Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1032 Scott Adams： Why Your Vote is Irrelevant This Time, My Musical Debut, Evil Triangles, Baby Memes, Supreme Court

00:00:00.000 Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum 1.00

00:00:02.340 Bum-bum-bum 0.98

00:00:04.160 Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum 1.00

00:00:07.700 Bum-bum-bum-bum 0.98

00:00:10.080 Hey everybody. Come on in.

00:00:14.120 It's time. Time

00:00:16.000 for Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:18.240 I hope you'll ignore this

00:00:20.140 probably racist symbol

00:00:22.260 on my shirt.

00:00:24.060 I haven't checked the news today

00:00:26.080 but if triangles can be

00:00:28.160 racist? I'm pretty sure checkmarks, they're next. We're coming for you, checkmarks. Well, if you'd

00:00:35.500 like to enjoy today's Coffee with Scott Adams, what do you think you need to do it? Yeah, that's

00:00:41.800 right, coffee. Or a beverage of your choice. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker

00:00:48.660 chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite

00:00:54.240 liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of

00:01:02.420 the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens

00:01:07.440 now. Go. So, some days the news is funnier than other days. And I love it when I wake up to

00:01:22.680 a day of nothing but funny news. It's all funny today. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the world

00:01:30.300 there are tragedies and deaths, but the news no longer cares about that stuff. We're into the

00:01:35.540 racist baby stuff and more fun. All right. So, here's some things that are not covered in the

00:01:44.140 news today. Is anybody protesting? What exactly is going on with the coverage of the protests?

00:01:54.700 Did they stop? And if they stopped, is that news? Or are they just planning them for the weekends

00:02:01.800 because it's easier to do them on weekends? So, I guess there are plans for violent type people to

00:02:10.720 show up at the Trump rally in Tulsa. How do you think that's going to go? I've got a feeling Tulsa

00:02:17.900 is going to be pretty lit. Now, one of the things that's really tough for the anti-Trumpers

00:02:24.200 is that every time you see footage on television of Democrats destroying the world, and then you're

00:02:33.940 going to juxtapose that to the president in front of a packed stadium full of law-abiding citizens.

00:02:43.840 I'm starting to wonder if Biden even needs to run anymore. We'll talk about the polls in a little

00:02:49.480 bit. But how does anybody get their side elected if their team wants to show non-stop violence

00:03:00.260 as the alternative to Trump, basically? I mean, you could say they're happening at the same time,

00:03:05.860 so it's not the alternative. But it's going to feel like it. It's going to feel like two teams.

00:03:12.040 One is setting your business on fire, and the other team is trying to make America great again,

00:03:20.940 or whatever. It's going to be a tough one. And it makes me wonder if the networks are going to have

00:03:27.620 to not cover it. How is CNN going to cover this? Because if they show it, it's just going to be all

00:03:35.820 bad, you know, visually. It'll be just devastating. And I think that the public's, let's say the public's

00:03:45.100 flexibility or understanding in terms of protests and violence started out very flexible, because

00:03:53.720 everybody was, you know, shocked about George Floyd. And if you saw somebody acting out because of

00:04:00.820 that, you would say to yourself, well, I wish they wouldn't. But I kind of get it. You know, you sort

00:04:06.800 of understood, at least. You know, even if you wouldn't have done it, you could say, yeah, you know,

00:04:12.460 I can see how that could happen. But the longer it goes, the less credible the, you know, the protesters

00:04:20.460 are, especially since there were lots of suggestions that have been floated, and everybody seems to be

00:04:26.840 taking them seriously. So that should be good news. But it won't stop the protests in Tulsa. I would

00:04:35.120 expect a good deal of violence when that happens. Unfortunately. So I put up a little poll on Twitter

00:04:44.340 just before I got on, but there were still hundreds of responses. And I asked this question. Knowing that

00:04:51.340 all digital trails are discoverable, and that you can lose your job and your family for supporting

00:04:57.380 Trump, would you tell a pollster if you plan to vote for Trump? Now, of course, these are highly

00:05:04.560 unscientific polls. But the only thing you can really tell with a Twitter poll is, does there exist

00:05:13.120 a lot of people who have a certain opinion? You can't even really know if it's more or less,

00:05:20.580 because it's that unscientific. But you can tell if there are a lot of them. I mean, that would come

00:05:26.080 across pretty clearly. By a ratio of about two to one, last I checked, two people said they would not

00:05:35.320 talk to the pollster for every one that would. Two people said they would either lie to the pollster

00:05:44.000 or not give them an answer or not give them an answer for every one that would. Now, you might say

00:05:49.920 to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, there's been polling forever, blah, blah, blah. We had the same

00:05:54.980 problem, you know, in 2016. Trump was unpopular then. Oh, no, it's not the same. It's not even close

00:06:05.220 to the same as 2016. In 2016. Did you think you would lose your job for being a Trump supporter?

00:06:13.160 I mean, I'm sure people did. But it probably wasn't the top thing you were worrying about,

00:06:18.320 right? At the moment. In 2020, it might be the top thing you're worrying about. There may be people

00:06:26.560 all over the country who are saying, Oh, God, I hope somebody didn't see that tweet I did two years ago.

00:06:31.860 I could get fired. So at the moment, the fear is real. What have I told you is the most motivating

00:06:40.120 persuasion bar none. Nothing is more persuasive than this one thing. Fear. Yeah, fear. Fear is always

00:06:50.780 the most persuasive. Because you have to protect yourself first before you can do anything. You can't

00:06:57.740 eat if you think you're going to get killed right away. So given that a real fear, this is not

00:07:05.860 hypothetical. There is an actual real fear that you could lose everything, your friends, your job,

00:07:12.960 etc. So I don't think we've ever had a polling situation that was this, you know, rife with

00:07:20.960 possible mischief. I don't know if it's mischief so much as it is self self preservation. But here's

00:07:28.900 the other thing that changed. Four years ago, were you as aware as you are now? Of course, you were

00:07:35.880 aware. But there's a difference between knowing something is true sort of intellectually, and having

00:07:41.800 it just forced to the front of your brain, where your brain can't see anything else. That's really

00:07:47.340 different. In both cases, you knew it was the case. There's there's no new information. And I'll tell

00:07:53.800 you what I'm talking about in a moment. But there's a difference between just knowing it's true and just

00:07:57.920 having it, you know, overwhelm your brain, you'll act differently in those two cases. And what we've

00:08:04.040 watched for the last four years, especially with the Russia collusion stuff, is that absolutely no

00:08:10.940 digital trail is safe. No database can't be hacked, no server can't be hacked. And we've seen a complete

