to the criticism of strangers.
Now it's time to learn how to be less critical of others for the social benefits, but also to protect your mental health.
When others make mistakes that complicate our lives, our most common reaction is anger at the offender.
At the same time, we know everyone makes mistakes for all manner of reasons we don't understand at the time.
If we use that standard to judge others, it will keep us busy hating half the people we meet.
Worse, you might automatically apply the same standard to yourself and end up baking a big old self-hatred cake.
No one wants the self-hatred cake.
Rather than judge others by their mistakes, I recommend a different standard.
Judge people by how they respond to their mistakes.
That's a standard you can hold yourself to with some chance of success.
So the usual frame is judge people by their mistakes.
The reframe, judge people by how they respond to their mistakes.
When you observe someone handle their mistakes with confidence and empathy, fully acknowledging any harm done, you're seeing the best a person can do.
We can't expect people to be error-free, but we can certainly ask them to handle their mistakes with class.
When a person handles their mistakes well, you instinctively trust them and you probably should.
If you want to be trusted in your own life, that's a great model to follow.
Make your mistakes, apologize if needed, and announce your plan for avoiding the same mistake in the future.
People will notice.
So true.
I had a little bit of a day yesterday and I vented and I thought about it and I had to also give myself a bit of like a 24-hour rule at least, but I didn't need that amount of time.
It ended quickly.
But it's so true that, you know, how does someone handle the mistake they made?
You know how you ever see like who watches The Real Housewives of Anywhere?
Guilty Pleasure, Guilty.
And all of these people, when they apologize for a mistake they made, they're like, I'm sorry if it made you feel that way.
And it's like, oh my God, you actually made a mistake, but now you're putting it back on them instead of having the ownership like, I'm sorry that the thing I did caused you pain.
Like own it.
And so I just want people to understand that we do have to own our mistakes.
It doesn't hurt.
It actually feels good when you make a mistake and you realize and maybe you get called out for it or maybe you figured it out on your own later.
Just own it, like fully own it.
And if you don't want to own it and you want to put the blame on someone else, then that also shows who you are as a person.
But you have to understand that people are going to judge you by that.
And that's all we have to go by.
So I'm going to ask Owen first, you know, what do you think about it?
Are you recommending the husband apology?
What is that?
I think Scott talked about the husband apology.
So there are situations, you know, in a relationship, like in marriage, where both people think they're right and they think the other one's wrong.
And Allison Armstrong kind of recommends this as well as a way to help men and women get along better is that when the way she explains it is when a woman in a relationship feels like she's been wronged by the man,
she like goes into this, I forget if it's sympathetic or parasympathetic, like, you know, her nervous system's going nuts and she can't even breathe and like she's just out of her normal mode and she can't get back there until she gets an apology.
But there are many situations where the man doesn't think he did anything wrong.
And so what do you do?
And she recommends this husband apology, which is basically just the guy says he's sorry and gives the apology, even though he doesn't think he's wrong.
I don't know about that.
I mean, I feel like that's like a relationship issue more than a, you know, go out into the world and how you represent yourself issue.
Well, so I didn't quite finish.
I want to explain.
She also says the very important thing for a woman in that situation is to accept that apology and not go after him.
If the woman accepts the apology as and recognizes that like it's a gift, it's a gift to get that apology because it allows her to go back into her normal mode of feeling, that that will work out well.
But if she doubles down, if she goes after him, if she starts, you know, getting even more angry or in any way punishes him for doing that, she'll never get that husband apology again.
So we shouldn't judge the apology on a scale of one to 10.
We should just accept it.
Well, it's not so much about, you know, was the apology good enough.
I think it's more just if the husband gives the apology, the woman should just show gratitude or at least accept the apology and not say, I was right.
And keep going.
Because if you do that, then the man just learned that that doesn't work and he's never going to do that again.
Oh, well.
So this is just part of her coaching for both men and women in terms of how to get through these situations.
But I think it follows somewhat in line with what it was in the reframe that, you know, if you're judging more based on how the person handled the mistake as opposed to the mistake itself, then, you know, you have a much better chance of getting along with people.
And like Scott said, if you don't do that, then you're probably not going to get along with very many people because everybody makes mistakes.
Yeah.
And be sincere.
What do you think, Marcella?
Oh, I think you need to take ownership of your own mistakes and move quickly.
Correct, course correct quickly and move forward.
Don't think of the past.
Don't live there.
Go forward and say, apologize who you need to apologize to and move forward quickly.
So I'm the jocko person, you know?
That's right.
Take ownership of everything that you are doing.
And I mean, most people feel better for doing it and hearing it.
Yeah.
And if you quickly correct what you're doing and you move forward quickly, it won't, how would I say, snowball into a bigger argument.
Right.
And resentment won't set in.
And yeah.
All right.
Good.
I like it.
I think that was pretty self-explanatory.