00:08:20.220 willingness of people to share and dox people. So the things that are really different, you always knew the

00:08:27.400 government could find out anything, right? You knew they could track your phone, you knew that on some level, they

00:08:33.980 might be collecting all of your digital data, etc. But it wasn't front of mind. But if you turn on the TV, and

00:08:42.120 every single day, there's a new story of somebody's email, text message, you know, data got hacked. Every

00:08:50.400 frickin day, that knowledge that used to be just something you knew, is now lighting up your whole brain. Like

00:08:57.980 your brain is on fire with the idea that there's no privacy for digital communication. And it's true,

00:09:05.320 there is no privacy. The only private, I've said this before, the only privacy that we'll have in the

00:09:10.920 future is being boring. If you're boring, nobody wants to look at your stuff anyway. So being boring is

00:09:21.760 literally the only protection you'll have that you can, you know, feel confident about that as long

00:09:27.700 as nobody cares about you. They will look at your stuff. But even then, of course, they would. I've got

00:09:34.860 a question for you. Has the Supreme Court just turned into a popularity poll? And I'll ask you this

00:09:44.680 question, because I'm not a I don't really follow the Supreme Court. You know, I just follow the headlines

00:09:50.320 when they're in it. But can somebody who knows something answer this question? When was the

00:09:56.140 last time the Supreme Court had a ruling that went against popular opinion? And let's say let's say

00:10:04.480 popular opinion had to be at least sorry, I'm having terrible allergy problems. What was and let's say

00:10:13.400 for the purposes of this, that that popular opinion had to be at least 55 percent in favor of whatever

00:10:22.740 position, whatever the topic is, doesn't matter. But when was the last time the Supreme Court voted

00:10:29.260 against the public majority? Does anybody know? Because I feel like, I feel like it stopped happening.

00:10:39.100 I'm not, I'm not entirely sure it matters. Honestly, I actually don't, I don't actually don't think it

00:10:47.620 matters. Somebody says Roe versus Wade. I doubt that's true. Could be. Brown versus Board of Education.

00:10:59.700 Yeah, you have to go back pretty far. Somebody says the travel ban. I don't know about that.

00:11:06.780 All right. Well, there's some questions. There might be some that were lesser issues that people

00:11:12.600 were too worked up about. And then maybe in those cases, the court feels safe to go against it. But I

00:11:18.440 feel like there's some kind of weird self-preservation happening with the Supreme Court. While all of our

00:11:24.680 institutions have lost their credibility, I feel like the Supreme Court might be trying to, and again,

00:11:30.760 this is mind reading. So remember, I always warn you, you can't know what people are thinking. You just

00:11:36.520 can't. You know, they can tell you, and they may or may not be telling you the truth, but you can't

00:11:41.660 know what strangers are thinking. It's just not a thing. And, but we, we can speculate. You know,

00:11:49.460 there's something that's, that makes you scratch your head and say, well, I got some questions.

00:11:54.160 Somebody says Obamacare. I'm seeing lots of examples go by. But, but let me just put this

00:12:03.140 proposition out there. The Supreme Court might need to maintain its credibility, even more importantly

00:12:12.520 than getting a decision right. Would you agree that's true? You know, if you're a chief justice or

00:12:20.000 any of the members of the Supreme Court, would your priorities be that the most important thing is to

00:12:27.460 maintain the credibility of the court itself, independent of what the actual decision is? Because I feel

00:12:35.580 like that is the priority. Meaning that if I heard that was their priority, I would say, oh, yeah, you know,

00:12:42.920 when you think about it, it probably does need to be the priority. Because the way that the court can maintain

00:12:49.920 its credibility is, of course, going with the majority. That's probably better than going with the minority,

00:12:56.020 right? If, if, if the court is sided with the minority of the public, I don't know it can last, right? It's got to,

00:13:04.320 it's got to be with the public, at least often enough on the big stuff, that the public says, oh, I don't like all

00:13:12.860 of your decisions, but usually you're with the public. So now, that's not how the public should

00:13:19.460 think, right? The public should not judge the credibility of the court by whether it agrees

00:13:25.560 with what they would have done. That's the worst way to judge them. What do we do? Because we're not

00:13:31.580 very sophisticated overall. And so we look at the court and we say, well, it disagreed with me three

00:13:37.320 end of four times. I guess they're not credible. That's exactly what you would think. You would think

00:13:43.040 that they had no value at all. If they did their job perfectly, followed the constitution, followed the

00:13:50.560 law, and just, just interpreted that law. If it didn't agree with your opinion, you'd say they weren't

00:13:56.720 credible. So I've got a feeling that the court is always balancing these two competing and very,

00:14:03.220 very important issues. Because if the Supreme Court lost its credibility below, let's say some,

00:14:10.340 there's probably some hypothetical support level beyond which the institution's in trouble,

00:14:17.060 I think they've got to stay above the line. And every now and then they might have to,

00:14:22.500 you know, nudge a decision toward keeping their own credibility if it's at all close.

00:14:28.060 Now, I'm not suggesting that they do that consciously, but I would. If I were on the

00:14:35.640 Supreme Court, I would say quite reasonably, I don't think there's anything unreasonable about

00:14:40.440 this. I would say, you know, the worst thing that can happen is to lose the trust of the public

00:14:47.720 in the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court, they end up being the tiebreaker for a lot of stuff.

00:14:55.140 If you lose your, if you lose all your credibility, you know, there's always criticism. But if you lose

00:15:00.920 all of your credibility, and you're the tiebreaker, that's pretty dangerous. It's dangerous. Because

00:15:08.700 what do you do? I mean, if you don't have that ultimate credible tiebreaker. So if I were on the

00:15:15.340 Supreme Court, I would sometimes do things just to remain credible, even if it wasn't exactly where I

00:15:21.140 think the law is pointing, because it is a greater good. I think there's a case to be made for that.

00:15:28.280 All right. I provocatively tweeted the other day that in this election, the upcoming election,

00:15:36.820 your votes won't matter. Now here's what I mean by that. These are some things we can predict with

00:15:47.240 complete certainty. We can, we know with complete certainty, that there will be allegations of vote

00:15:55.880 rigging on both the left and the right. Do you agree? So far? So far, we're all on the same page.

00:16:02.360 There's 100% chance that both the left and the right, no matter what the outcome is of the election,

00:16:08.420 independent of the outcome, both the left and the right will have examples or at least allegations

00:16:13.040 of election tampering, election, you know, suppressing the votes of black voters, for example.

00:16:22.540 Now, whether or not these are good examples, whether or not they really happen,

00:16:27.260 whether or not they're true or not doesn't matter. They will be believed. Do you, are you with me so

00:16:33.460 far? That when the Republicans have whatever allegations, you know, they're going to have,

00:16:39.100 that Republicans will think, well, that's probably true. And it might be true, because it'll be based

00:16:44.200 on anecdotes and specific stories. Could well be true. You know, the left will have their anecdotes and

00:16:51.880 stories, and they'll be able to point to things. And you know, the left will completely believe it.

00:16:57.820 Just like the right completely believes their side on pretty much everything. So we're going to have

00:17:03.540 this situation where there's a guaranteed question about the result. Probably we've had this sort of

00:17:12.760 complaint to every election from the beginning of time. Probably there's never an election, a national

00:17:19.040 election, in which there isn't at least somebody saying it was rigged, or at least somebody is

00:17:25.660 pointing at a problem pretty much universal. And we always get by it, right? It seems like it doesn't

00:17:31.320 stop the system. A little bit of complaining, but we'll live with the result anyway, because

00:17:36.940 overall the system is credible. You know, Americans do pretty much trust the voting system, even though

00:17:45.300 it's got all these irregularities. That's what it used to be. I don't think that's the case anymore.

00:17:53.140 Here's what changed. The ability of the press, the media, the manipulators behind the curtains,

00:18:00.120 the ability to ramp up people's emotions is at a super weaponized level, even way beyond where it was in

00:18:10.140 2016. I would say that we've advanced a lot, really a lot, in our ability to set people's brains on fire

00:18:19.980 and make them mad or excited or afraid or anxious or greedy or something. And so what we're going to

00:18:29.380 go into is a situation where there's a hundred percent chance that the left will feel, let's say that they

00:18:35.280 lose, they lose, let's say Trump gets elected, hypothetically. What will the left say? They'll say the vote was

00:18:43.420 rigged, of course, because the polls will say it couldn't have happened. You see where this is going? The polls

00:18:51.440 will say it's not possible. So if Trump wins, and there's widespread allegations, there always will be, of

00:19:01.540 election tampering. What will the left do? They'll stage a coup. Now, this is, again, a safe

00:19:09.600 prediction. Why? Because they already staged a coup. Several. In fact, it's nonstop coup stuff. You know,

00:19:20.680 the impeachment was a coup. The, you know, the Russia collusion stuff was a coup attempt. The 25th

00:19:28.460 amendment stuff is a coup, all of these anonymous alleged bullshit books about what really happened 0.98

00:19:35.140 in the room with Trump. They're all coup attempts. They're all coup attempts. They're just, in many 0.98

00:19:40.700 cases, completely legal. Just because I call it a coup, don't assume it's illegal. They're just using

00:19:47.960 every lever, every button, every mechanism. Just they're throwing the kitchen sink at it to take

00:19:55.160 a man of office without the benefit of a vote. Now, I'm going to use the word coup to mean removing

00:20:02.340 a president in any mechanism other than just a normal vote. So will there be a coup if, or at least

00:20:12.140 a coup attempt, if Trump wins the election? And I would say the answer is 100%. There's really no chance

00:20:19.760 it wouldn't happen. Does anybody even disagree with that? I don't see any, I can't imagine anybody

00:20:26.120 would disagree with that statement. Now, we don't know what it would look like. It could be another

00:20:31.680 massive fake news story. It could be like Russia collusion, where the British government runs an

00:20:38.080 operation against the United States, and we blame it on Russia. I didn't say that. Just ignore that last

00:20:46.220 sentence. Didn't happen. Go on with your business. Nothing to see here. So it could be something like

00:20:55.620 that. Could be completely different. But one thing that it might be is violent. In other words, the

00:21:05.260 protesters are doing this giant test run to see if you can flood the streets with people and make a

00:21:13.300 difference. And apparently it does. It works. They're willing to burn down the whole country.

00:21:18.800 So Trump will be in an interesting situation, which is if he has to use force to stop a coup,

00:21:27.840 which won't look like a coup, it'll just look like demonstrators calling him a racist.

00:21:34.960 That will be interesting. But I think that's where we're heading. So in all likelihood,

00:21:38.740 so my current estimates are 100% chance that Trump will be reelected unless something big changes

00:21:48.300 between now and election day. Will something big change between now and election day? Of course it

00:21:55.460 will. Are you kidding me? Something big will change next week and the week after the week after. So

00:22:03.420 these kinds of predictions are kind of useless because they're straight line predictions in a world that

00:22:08.200 can't go straight line. The world doesn't even know how to go in a straight line. And then I predicted

00:22:13.280 that if Trump is elected, there's a 50% chance that the coup will succeed. I think there was a 50% chance

00:22:22.600 that the Russia collusion thing or the Ukrainian thing or some other thing could have succeeded. I think

00:22:29.360 there was a good 50% chance. It just didn't go their way. All right. One of the funniest

00:22:38.180 stories is, so Carpe Dunctum did a meme video showing some footage of a toddler. I think they

00:22:47.820 might've been three years old. I can't tell the ages of little kids. But they were sort of barely

00:22:52.920 can walk kind of toddlers. And one was white, one was black, and they were best friends and they

00:22:58.940 were hugging on the sidewalk and then they happily go running down the street. Now what Carpe Dunctum did,

00:23:04.600 which was brilliant, is he showed that in reverse order with the clips, without the part where the

00:23:12.980 kids are obviously best friends, hugging each other and loving each other. Instead shows them running down

00:23:18.160 the street. But because the little black toddler had started first, it could be interpreted as if the

00:23:25.580 little white toddler is chasing the black one. See if you didn't see them hugging just before that. 0.91

00:23:30.660 Now, the funny part is that Carpe Dunctum adds a fake chyron, you know, the words at the bottom of the

00:23:39.640 screen, to make it look like it's a CNN report and that the chyron says, you know, white, white baby, 0.90

00:23:46.380 white racist baby chases black baby or something like that. And here's the funny part. I've told you this 0.92

00:23:54.220 before, the perfect prank is one that only the, the victim of the prank can't tell it's a prank.

00:24:04.220 That's what makes a joke really good, right? It's one thing just to mock people and here's a funny

00:24:10.560 picture or, you know, that's sort of one dimensional. But if you can come up with the perfect prank,

00:24:16.600 only the subject of the prank can't tell it's a prank. And the reason is they can't tell parody from

00:24:23.980 reality. And if you can find somebody who literally can't tell the difference between reality and

00:24:31.080 parody, then you do a prank that's a parody and they just can't tell. But everybody else can tell

00:24:36.620 because they're not, they're not hypnotized in the same way. So when I watched it, I, I honestly,

00:24:44.760 I couldn't even imagine how anybody would think this was true. It's so obviously not true

00:24:51.760 that I just registered as a joke and I laughed at it. I would guarantee that close to a hundred

00:24:59.920 percent of Trump supporters and Fox news watchers would look at that video and immediately,

00:25:06.100 immediately go, ha ha, it's a joke. Probably a hundred percent. But the New York times and CNN and

00:25:14.620 all the fact checkers had to fact check it for their audience.