So if you guys have to write any wrongs, oh, go ahead, Ellen.
Well, I was just going to say, I mean, I think Scott was a great example of this, that he was probably one of the most non-judgmental people that I've ever met or encountered.
And I think it was tied into his simulation theory and his theory of lack of free will.
And that was actually my insight trying to just process his idea of people not having free will.
Because on one level, it's like, okay, if people don't have free will, then like, okay, what is like, how does that change your behavior?
How does that change how you think about people or how you feel about people or how you act around people?
Because in many ways, it's, you know, the way he presents it, it's like, well, you have the illusion of free will.
So you think you have free will, but you don't.
And it's like, okay, well, if that's the case, then how is it any different?
Like, why does it matter if you believe or not whether someone has free will?
Because if they have the illusion of free will and you act like you have free will, then it's no different, right?
And I think what I had, the insight I had was just, okay, the net result I see is that you would be much less judgmental of people.
You would say, okay, you know, we might still need to punish criminals because that's the only way the system will work and things like that.
And he would say, but at the same time, you cannot judge people for being different or for making mistakes because you understand that they don't have free will.
So it's kind of like a free pass to get rid of that judgment.
And I think he very much lived that.
The Division of Free Will and Addiction00:15:18
I'd agree with that.
I don't agree with it, but I agree with it.
You know what I'm saying?
Okay.
I love that.
Thanks for letting us get that reframe in.
So you guys, lots of division, right?
We keep talking about the splintering off of political parties, friendship groups, opinions.
You know, like it's too much.
And most of it, for most of us, we're on X or we're on social media or whatever.
And you see a lot of this playing out there.
And I found this clip from Scott, and we're going to just kick back and let it play.
It's several minutes long.
So that's going to be fun for us to get to see Scott.
Okay.
So let's play this and then we'll come back and chat it out.
And then we're going to go to news.
Okay.
So here we go.
I want to toss out a explanation for the division in the country.
All right.
And it's one you haven't heard before.
I tested it out on my man cave live stream last night, got a good response, so I'm going to try it again.
And it goes like this.
If you talk to somebody in person, how likely are you in 2023 to want to get into a political conversation?
I'm going to answer the question for you while I watch your answers.
Probably close to zero.
Because you know that in 2023, if you get into a political conversation with somebody whose views you don't already know.
Now, if it's somebody who's really close to you and you already know their views and you're just saying something you know they're going to agree with, that's fine.
But you would not enter a, let's say, a cocktail party without knowing the people and launch into a political conversation.
Because your odds of, you know, they're being on your side are 25% or something.
So people will stay away from it in person.
All right.
Now, let me turn that into a mechanical process.
So I described it on a social conceptual level.
Now I'm going to turn it into a machine.
What would be your experience if you got into a political conversation and it turned ugly?
You would produce cortisol.
Your body would produce cortisol.
And that makes you feel bad because it'd be tense.
So tension makes you feel bad and trains you not to do it.
So that's why we don't do it in person.
Now let's go to social media.
When I see a tweet from Rob Reiner and I think, you know, I'll bet I could make my followers laugh with this clever cutting rejoinder.
And they'll send my little, you know, little post and I'll get a bunch of, you know, positive reinforcement, retweets and hearts, and I'll get a bump of dopamine.
So when I'm in person, I don't cause division.
I just get along with everybody because I don't want cortisol.
And that's my only option.
Well, the risk, right?
I mean, maybe I could find somebody like-minded, but I'm not going to take the risk of a cortisol cluster bomb that I created for myself.
But online, it's nothing but dopamine.
So I'm like, ah, dopamine, addicted.
It's just an addiction.
So the division in the country is not an in-person division.
We all know that.
We all know the division is fake, because we only do it online.
If you put me in person with anybody, you could drop me into a crowd of the most rabid Democrat anti-Trumpers.
And if they didn't ask me any political questions, and let's say they didn't recognize me, I could get along fine.
I wouldn't have the slightest problem in an event where every single person was a progressive.
I wouldn't have any problem.
I could easily get along with them, make permanent friends.
But as soon as you put me online, I'm just a dopamine fiend.
So when we're talking about the division, if you want to talk about the division conceptually and who said what, you get nowhere.
You don't get any understanding of what's happening.
You know, if you ask most people what's causing the division, what would they say?
Well, the other side, duh.
I'll tell you who's causing the division.
It's those people I'm getting my dopamine hit insulting.
The people that I'm getting my rocks off from insulting, they are the cause.
But I might as well enjoy it.
I might as well enjoy mocking them because I didn't cause it.
Like, it's not me.
But of course it's you.
You're getting your dopamine hit.
They're getting their dopamine hit.
It's dopamine.
So as long as there's a dopamine reward for division, you get more of it.
But as soon as you walk out the door to the real world, you can't get that hit.
It's simply not available to you.
So you go into a different chemical cost-benefit analysis.