00:25:23.300 I'll bet you there was not one conservative publication that fact checked it because they

00:25:29.980 didn't have to. Correct. Fact check this, this statement. So here's my statement. There probably

00:25:38.440 was no conservative publication that even, it didn't even occur to them to fact check it.

00:25:45.380 Why would they? Because they don't think anybody would be confused by it. Of course, they cover the

00:25:50.220 story of the others fact checking it. But I think the Washington Post, CNN, the New York times,

00:25:56.180 I don't know how many people on the left fact check this thing, but just stop and pause for a moment

00:26:02.060 that there were enough people on the left who thought it would be believable. Wait, wait for this,

00:26:09.860 who thought it would be perfectly believable that CNN would run a story, a video of two toddlers

00:26:17.360 chasing each other, one chasing the other, and call the one toddler a racist baby. Now their audience

00:26:26.340 apparently thinks that's possible, which is freaking hilarious. So of course it got pulled, you know,

00:26:34.760 it got labeled by Twitter for being misleading. Perfect. It got fact checked everywhere. Perfect. It got tweeted

00:26:45.100 by the president. Perfect. It became a national story. Perfect. And it was short and, you know,

00:26:56.340 sometimes memes can go on a little bit too long. That's my only complaint about the political

00:27:01.360 memes. I like them short. This was just the right length. Perfect visual. And part of the reason I

00:27:08.480 think they were complaining so much about it is that it was really powerful visually. When you watch

00:27:14.760 the two kids hugging, you can just feel their joy. These are two little kids who are really genuinely

00:27:23.960 happy to see each other. I mean, they really like each other. And it immediately reminds you

00:27:31.600 that that's how you started, right? Like you immediately go to your baby self and say,

00:27:38.980 oh yeah, there probably was a time, not that you remember it, right? But there probably was a time

00:27:45.180 that I couldn't even tell the difference between black people and white people. 0.95

00:27:49.620 Like I didn't even know it was important. Just, it wasn't a variable. Everybody looks different 0.54

00:27:56.860 somehow. Why was I going to pick out that one difference? It didn't occur to me. That was my

00:28:02.500 friend, Bob. So, so it's really powerful the way it works on your mind. So this isn't just a funny

00:28:11.560 meme. It's hilarious. It's well-crafted. It's the right size. Got the president's attention. Got

00:28:17.580 national news. Got a controversy about it. Got removed from a lot of places. Oh man, you can't,

00:28:24.560 you can't hit a longer long ball than that. So this one, I will elevate to masterpiece status.

00:28:32.600 If, if they were giving awards for memes, this would be your Academy Award for 2020.

00:28:39.220 So congratulations to Carpe Dunctum. And by the way, if you're not watching Carpe Dunctum's career,

00:28:47.580 how it's sort of evolved from the first election, it's really fun to watch because he, as well as

00:28:54.880 many others, are just putting together their talent stacks and just watching it come together.

00:29:00.620 It's just, it's just fun to watch. It's a great show. Speaking of art and speaking of masterpieces,

00:29:10.600 this next, this next thing I'm going to tell you is maybe the hardest thing I've ever tried to

00:29:16.740 communicate. I spent, I spent probably 30 minutes last night trying to compose a tweet

00:29:24.260 on this topic. And in the end, I sort of gave up because there's some things that by their weird

00:29:30.780 nature can't be explained by some people. In other words, it's something you could explain easily,

00:29:36.900 but I can't. Here's the situation. You've probably seen on Twitter, Akira the Don. His username is

00:29:47.980 at A-K-I-R-A-T-H-E-D-O-N. And he makes music. One of the things he's made, and there was a little clip

00:29:58.020 that he's released, is he's taken my, the audio from my periscopes, and he's taken selected clips

00:30:07.560 from audios, especially of the periscopes that are not political, so that there's nothing political

00:30:13.820 in the music. But when I talk about the user interface for reality, for example,

00:30:17.920 and he put it to music. Now, here's why I couldn't compose the tweet, because I need more time to

00:30:26.680 talk about it like I'm going to do now. If I just told you that somebody whose music you are not

00:30:33.460 familiar with necessarily had put my audio from my periscope to music, what would be your first

00:30:41.200 impression of how good that would be? Not very good, right? Wouldn't that be your assumption?

00:30:48.480 Your first assumption would be, I don't know if I want to listen to that. I mean, maybe for curiosity,

00:30:54.600 but it's not going to be like, you know, art or music, right? I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

00:31:00.400 You're going to be surprised. All right, now here's the part that I couldn't tell.

00:31:05.420 Well, when I listened to it, it actually just blew me away. But I couldn't tell if it's because I was

00:31:11.900 listening to my own voice. Because think how powerful that would be to hear yourself talking

00:31:16.800 to yourself in a way you weren't expecting, so you don't know what's going to come. You know,

00:31:21.380 it's because the order of it and the presentation was new to me as well. Even though it was my words,

00:31:27.360 it was somewhat new to me because of the way it was composed. So I wasn't sure

00:31:32.680 if what was happening is I was just having a personal experience that would not be in any

00:31:39.260 way generalized to other people. So I tweeted it out saying as little about it as possible because

00:31:44.800 I couldn't describe it. And I wanted to see what the comments were. It turns out people really like

00:31:51.680 it. People really like it. And I was trying to figure out why. And I'll take my best crack at it.

00:32:02.680 You know, you've seen the popularity of mashups where you'll have, let's say, a rapper be doing,

00:32:10.800 you know, some kind of rap part of a song. And then maybe Rihanna or somebody would come in and do

00:32:16.860 a more musically, I don't know, I don't have the musical terms, but you know what I'm talking about.

00:32:22.240 So you'd have somebody on a completely different style, a rapper style, mix them with somebody who

00:32:26.460 was more classically, you know, a singer. And somehow it's better. I don't know why.

00:32:32.940 Like, I've thought about it for a long time. It's like, why is this better when you put two

00:32:38.340 completely different things together? It doesn't quite make sense, but it is. I mean, I listened

00:32:43.980 to it, I go, okay, that's better. I don't know why. No, I think it has something to do with,

00:32:48.420 in that case, you're waiting for the part you're waiting for. There might be some anticipation

00:32:53.200 about it. I don't know. Maybe there's some context or contrast that makes it a thing.

00:33:00.040 But when I listened to this, here's my best guess about why it had an effect on me.

00:33:06.900 As you know, I'm a trained hypnotist and a very experienced communicator. So when you hear my

00:33:18.840 words, they tend to carry more weight than an untrained communicator. So if you said to yourself,

00:33:26.380 it's just somebody talking and they put it to music, it wouldn't be this. Because even when I

00:33:32.100 hear myself, sometimes I play back my periscopes, just to see if I can learn anything to improve

00:33:38.540 them. And when I'm playing back my own periscopes, I see the density in them that I didn't know I had

00:33:49.740 when I started. So when I was doing it, I wasn't aware of it. But when I watch it, I can watch it

00:33:54.160 like a spectator. And I'll think, well, that's pretty dense. But also, I realize that I'm using

00:33:59.680 massively, and I don't even do it consciously, the techniques of hypnosis. So while I don't think

00:34:08.480 that was his intention, to make a hypnosis slash musical product, because everything I do is sort of

00:34:17.140 infused with persuasion, that the little clips of my voice, you know, forget about them musically,

00:34:25.740 they just activate a different part of your brain. And so what you're feeling is that the text is

00:34:31.400 activating one part of your brain, while the music is activating another. And there's two parts of your

00:34:36.980 brain that you just don't activate at the same time. And that's why it has a weird effect on you.

00:34:43.280 Because you haven't had those two parts of your brain simultaneously activated. It's not the same,

00:34:49.980 it's just hearing somebody talk. Because again, I've infused it with, without trying, I infuse it

00:34:56.900 with a lot more weight than normal words. And it's just because of training and technique. Anybody,

00:35:04.240 you know, Tony Robbins would do the same thing without trying. So I recommend it. At the same time,

00:35:10.480 I just don't know how to describe it, because it's, it's just not like anything else.

00:35:18.180 Scott speaks perfectly. That's a callback to, I told you the story when I'd lost my voice for

00:35:25.400 three and a half years, and I literally couldn't communicate. At least, you know, I could make

00:35:30.240 noise, but I couldn't make full sentences and stuff. And my affirmation at the time was that

00:35:35.240 I would speak perfectly. Now, I don't speak perfectly, because perfect is a standard you can't

00:35:42.320 really achieve. But nonetheless, it is true that my voice is on a work of art that's music.

00:35:55.160 Now, I can't tell if he enhanced my voice, or he just edited out anything that was weak sounding.

00:36:01.240 But it does sound better than my normal voice. I don't know how he did that. So there might be

00:36:05.880 some digital magic about that. He might have auto-tuned it. Possibly. If you listen to it,

00:36:12.760 is there somebody smart enough to know that my voice was auto-tuned, or even a little bit? I can't tell.

00:36:19.420 But there does seem to be a little more character in my voice than what I would normally hear if I

00:36:24.360 just played it back. Could be in my imagination. So I don't know. Yes. So it's on Spotify. So you can

00:36:32.000 look for it. The single is called, It Feels Like It Works. So look for Akira the Don, A-K-I-R-A,

00:36:43.120 the D-O-N. And that should pop up with your Google searches. And there's a whole album coming

00:36:50.740 that I haven't heard yet, but impressive. All right. Amy Klobuchar said she was dropping out of

00:36:58.020 the running to be the vice presidential pick, because she thinks that Biden should pick a woman 1.00

00:37:05.720 of color. So throwing Elizabeth Warren under the bus at the same time. Now, because you are a seasoned

00:37:13.520 political observer, what do you make of the story that Amy Klobuchar withdrew from consideration to be

00:37:24.340 the vice presidential pick? What does it mean that she withdrew and in withdrawing said that she sports

00:37:32.760 a woman of color? Let me read between the lines. The choice is already made. Do you think Amy 0.99

00:37:42.280 Klobuchar gives up? I don't think so. I don't know. Maybe. Maybe. But there's nothing about her

00:37:49.460 vibe or anything that I've seen about her. I have actually a very positive, very positive overall

00:37:57.100 opinion of Amy Klobuchar and have since the beginning. Although on day one, I didn't think

00:38:02.080 she had the charisma. So she's wanting in charisma. But that's, you know, I'm not sure you can fix

00:38:10.600 charisma. But in terms of being a serious, capable, you know, highest level politician, I always thought

00:38:20.160 she was very good. And she's certainly smart enough to know that if the selection had already been made,

00:38:27.540 the smartest thing she could do is act as though the selection had not already been made. And then

00:38:34.460 drop out by recommending a person of color. Biden presumably has already picked Kamala Harris and

00:38:42.100 everybody knows it. Then when he does pick her, people are going to say, oh, that's exactly what Amy

00:38:47.840 Klobuchar advised him to do. She wins. So in other words, she already knows she lost the race to be

00:38:55.200 vice president. It's obvious to me she already knows that's over. The best thing she could salvage

00:39:01.620 from this is to predict or advise or suggest the thing that's already happened. Because you're not

00:39:09.280 going to be wrong if you suggest something that's already happened. And I'm sure that Kamala Harris has 0.93

00:39:14.060 been selected at this point. Now anything could change. She could be deselected. I don't think

00:39:19.780 that would be the first time a vice presidential pick, you know, got altered at the last minute.

00:39:25.600 But at the moment, it looks like looks like she's the pick. And here's something that Harris did today,

00:39:34.300 which reminded me of Trump. I've told you before that I think her advisors are now the world class type.

00:39:41.920 When she was running just as a candidate in the primaries, she was a hot mess in terms of her messaging, 1.00

00:39:50.520 her body language, or her unconfident laugh. It was just a mess. And all of that just suddenly changed.

00:39:58.940 And even her strategy, I thought, was weak. But even her strategy is better. So I always tell you that

00:40:03.700 Trump picks up free money. I use that as an analogy. Free money meaning that Trump will do the thing

00:40:10.640 that is all upside, no downside. And for some reason, nobody else thought to do it. It was just

00:40:18.300 right there. It was just obvious. It's just right here. Pick up the free money. Anybody? Anybody?

00:40:23.460 So that's why Harris did. She's planning to introduce a bill that declares Juneteenth a national holiday.