You go, well, I don't want any cortisol.
And that's the only thing available because I get in some stupid fight that I don't need.
So every time you fall into the trap that the people on the other side of you politically are broken problem monsters and they must be defeated, just remember that's your addiction talking.
That's your addiction talking.
It's just like if you were on fentanyl and you had an opinion that the fentanyl had given you.
Like, oh, it doesn't really hurt me, you know, whatever the fentanyl tells you to think.
So it's just the dopamine that's making you talk.
Once you realize this is a reframe, by the way.
By the way, if you didn't know, I wrote an amazing best-selling book that you can buy right now in all its forms.
Pretty soon we'll have the hardcover in days.
So here's the reform.
The reframe is, you're addicted to dopamine, there is no division in the country.
And you know when I said the DeSantis people are coming after me with like weird, you know, just flailing claims about Vivek that don't pan out in my opinion.
I don't feel bad about them and I don't feel that they're my enemies because you know, I would be perfectly happy with a President DeSantis.
They're definitely not on the other team for me.
But at the moment, they're acting out.
And the acting out to me looks like they're desperately searching for dopamine because they're having a negative, probably a dopamine disadvantage because their candidate's not killing it right now.
And Vivek is.
So if you see it as some people having a dopamine emergency, that they were all happy that, oh, I picked the right one this time.
Imagine, I mean, I guess I have to imagine it because I didn't do it.
Imagine if I thought DeSantis was going to carry me over the line to victory and then it just all fell apart or it looks like it's falling apart.
You wouldn't feel good and you'd probably act out.
And that's what we're seeing.
So just remember, you're an addict.
You're not somebody who has division with anybody in your country.
I love it.
I love it.
I almost don't even want to say anything more about it because it's just so perfect.
And I love imagining that there is no division in the country and that we're just addicted to the dopamine.
And maybe some people are addicted to cortisol.
I mean, that could happen too.
So Marcella, I'm going to come to you first.
You know, what do you want to say about that?
I mean, it is true what he's saying because you always see people arguing online, but that same people, if you were to put them in front of each other, they would not be doing that.
Either because in person, it takes the cortisol, goes up, I guess, or the stakes are higher when you have to actually be in person.
However, in California, there is when you're here as a conservative, you do have to try to get along with the other side.
Otherwise, it would be impossible to live here.
But the other side, if they ever find out you're a conservative, you hear from them in person without any dopamine hit that you should be canceled or this or that or the other or how dare you and so on and so forth.
So that's just my take.
Sometimes it's not even political division.
It's like division on anything.
I mean, I feel like, you know, online, we're fighting about anything and everything.
And it doesn't even have to be political.
It's like, you know, I like chunky peanut butter.
I like smooth peanut butter.
It's like anything to argue.
And I think if we look at that as an addiction, maybe, I mean, myself included, I'm one of the sassiest people out there.
But I'm going to try to look at that like as a dopamine addiction that maybe I need to back off of a little bit.
Listen, don't get me wrong.
I can't help what I can't help, but I'm going to try to think about it a little bit.
Yeah.
And what you're saying just came to me as, you know, regarding whether, you know, what peanut butter you like or what sandwiches or whatever it is, coffee, et cetera.
A lot of it is distraction for people.
They have their own problems in their lives, you know, I assume.
And they rather deal with things online or get in an argument with someone online than rather than take ownership and deal with their own problems.
So it's kind of like sort of like a pseudotherapy.
Yeah, it's true.
It's a distraction.
I think all of social media is a distraction.
We're so distracted that like, you know, we're not even really touching grass anymore.
I mean, we are, but not like we used to.
What do you say, Owen?
I think it's brilliant, what Scott said.
And I think it's a classic example of him using his economics background and his knowledge of psychology and kind of using that economics frame to explain what's going on.
That, you know, everything's based on incentives.
Everything's based on, you know, where do you get your rewards from?
Where do you get your punishments from?
And how do you work to try and get more rewards and less punishment?
And I think that definitely drives a lot of human behavior.
And I think social media is very much set up to do that very intentionally to, you know, get you reward or make you feel rewarded, get you that dopamine hit when you get lots of likes or lots of reposts and great replies.
And when you get all sorts of crap back, you get some of the stress or, you know, that sort of thing.
And I think they very much have applied that across all social media, not just X, about, you know, how do we keep people addicted to this application?
I mean, there's some lawsuits going on right now about that, that Meta and I forget, I think it might have been Meta and Meta and Google, I think, are involved with that.
And, you know, it's, it's, I think it is very true that at least that they designed those applications to addict you.
And so they went deep in psychology and figured out, okay, based on all these different characteristics of people, how do we personalize things for people?
How do we give them the things that are going to keep them coming back?
How do we keep them doing engaging?
How do we keep them replying and posting?
And that's all about how do we give them out that dopamine hit, you know, the infinite scroll.
And, you know, like there's always something more to look at.