00:40:29.520 Now, your first question should be, why her? Did nobody else think of that? If President Trump

00:40:41.220 had suggested this first, to make Juneteenth a national holiday, I don't know if there's any

00:40:48.220 resistance from Republicans. I haven't heard of any. I don't know if there would be. But I would consider

00:40:54.220 this under the condition that Republicans would generally support this. And I don't know if that's

00:41:00.300 the case yet. I haven't seen any opinions. But I would say that in this case, if that's true,

00:41:07.320 and if, let's say, Harris introduces it, let's say it gets passed, especially because the, you know,

00:41:13.720 the mood of the country, maybe it just sails through. I would say that would be an error

00:41:19.380 on the president's part. It would be an error because he didn't do it. I mean, if this thing

00:41:26.300 is going to get passed, the president should have done it. That was just free money. But if it doesn't

00:41:31.840 get passed, then I would know why he didn't do it, right? So we'll wait to see if it gets passed.

00:41:36.760 But the fact that she saw the free money and picked it up tells me that maybe Democrats sort of got out

00:41:43.680 of the way and said, all right, we're going to, you know, we want to help the future ticket.

00:41:47.560 So the rest of us will just back up, let Harris go forward, get the attention, free money.

00:41:55.780 So whoever is advising Harris, you are nailing it, my friends. You are nailing it.

00:42:04.180 You know how much I've mocked her for her laugh, her subconscious laugh or self-conscious laugh?

00:42:12.100 There's a video in which, I forget who was interviewing her, and the question they asked

00:42:19.900 is, how could she be potentially, well, how could she support Biden or even be in consideration

00:42:26.420 as a VP choice when she was so savage to him at the debates? Now, that's going to be the big

00:42:33.720 question, right? You know, everybody's going to ask Kamala Harris about her prosecution background, 0.98

00:42:39.200 and they're going to ask her about throwing Biden under the bus as being a, you know, racist.

00:42:45.340 Obviously, he's not. And that'll be the question. So, you know, she prepared for the question.

00:42:52.420 And, you know, I believe she has now the highest level advisors who would have given her the right

00:42:58.700 answer. And so the question is asked, and she just starts laughing because it's so ridiculous. 0.95

00:43:05.660 And, but she's laughing at her own answer. And she goes, it was a debate. And then she laughs. 0.91

00:43:13.260 And then she says, a debate. And laughs some more. She goes, it was scheduled debate. We were debating

00:43:22.340 because that's what you do when you debate. And then she laughed again. But here's what's different.

00:43:29.000 The laugh didn't look like the old laugh. If she fixed her laugh, which I wasn't even sure it could

00:43:38.100 be done. I thought it maybe could be done. But I think she fixed it. Because this was not a self

00:43:45.140 conscious laugh. It was a confident laugh. She was so confident, rightly so, because her answer was a

00:43:55.680 home run. The correct answer is, it was a debate. Follow up, it was a debate. Want me to add some

00:44:04.380 detail to the answer? It was a debate. Can you go deeper? Yes, it was a debate. And laugh every time.

00:44:12.220 You can't beat that. You could not beat that for a perfect way to handle that situation. Laugh and call it

00:44:22.620 a debate. Never go deeper. Period. End of story. I should not say period. End of story. I mock that.

00:44:30.280 It's too easy. It's in your brain. And then it just comes out. And then when it comes out, you go,

00:44:34.260 ah, I wish I hadn't done that. So watching her go from a self conscious, nervous looking laugh,

00:44:43.740 to a laugh that is so confident, she won't even stop doing it in public. Like she just laughed and

00:44:51.280 called it. It's a debate. You're silly. It's a debate. Let me remind you because I know this is

00:45:01.160 going to happen. When I say good things about any female politician, somebody in the comments will 1.00

00:45:07.520 always say, it doesn't matter who it is. Oh, you have a crush on her. You love her. Oh, you have such a,

00:45:13.840 you know, you want to, you want to be with her. So I'm going to block anybody who does that.

00:45:20.000 It's just, it's doesn't add anything. All right. Um, Brian Stelter, you all know him. CNN had one of

00:45:29.980 the funniest tweets accidentally. He said, uh, Dr. Fauci, uh, diagnosing an American problem. Quote,

00:45:37.360 this is from Fauci. There's a combination of an anti-science bias that people are for reasons that

00:45:44.740 sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable. They just don't believe science

00:45:50.740 and they, they don't believe authority. Well, is there anything that could have happened

00:45:58.640 in the last, I don't know, last 12 months or so? Anything that would make the public less trusting

00:46:09.340 of experts and authority and science? I'm trying, I'm racking my brain now. Anybody, can anybody think

00:46:18.800 of anything? An example of some time that the, the experts were not exactly right? Uh, I'm coming up blank.

00:46:28.640 I got nothing. Now recall my earlier story about Carpe Dunctum's meme. The reason it worked

00:46:38.180 is that CNN literally can't tell the difference between parody and reality because they deal with

00:46:45.060 so much fake news. The fake news is sort of the, the hybrid of, of parody and reality. Like it looks so

00:46:56.220 similar. So Brian Stelter tweeted this maybe like it wasn't a joke. You know, like, like the rest of

00:47:07.240 the country wouldn't laugh at this out loud. You can't read this. You can't read this and not laugh

00:47:12.820 at it. But I don't think Brian Stelter knew that half of the country would laugh out loud because his

00:47:20.220 network has been feeding us a nonstop diet of fake news from experts. Every one of the experts who lied

00:47:30.360 to us or got things wrong was featured on CNN. Every one of them, every one of them often. So I mean,

00:47:40.740 this is parody and reality merging again. All right. Uh, here's the funniest, uh, comment in a tweet that

00:47:49.500 I've seen in a while. And I have to warn you that, uh, I have a very, uh, low brow sense of humor.

00:47:56.820 So this was some low brow humor. Uh, that's actually kind of clever that made me laugh.

00:48:03.320 So I, I, I'm doing this cartoon. Most of you have seen it called robots read news. And I put most of

00:48:10.240 them, uh, behind a subscription wall on the locals platform. So if you want to see all of them,

00:48:15.980 especially the edgier ones that I don't put on Twitter, uh, you can see them by being a subscriber

00:48:21.160 on locals, L O C A L S. And you can see the link in my profile on Twitter. Uh, but anyway, the, 0.98

00:48:29.580 the comic, uh, I did a comic mocking the claims in the John Bolton book. And the, the essence of the

00:48:35.840 comic was that the robot was reading the news and he reported that the book says that, uh, President 0.99

00:48:42.120 Trump, uh, was taking a shit on the resolute desk while asking questions about nuking the moon. 1.00

00:48:48.820 Now it's funny because the Bolton book is so ridiculous and so filled with obvious lies, 1.00

00:48:56.020 at least obvious to me, uh, that there's nothing that you couldn't expect would be in it. I mean, 0.98

00:49:03.360 so, so I, so I said, uh, that he was shitting on the resolute desk while asking about nuking the 0.98

00:49:11.260 moon. And here's the comment I got from unstumpable Chuck Testa, who's a Trump supporter. He says, 0.89

00:49:18.280 that's it. I baked desk shitting into the cake when I voted for the guy. I've been laughing for two 0.98

00:49:25.260 days at that. I baked cake. No, I baked desk shitting into the cake when I voted for the guy.

00:49:34.060 That's so perfect. 0.95

00:49:42.220 Because again, the reason it's funny is because if you were CNN, if you were CNN and you read this

00:49:51.280 comment, you wouldn't know he was joking. You actually wouldn't know he was joking. If you

00:49:58.220 were Brian Stelter, you'd look at this and say, I think they would vote for him if he shit on the 1.00

00:50:03.620 resolute desk. And maybe they would. Well, so we also in the news, uh, here's a tweet by 0.99

00:50:20.380 president Trump. Uh, let's see if you can see the foreshadowing of this tweet. Now, I think the

00:50:26.540 president does this a lot. He sort of, he broadcasts or he, he suggests where things are going

00:50:33.380 before the decisions are made, you know, sort of testing them in advance. And here's, I think this

00:50:39.800 is a test balloon. So Trump tweeted, it was not Ambassador Lighthizer's, Lighthizer's. It was

00:50:47.040 not Ambassador Lighthizer's fault yesterday in committee. And that perhaps I didn't make myself

00:50:53.000 clear that the U.S. certainly does maintain a policy option under various conditions of

00:51:00.320 a complete decoupling from China. Thank you. The president just tweeted that we're keeping

00:51:13.440 open the option under various conditions of a complete decoupling from China.

00:51:23.820 Do you see that news on any of the, the, any of the front pages? It's the biggest news of

00:51:31.440 last 50 years. Here's what I think. I think the president is, uh, has been so rightly embarrassed

00:51:43.800 by China's unwillingness to be a good negotiating partner. And I think the president gave them every 1.00

00:51:51.280 opportunity to be friends, which is exactly the right way to do it. All right. I don't think the

00:51:57.320 president should have gone hard at China, should never have used the word decoupling. Never. The

00:52:03.600 president never should have used the word decoupling in a, in the sense of maybe it's an option two

00:52:10.780 years ago. If he had said it two years ago, I would have been, whoa, that's crazy. You're negotiating

00:52:18.240 with them. We don't know if it's going to work out yet. Maybe it'll work out. Maybe you can get

00:52:23.320 something done. It'll be hard, but maybe it can be done. Um, so you certainly wouldn't say decoupling

00:52:28.560 two years ago. You, you, you go in with friend, friend, friend, you're my friend, president, she,

00:52:34.180 I respect you. And then you see what you can do. Now, what was, what was the net effect

00:52:39.420 of the president's completely smart, strategic, original approach, which is if you can get it to,

00:52:47.480 if you can get something done as friends, well, that's always going to be the first choice,

00:52:51.660 right? First choice always didn't work. Not only did it not work, but China doesn't even look like 1.00

00:52:58.780 it was serious about any of it. It looks like he was, they were just playing him. Now he has more

00:53:04.680 options because now that he's, he's completely, um, drained any, any options of them being good

00:53:12.860 players and responsible and, you know, good world, um, citizens, that's all gone now. So now he can just

00:53:20.360 put it on the table, give us what we fucking want or go die, which is what this tweet said. 0.99

00:53:29.740 You have to read between the lines, but let, let me read it to you. And then I'll, then I'll, 0.99

00:53:34.320 I'll read between the lines. Uh, so he's saying that the U S certainly does maintain a policy option

00:53:39.000 under various conditions of a complete decoupling from China under various conditions. Do you know

00:53:45.660 what the various condition is? Give us what we need or go fucking die. We're decoupling. 1.00

00:53:53.660 That's it. It's no longer a negotiation people. Now it's an ultimatum. He's putting it in the form of,

00:54:01.040 you know, diplomatic talk. Well, if you do this, we'll do this, but it's now an ultimatum. He just

00:54:06.040 put decoupling on the table and China, if you're listening, China, I think you are listening.

00:54:13.760 And one of the questions you might be having China, because I'm pretty sure they have people who

00:54:20.000 monitor, you know, most of the political talk in the United States. I don't know if they watch me

00:54:26.000 in particular, but let's say they do China. You're probably wondering, is that a bluff?

00:54:33.260 Would the president actually decouple from China? I mean, I know it's something that people say on

00:54:39.440 Twitter, but the president just used that word. Is he bluffing? Well, let me say it to you as

00:54:48.300 clearly as I possibly can, China. Nope. Nope. Zero percent chance he's bluffing. Zero. There's no chance.

00:54:59.400 If you think he's bluffing about decoupling, you're wrong. You're fucking wrong. This is real. 0.99

00:55:09.280 Now, of course, it depends, like he says, on various conditions, because so China can always, 0.85

00:55:13.560 you know, offer concessions and take decoupling off the table. They have an option, but it's pretty

00:55:20.320 clear that they don't have any intention of doing that, would you say? It's pretty clear that they're

00:55:26.260 just going to push and take advantage anywhere they can, and you can't really do business with

00:55:31.440 somebody who has that strategic attitude. You can't do business with somebody who only wants

00:55:38.320 to screw you and is looking for every opening to do it. That's just not somebody you can do business

00:55:43.200 with. So you have to decouple if you're dealing with something like that. So yeah, the president

00:55:49.100 doesn't tweet this unless he means it. That he's absolutely serious, China, that when you don't give

00:55:57.740 us what we want, and you won't, you won't, you know you won't, he's going to decouple. And it will be

00:56:04.220 the greatest thing that ever happened to this country, because China has been dragging us down for a long 1.00

00:56:09.420 time, took 40% of our manufacturing. Well, we're getting it back. We're going to take it back, China. You've got 1.00

00:56:18.220 problems, they're your problems now. Let's see, the John Bolton bombshell is that, according to John Bolton,

00:56:30.300 who is a mind reader, I don't know if you knew this, but the, but John Bolton, among his many qualities, can read the

00:56:37.540 inner thoughts of the president. I can't do it. Maybe you can't, but John Bolton can. And he wrote

00:56:44.680 a whole book about his mind reading of the president's inner intentions. And here's what he

00:56:48.980 found. He made a bombshell claim in his book that President Trump, he wanted to do good things for

00:56:56.440 the country, but only for his own selfish purposes. Yeah. Yeah, the president was trying to get a good

00:57:03.700 trade deal with China, just to get elected. I don't know. You know, this is almost as bad as a,

00:57:13.560 like a store selling you a product, and they say it's good for you. They say you'll like the product,

00:57:21.700 and it will have advantages and solve your problems. That's what they say when they sell you things.