And there's another dopamine hit right around the corner.
And, you know, so I think it's very true that the online environment encourages that kind of behavior.
And I also think, and some people point this out from time to time, that it's like X isn't real life.
And, you know, there's one reaction to that that's like, well, yes, it is.
These are real people saying what they feel.
But the view of reality you get from X, I think is very different than if you just walk down the street and talk to people or, you know, what you see in your personal life or at work or any of that.
It's very different than what you see online.
People don't behave the same way.
And they probably don't even have the same views.
And certainly they're probably not at the same level of political knowledge and following and all of that.
So I think X and all social media, I think, can give you a very distorted view of reality and make you think that something is a much bigger issue than it is or that people really care about something when maybe some few people do, but not that many.
It's just this vocal minority that makes it seem like something is the consensus view.
And they may be very intentionally trying to create that fake consensus view.
So I think it's all brilliant.
I think he's spot on.
Always.
Yeah.
I think I actually, I don't have many friends that are even on X.
And it's funny because I'll be like, oh, did you see or hear blah, blah, blah?
And it could be the most crazy shit happening in our country.
They have zero clue.
And I remember Cernovich talking about this.
I forget what the, what the crisis du jour was, but he's like, you know, I got on an airplane with like all this mayhem happening on Twitter and it's the end of the world and whatever.
And he's like, I got on an airplane and people are just shitty chatting.
They're watching their movie.
Nobody was talking about this.
So we do have to realize, first of all, I do think if you're on X, you are more informed because I do feel like, tell me if you agree with me, you guys, that I feel like all decisions that are happening like on a worldwide level are stemming from X, like what the discussions are on X, besides, you know, behind closed doors.
But I feel like X really drives everything.
And then when you realize, I mean, what's the percentage of people that even use X?
It is tiny.
And then of the people that I do know that are, that are on X, they don't even know like the accounts to follow that are really the influential, like influencing like administrations and countries.
So it's a very small group of people and we're so dug in on it, like our emotions are going to change something.
Trump's Brilliant Oppositional Stroke00:17:16
And they're not, you know, they're not going to change anything.
Like it might feel good in a second to be flipping out about something or whatever.
But when you walk away from your computer or your app or whatever, like your world's still existing around you.
And it's like you got yourself all worked up and crazy and it's not going to change anything.
So I just think it's just to be careful of the addiction of it.
Just to remember we're like all going through this stuff at the same time and we just have different opinions.
And I think at the end of the day, if anybody was, you know, drowning and I could help them, I'm not going to ask them what they think about abortion or who do they vote for.
I'm going to help them.
I'm not going to throw them a turkey sandwich.
So let's just remember about the addictions too.
I hope you enjoyed having a clip of Scott.
We're going to do that more often.
So I think that was special today, but I do want to get to news.
Okay.
I promised that we'd get to news by the halfway mark.
So Owen and Marcella have brought some stories for us.
And I think, Owen, you're kicking it off today, right?
I certainly can.
So there's a new study that CO2 is effectively negligible as an explanatory climate change factor since 2000.
There's a new regression analysis that shows natural changes in cloud albedo, which I think, I'll think albedo is like how much sun is reflected off the ice and off the clouds, absorbs shortwave forcing and solar activity drive climate change since 2000, not CO2.
Anthropogenic, meaning from people, CO2 has almost no explanatory power.
Power is a causal factor.
And this independent researcher, Dai Ato from Japan, used global temperature, humidity, solar, and albedo data.
And it reaffirms conclusions from prior works.
Like, I forget, I can't pronounce this name.
It's some Greek name, Kootsoyanis from 2024 and soon et al. in 2023.
So it looks like basically the natural forces are explaining all the CO2 or all the climate change and CO2 doesn't really make any difference.
So I know Scott, if he got into the story, of course, would say.
I'm laughing.
Wait until you find out about climate models.
I cringed when you said CO2 immediately.
I love that.
Okay, Marcella.
So meanwhile, ICE is cooling things at the airport.
President Trump ordered deploying.
Sorry for laughing at my own bad joke.
President Trump ordered deploying over 100 ICE agents.
There are 13 major U.S. airports.
Some of them are, I believe, Long Beach.
I don't know LAX, but believe LAX, JFK, Hartfield, Jackson, Atlanta, to address the TSA staffing shortage.
As you guys know, there's a DHS funding issue.
The Democrats and Republicans have come to a fight in regards to funding DHS, talked about it before.
So the funny part about this is that yesterday, the news here locally in Los Angeles went out to, I believe, Long Beach Airport to try to get some interviews from passengers waiting in line and wanting to know what they thought of ICE and having ICE do TSA work.
And everybody that they interviewed, they could not find one bad comment.
So it was funny.
They couldn't do any kind of negative news.
Some people have said it's a triumph of Trump to use ICE agents and also have them near people so that they can see that they're not so bad, that they're not bad at all.
So Trump was asked about this yesterday at the press gaggle, as we would call it, when he was leaving.
And he said that it was his idea and no one else's to have ICE agents be there at the airports for helping the TSA staffing shortage.
But he also had done a truth post about it saying that he would want the ICE agents to not wear a mask and to show their face.
And I think it's very persuasive of him.
It's a persuasive move in my, and what Scott would take it as is that he wanted the public to come close to ICE agents and see them in a positive light.
You not waiting in line for three hours, instead waiting online for 20 minutes or 15 minutes, that gives you that visual effect.
And there's nothing like it.
As we know, with persuasion, visual is everything or fear.
So, but in this case, it actually solved the issue.
There was Nick Sortor, Sorter, Sorter.
I don't know how to pronounce his name.
Sorry.
I'm doing the Scott thing.
Nick Sortor.
Sorter.
Thank you, Erica.
He had an image of like one of the airports with the huge lines.
And then the image afterwards, after ICE was deployed with no lines.
So it's like, here you go.
There's the visual.
But I love it.
It's just so funny because the exact thing the Democrats are pissed off about, which is ICE.
It's all fake anyway.
But, you know, ICE is already funded for like the next however many years.
So it's like, listen, ICE is already funded.
So, okay.
What I don't get is they got what they wanted in one way because GNOME got fired from her position.
And now ICE is saving the problem of TSA at the airports.
People are like, oh, they're really nice.
They put the ICE in NICE.
So it's just kind of backfiring.
And here's ICE taking over and getting the flow going.
I don't know.
I feel like the Democrats, I mean, and Hakeem Jeffries, wow.
How inappropriate to, did you guys hear when he said that ICE is going to end up like shooting people at the airport and killing people?
I'm like, you really should, you should be tossed out of office.
I think stuff like that should get you tossed out.
Like when you're creating hysteria, that could be like mass hysteria.
I think you should get demoted or dethroned or whatever it is, because that was so irresponsible.
And why would you want to paint, you know, government workers like that?
I mean, these people are already doing a dangerous job.
And now you're, you know, I don't know.
It makes me feel icky.
What do you think, O?
Yeah, well, I think it is a brilliant stroke on Trump's part because he, you know, this is an example back to what Scott was saying earlier about how we're, you know, people are impacted when you got to stand in line for four hours.
They're going to remember that.
And they're going to say, why am I standing in line for four hours?
And I think everybody pretty much agrees, even on the Democrat side, have admitted that the Democrats are the one causing this problem by not funding DHS.
And so, you know, that is something that really could move the needle politically.
Just having hundreds of people in an airport waiting around for four hours and maybe missing their flight, like that, that they're going to remember that.
They're honestly probably not going to remember the Iran war six months from now, if it's over soon.
But they're going to remember that they had to wait in line for four hours.
And Trump just with a stroke of a pen solved the problem.
Like just instantly, the lines are cleared.
And so I think it's a brilliant move on his part.
I think it kind of embarrasses the Democrats that he was able to do it.
And, you know, I don't know if it's going to make any difference in terms of how they're going to respond in terms of the funding itself.
But, you know, at the same time, Trump is saying he won't sign the funding until he gets the Save America Act.
So we'll have to see if maybe it shifts over to Trump being the one holding up the DHS funding.
But, you know, I think it's something where it really does make a difference to people.
And, you know, it causes a ripple effect through the economy probably too, because I'm sure people who don't have to fly are probably saying it's not a good time to fly.
Maybe it'll start now now that they don't have the expectation that they got to plan four hours in advance to get to the airport.
But it's a big deal to people.
Yeah.
And I mean, he's clearing this up before spring.
Well, spring breaks going on, but it's continuing to go on.
And then there's Easter.
So, you know, thank you to President Trump for finding a solution for this for the people that do want to go see their families or take their vacations.
But, you know, the Democrats, it's just like this, they make you realize.
I mean, everything makes me realize that they're just working within their own bubble.
They don't think about anybody else but themselves.
This is not a news flash, like I understand, but it's like really sad because we were supposed to, or we're pretending that we elect people that are going to have the best interest of us, of we, the people, and our country.
And it's just all about a power play and of for what, though?
Like, what is the power you're getting?
And I mean, but that is a real thing.
Like, what is the power you're getting?
You have to really follow it through.
Like, what's the end goal?
Like, why are they doing these things?
Why would they want us to be in more danger during a war?
And when we just had open borders for years and there's all sorts of terror cells here and bad ombres and everything else.
So I don't know.
I mean, I try to follow and track it.
Maybe you guys in the chat have an opinion of what the end goal is.
I mean, even if it's like, oh, Democrats just want these people to vote for Democrats, but like for what?
Like, what's the end goal?
So if we get a Democrat House, Senate and president, what's going to happen?
Because I feel like Democrat voters need to understand what the outcome is that they want and then work backwards from there.
So I feel like we need to figure that out and go backwards from there and what everybody's life would look like, including Democrats.
And then maybe that could help bring us together.
Anyone have a thought on that?
I mean, Democrats really don't work like they don't work on reason.
So when we talk about motivation, like having less of a line leads you to this and that and so forth, progress and a certain linear thinking, that's not how they work.
They don't think of motivation.
They just think of platitudes and collectivism.
And this is what's going to lead for the, we must sacrifice ourselves for this idea that immigrants should stay here and so forth and so on.
So what do you think, Owen?
I'm worried.
I mean, I always say I'm worried, you guys, like I'm worried, but like I live in a state of worry.
I don't know why.
But like, what do you think the end goal is?
I mean, platitudes, yeah, but like what for what?
Like, what if they get all of that?
What happens?
I think the, for, for Democrat politicians, I think the goal is to get back in power.
I think everything is geared from that lens.
How can we get back in power?
And so I think based on that, they're going to resist everything Trump does.
They're going to try and paint it all as horrible no matter what he does, even if it is an 80-20 issue that everybody else agrees with.
They're going to try and say, look at the 20%, look at the, you know, look at the bad part.
And they're going to try and find any way they can to convince people to vote for them.
But I think they do it in a very misguided way because I think they're mostly just pandering to their base.
And by their base, I mean the fringe left.
Like they keep shifting further left because that seems to be the ones that are most rapidly opposed to Trump and most aligned with all the arguments they end up coming up with to say, oh, look how horrible Trump is and look how everything he does is bad.
The moderates, they're not appealing to those people from what I can tell.
I mean, it doesn't seem like they really understand or they're not very smart about saying, you know what, we need to shift towards the center.
We need to connect with the people that would otherwise vote for Trump and might be convinced not to.
And in the midterms, of course, it's more about Congress, but the same concept applies.
And of course, Trump still dominates all the headlines every day.
So it's going to be part of the equation there.
But I think I agree with what Marcella said.
I think they're more just based on their ideological lens on things, but they're also more based on just how they feel or how they think people feel.
And they're often very out of line with the vast majority of the country because they have this knee-jerk reaction where whatever Trump does, they have to oppose it, no matter how unpopular taking that view is.
So when more than half the country thinks all the immigrants should go home or when it's even more skewed, where maybe 80% of the people think we should have voter ID or 70% or whatever, it's up there.
You know, they just don't care.
They just want to have that oppositional position.
And I think it is because they're not really able to think with reason and say what would make the most sense.
So I think it's overall a good thing for the Republicans that things are that way because I think they would be a much tougher opponent if they were shifting more towards the center and if they were trying to have a positive message and if they had a good vision for the future instead of just being I'm against whatever that Trump guy said.
But at the same time, I am worried about the midterms just because it seems like the way the maps are set up and the way all the gerrymandering has gone through, it seems like it puts Democrats in a position where they still probably have a very high probability of taking control of the House and maybe even the Senate.
So I think that's where our focus should be is to say, how can we appeal to that independent voter or that person that might have been thinking or leaning towards voting for a Democrat and how do we convince them to vote for the Republican?
And that may mean shifting a little further to the center again, like not being so fringe right on things.
I don't think that's a good idea.
Everybody coming to the center would be good.
I don't see a lot of the Republican politicians that are running in Congress being that really far hard right.
But I do think you want to talk about the good things, talk about the positive future, talk about all the great economic things because that to me is probably still going to be the dominant factor.
What does the stock market look like?
What does the job picture look like?
What does the housing market look like?
How affordable are things?
What is the price of gas at the pump?
Like those are going to be the things that I think will determine the outcome of the midterms.
And so I think those are the things we need to focus on this year.
I think you're right.
Marcella, can I put you on the spot?
I don't know if you have anything about the Supreme Court talking about Election Day or if you heard anything about it, but I just heard very briefly, and like this is hopeful too, is that I think it was Justice Thomas saying, like, listen, you know, you're talking about Election Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day.
And he said, you know, I think it should be a day.
And he said, if that's all I had to go by for, you know, figuring out about, you know, when you can vote, talking about mail-in votes, because they wanted to be able to certify them five days after the election ended was like the argument.
And they were, you know, so I feel like that was a little convoluted, but maybe Marcella can clean up what I'm trying to say.
So.
Well, yesterday there was arguments in front of the Supreme Court for a case that was in regards to mail-in ballots where they count after they are received after the election day, whether it's by-election day or what does by election day mean, what is on election day mean, and whether those states that allow mail-in ballots to be counted after election, is that constitutional?
Birth Certificates and Voter Roll Integrity00:11:03
Does that violate anything?
And I don't really comment on Supreme Court cases when an argument is made because it doesn't really matter in regards to the opinion that the Supreme Court might have.
It has come to times where when an argument is made in front of the Supreme Court, you're looking at the justices asking certain questions or finding things.
You could, it's like reading tea leaves, tea leaves, because it doesn't always pan out to be the final opinion that is created by the Supreme Court.
So that's how I would caution it.
However, yesterday, the way that all of the justices were pointing is that they were in agreement, the mail-in voting ballots should not be allowed after the election day.
But There's behind the scenes, there's like lots of people behind the justices that have to do the research, they have to put all the opinions together and figure out, and they'll like meet up and they'll converse in writing or however it is.
And then they have, then they figure out where the justice, each justice is in regards to their opinion.
So it's to be determined.
And it's going to usually be in June when they get released.
I will say it does seem like they're leaning towards saying you can't count ballots after election day.
You know, one of the justices, I think it might have been Alito, I can't remember, was putting forth like hypotheticals saying, well, what happens if, you know, a bunch of these ballots are still being delivered.
They haven't been delivered yet.
And like some news comes out the day after election day that might swing the result, meaning like, you know, the person they voted for, they no longer want to vote for.
They want to switch their vote or they don't want to vote for that person.
And they could potentially call up FedEx or something that's delivering their ballot and say, don't deliver that ballot.
And FedEx will do that.
Usually they'll say, if you don't want your package delivered, we won't deliver your package.
And so they could potentially pull their votes after election day based on something that happened after election day.
And he was putting forth this hypothetical, like, what if, what if enough of those things would change the result of the election?
Then it's not really election day anymore because it's something that happened after the election.
And so I think he was trying to show essentially that, you know, this could potentially have a really bad result.
And it isn't the intention of the Constitution to say, you know, you can make up your mind whenever you want, even after election day, to not vote, even after you mailed in your ballot.
And so it does seem to me like enough of the conservative justices on the majority are going to vote to say you can't count ballots that arrive after election day.
But we'll have to see exactly where it lands, as Marcelo said.
My opinion that nobody's asking for is that it should be a national holiday.
You have to have ID to vote.
And like you do it on that day.
And even if people are like far from voting places, like it's a holiday.
It's a national holiday.
Like get yourself there.
I know that might sound like mean, but you know, then when people are like, oh, and some people can't get IDs.
Well, if you can't get an ID, then you're too stupid to vote.
I'm not even kidding.
Like if you don't know how to get an ID, how could you possibly make an opinion about what's right or wrong for this country?
I don't want stupid people voting.
I don't care.
I will tell you that my wife, who is very much a Democrat, agrees with you on wanting it to be a national holiday.
I don't know if she would agree with you on the voter ID piece, but I think, you know, I certainly do.
And I think it is still striking to me when they've done these on-the-street interviews and stuff where, you know, black people will be like, of course, I have an ID.
What do you mean?
Like, it's like, you know, I can find the city hall where I can get my birth certificate.
Like, what, what the hell?
Like, yeah.
This is like basic stuff.
You can't go to Costco without one.
Like, you can't do anything.
If you can't figure out how to get a state ID, then how do you function in life?
Like, you can't.
Like, you, yeah, you need it for so many things.
Just, you know, opening a bank account.
Like, everybody needs to have an ID.
You needed them to buy cigarettes at some point if you smoked it.
I don't think they've been able to find one example of somebody that said, I can't get an ID or I don't know how to get, like, they can't.
They can't find even one person that don't forget the poor women, Owen.
But the issue here is, I hear you guys, but the issue here is that IDs themselves don't prove you're a citizen.
So that's what I was listening to Senator Mike Lee on Spaces with the redhead libertarian Josie.
And he somebody came up to, you know, to talk to him.
And then the issue is that some IDs, driver's licenses, especially in California or anywhere else, they're given to non-citizens to drive.
Like if you are a legal resident or even possibly illegal, you can get a driver's license.
But would the Save America Act fix that?
Would the Save America Act have some kind of citizenship check as part of the process?
Yeah.
So the Save America Act doesn't talk about IDs per se.
It talks about birth certificate or passport.
That's what you would have to show.
You would have to show birth and registered to vote, right?
To register to vote, yes.
When you come in to do the actual, you know, even to register to vote, you have to have the birth certificate or AK, or if you're not, if you're naturalized or you don't have your birth certificate, your passport, and then your ID as well.
So you need a voter registration card, which that will make sure that you are a resident if you have that.
Yeah, that you're a citizen.
Yeah.
Okay.
It gets complicated, I guess.
So it's like, even if the Save America Act passes, there's still this other side to it.
I would say the same thing about being able to get your birth certificate or being able to get a passport.
Like anybody can do that.
And most likely you already had to because like they have employment checks that require those things, right?
Like you have to show that you're able to work.
And I know there's other conditions that like you can be a permanent resident or you can have a work permit or some other thing, but like you already need that kind of documentation just to function in life.
And, you know, I have a whole stack of birth certificates for my kids because every time they would join like baseball, like little league, they would need a birth certificate to show how old they are.
And so I went downtown and I got like 50 copies.
And now they have birth certificates.
And anytime they need one, they can come to me and I have a file full of them.
And I got more of my own and I got my marriage certificate and I got all that stuff.
And I currently do need to renew my passport, but I've had passports multiple times.
It's not hard to do.
And so I don't think there's any argument that it's too hard for people to vote or that it would disenfranchise people because I think these are just basic things that you probably already have.
The vast majority of people already have these documents.
And if you don't, you need them anyway for other reasons.
So you should go get them.
Drop an emoji in the chat if you want Owen to manage your life because I do.
My God, that is so organized.
And also, you know, so and if you can't go, I'm going to say it this way, then if you can't go figure out how to get your birth certificate or whatever it is you need, I don't want you to vote.
You're stupid.
Okay.
Like it's just, you're stupid.
So that's all.
But again, I think this is more about, you know, preventing people from pretending they're somebody else or preventing people from getting registered to vote based on having one of these IDs that doesn't really prove you're a citizen and then getting added to the voter rolls, which apparently has happened a lot of times because we've had enough evidence come out that these things are happening.
And to me, it's not about like, is it happening enough?
Is it happening, you know, it just shouldn't happen at all.
And, You know, as Scott has often said, it's important for us to be confident that our elections are secure and that it's at least plausible that the person who won actually did get the most votes from the people that should have been able to vote.
And if you don't have that, it just degrades the confidence anybody has in the system.
And we're in such a bad state with that where nobody really trusts that our elections are secure.
Nobody really trusts that we aren't having all these shenanigans happening all over the place.
And mail-in ballots is the worst example of that, where it's like, you know, you never see the person, you don't know who actually filled out the ballot.
And so, you know, how do you trust that the leaders we have in Congress are the actual people that got the most votes or that people want to be the leaders?
We don't, Marcella.
I was just going to, there's a lot of people in the chat talk about the real ID.
The real ID, according to Senator Mike Lee and in that chat in that space, people brought up the real ID.
And in some states, the real ID, you can obtain it without proof of citizenship.
So it technically kind of makes it a little more complicated for the Save America Act.
But, but, you know, again, he said, you know, anybody can get a birth certificate, anybody can get a passport.
It's not difficult to do.
So, you know, like Erica said, if you're if you can't figure that out, you know, maybe you shouldn't be voting.
I'm just saying.
And every other country in the world has this as I can't vote in France, just showing up and going, oh, I have no ID.
Right.
And you can't get healthcare there either.
Just so you know, you guys, the real ID, if you go to the airport, it's such a scam.
They're like, oh, let me see your real ID.
And I said, I don't have a real ID because I'm just not going to get one.
And then they're like, well, just so you know, starting next week, it's $40.
So if I don't have my real ID, they're satisfied with $40 for some reason, or I can use my passport.
Closing Sip with a $40 Reality Check00:02:34
So I'm just letting you know.
I don't know what the point of it is.
Like you could either have your real ID or give them $40, whatever works.
So you tell me how that makes sense, but whatever.
So we just have three minutes left.
All right.
Well, I will mention that stocks are now positive.
So you're allowed to look at your stocks now.
Oh, okay.
That's good to know.
It might not be that way in a minute, but it is right now.
Right?
Not that Owen's checking.
So stocks, stock markets up right now, you guys.
Quick, go look at it.
Take a screenshot.
Tomorrow, you guys, BJ will be back with us and we will get those Canadian questions in for you.
We should get Mike Bird on here too one day to be our Canadian correspondent.
Mike Bird, he might be still looking for a UK correspondent.
So if you know anybody, let us know.
I did put some messages out, some feelers out for a UK correspondent.
We'll see.
We'll see who bites.
That would be amazing.
Yeah, we're here for you people.
All right.
So I'm going to just like wrap us up, you guys.
And happy eye doc if you're here.
Start your goodbyes now.
And you guys are so amazing.
I have to say the three of us are so obsessed with this chat and with this group and how much fun we have with you and that you show up for us for what we're doing to keep Scott's channel going and keep the Scott Adams school going.
I hope you like the clip today.
We're always trying to improve.
And I think we are.
And I have to say, Owen and Marcella, shout out to you two.
I'm, you know, how much I love you both.
You're incredible.
And I just want to thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So let's have a great rest of the day, you guys.
Don't forget about, you know, maybe the dopamine hits are a little bit of an addiction.
So maybe we should take a deep breath here and there.
And that being said, look for me on X shit posting all day because I'll be there.
But, oh, you know, I can't help myself.
Just kidding.
All right.
So we'll be back tomorrow, you guys.
Let's have a closing sip to Shelly and let's have a closing sip to our beloved Scott.
We miss you so much right now.
We saw him flying in his spacecraft today.
We'll see where he is tomorrow.
And let's touch grass, be useful and be kind to everyone.