00:57:26.640 But I have a suspicion that stores sell things for selfish purposes. It's really not about the

00:57:36.600 customer. I hate to tell you that. Because you're, people you buy things from probably, they say, hey,

00:57:42.620 this will be good for you. I think you'll be happy if you buy this. If you have this car, you're going

00:57:47.600 to enjoy it. I'm starting to think that's not why they do it. I feel like people don't sell things for

00:57:55.560 your benefit. It's almost like there's some kind of selfish thing they're trying to do. Do they make

00:58:03.200 money somehow by selling you stuff instead of just doing it for your benefit? I'm confused by capitalism

00:58:10.620 and in politics too. Because according to John Bolton, there are people that we've elected

00:58:16.680 completely unknowingly. You know, we thought we were electing good people, but I'm shocked.

00:58:24.460 There are people in the government who do things in public that are good for the public,

00:58:30.020 but not for us. It's not for us. It's for themselves. Bastards.

00:58:40.200 Well, the NBA has a new plan for getting back to games. Two interesting features of this. 0.98

00:58:47.720 One, of course, is that they won't have a crowd. And it looks like they're looking to pipe in

00:58:55.620 artificial crowd noise, maybe from a video game or something. So this is a real plan. They've got

00:59:01.600 artificial crowd noise. And it looks like they're just going to, you know, sample it over top of

00:59:07.700 the game. Now, I am not in favor of that. I would recommend, and I think they could probably do it

00:59:15.440 quickly, an app or some kind of a model where the people working at home can actually cheer

00:59:23.420 at home. And then if you're watching the game on TV and you go, yay, that your yay goes into your

00:59:31.980 phone or whatever device you're using. It gets summed up with all the other people who are,

00:59:37.020 you know, chanting and clapping. And then nobody hears your specific voice. It just gets summed up

00:59:42.780 as crowd noise and presented in real time. Would there be a delay? There might be a lag. That could

00:59:49.020 be a problem because you do need instant noise. I think you could do it without the delay.

00:59:54.360 Probably, yeah. Or at least without much. So I would like to see real crowd noise as from your

01:00:02.700 living rooms summed up into crowd noise. That would actually be cool. But if you were in a game and you

01:00:09.100 knew that there was a guy with a button and he was just pushing the cheering button every time there

01:00:14.780 was a basket, how quickly will that bother you? Now, it might not bother you because you watch,

01:00:21.760 if you've watched sitcoms forever, they have the laugh track and you, it seems to work.

01:00:29.300 Now, Seinfeld famously did not have a laugh track. Did you know that? Seinfeld famously did

01:00:35.620 not have a laugh track, nor do movies back when funny movies were being made. I don't know when

01:00:41.300 the last funny movie was made, but back when movies were funny, of course, a movie doesn't have a laugh

01:00:45.980 track. So you don't need one, but it's definitely true that it's been tested.

01:00:51.760 And for some segment of the population, for some kinds of content, it does seem to help,

01:00:57.920 you know, the scripted half hour comedies on TV, but those are dying out. So, and I think the

01:01:03.560 laugh track might be part of why they were less popular.

01:01:08.640 Talk about free money. Here's one that Trump did. He was asked about Colin Kaepernick and if he

01:01:15.520 should get his job back, he should get his job back. Now, you all remember the story. He called

01:01:19.040 the, the people who were kneeling and disrespecting the flag in Trump's opinion. He thought they're

01:01:26.000 all bastards. Was that? No, sons of bitches. They're all sons of bitches, which of course was interpreted 1.00

01:01:32.600 as racist, which it wasn't because I'm pretty sure sons of bitches come in every flavor. 1.00

01:01:40.880 But Trump said that he thinks that Kaepernick should get a job if, you know, if he's still good 0.99

01:01:46.120 enough. So, you know, he didn't have an opinion on his skills, but he said, yeah, I think a team

01:01:51.860 should hire him. That was exactly the right answer. Because President Trump is what kind of

01:01:59.600 president? What kind of president is President Trump? Jobs. He's the jobs president. If you ask

01:02:07.560 the jobs president, hey, should this black guy, I'm just going to say black guy because that's the 1.00

01:02:14.340 context of the story. Should this black guy get a job? What should the jobs president say? There's 0.98

01:02:23.920 only one right answer. Yup. If he's qualified, yup. Unambiguously. Now, that has nothing to do with

01:02:32.680 his disagreement with kneeling. But to separate the question of should Kaepernick get a job? You're the

01:02:40.080 jobs fucking president. If he had said that Kaepernick should not get a job because he disagrees 1.00

01:02:46.980 with the kneeling, I don't know if I could have supported this president. Because you know what

01:02:52.580 I want? I want people to have jobs, Kaepernick or not. I've been pro-Kaepernick since the beginning,

01:02:59.680 much to your displeasure. I will reiterate that just because I'm talking about it. Being pro-Kaepernick

01:03:05.720 means not necessarily agreeing with all of his political points or even the way he did it.

01:03:11.120 I'm just saying that he was effective. He seems to be the real deal because you don't see him,

01:03:18.600 I don't know, he's still on point, on message. He seems genuine. He seems passionate. It's a cause

01:03:25.880 that has real concern. I like him as a patriot, honestly. I like him as a rebel. I like him as a

01:03:33.920 patriot. I don't really follow football, don't care about his athletic abilities. But I agree

01:03:40.120 with the president. Absolutely. If he's qualified for the job, he should absolutely get a job.

01:03:47.800 Very much so. And in fact, I think it would be good for the game. I would watch, I think I'd watch a

01:03:53.960 Kaepernick game even if I don't watch football because I'd kind of be curious how it would go.

01:03:58.720 So you don't have to like him personally. I don't know him personally. I'm just saying

01:04:03.200 that as a protester, as a patriot, I like it. Even if you disagree with some of the details.

01:04:15.200 Let's see, what else we got going on here? Make sure I didn't miss anything because it's

01:04:19.240 all so terribly important. No, I think I had it all. All right. Triangles are Nazi. That's all you 0.84

01:04:31.920 need to know. That's all I got for now. People are saying he's not a good quarterback. I don't know.

01:04:39.180 Who knows? I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - June 19, 2020

Episode 1032 Scott Adams： Why Your Vote is Irrelevant This Time, My Musical Debut, Evil Triangles, Baby Memes, Supreme Court

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript